The events of 13 September 2007 will always be remembered as those which were to forge the character and mettle of our organisation, and the pivotal role that one person was to play in these events. But this story starts many months earlier...

Equal Assurance embarked on a process of JAS-ANZ accreditation that started in early 2007. Accreditation was being sought for management system programs in relation to quality, occupational health and safety (OHS), environmental, and civil construction management. We achieved JAS-ANZ accreditation in early 2008 for the first three of these four programs, but it was accreditation to JAS-ANZ Procedure 27 for civil construction management that was to become our main challenge.

By way of background, the Civil Contractors Federation (CCF) is responsible for the development and maintenance of the CCF Civil Construction Management Code (CCF Code). Regarded by most civil construction management professionals as an "entry level" assurance program, the CCF Code seeks to define quality, OHS, environmental and other management requirements into a single Code specific to the civil construction and related industries. These industries account for nearly half of the business of Equal Assurance, and hence we are regarded by many as the leader in assurance services in these markets. As such, we have always been and continue to be a strong supporter of the principles behind sound civil construction management.

It is unfortunate that not all share the same passion we do...

As part of the preparations for accreditation to the CCF Code, we were to uncover a number of "irregularities" in the administration of the CCF Code certification through CCF and as accredited by JAS-ANZ.

One of the many of these was the linkages between the management system template documents sold by CCF, and certification managed by CCF. Management system template documents sold by CCF have taken two forms: Integrated Management Systems (IMS) and Small Contractors Integrated Management Systems (SCIMS). For some time, CCF has as part of their marketing and communications linked, either explicitly or by implication, their IMS and SCIMS products to the certification program. Keeping the "what" separate from the "how" separate from the "whether" is one of the pillars in the management of impartiality in respect to conformity assessment, and a specific contravention of this pillar was identified by Equal Assurance in early 2007 where the IMS and SCIMS marks were being displayed on the CCF Code Certificates. This was a clear and unambiguous link between management system consultancy and certification, contravening the basic principles for impartiality in the certification process. In good faith, Equal Assurance brought this to the attention of CCF first, prior to JAS-ANZ. CCF’s General Manager Quality & Business Development was contacted as the person responsible for managing both the IMS/SCIMS products and the certification program. Unfortunately, this officer did not take the feedback very well; to paraphrase the response...

"...a threat to impartiality? Rubbish! We have issued over 400 certificates like this, and no one has ever raised this concern with us..."

To break the deadlock of opinion, we proposed that JAS-ANZ rule on the situation, and CCF agreed. Naturally, JAS-ANZ ruled that the threat to impartiality was unacceptable, and required CCF to remove the IMS/SCIMS marks from all subsequent certificates issued. Understandably, CCF’s General Manager Quality & Business Development did not appear to us to be very happy about the decision, and it is our opinion that this disappointment was to play a key role in our search for CCF Code accreditation.

A Witness Assessment of our audit activities needed to be performed by JAS-ANZ. An Assessment Team was constituted, consisting of David Syme as the JAS-ANZ Lead Assessor and CCF’s General Manager Quality & Business Development as the Technical Expert. We immediately notified JAS-ANZ with concerns that, given the events of the past, having CCF’s General Manager Quality & Business Development on the Assessment Team may pose a conflict of interest. JAS-ANZ assured us that this was not going to be an issue; in hindsight even JAS-ANZ would probably volunteer that was not a wise decision.

The Witness Assessment was set for a CCF Code Certification Audit for 13 September 2007. The Lead Auditor appointed by Equal Assurance for the Audit is arguably one of Australia’s most qualified and experienced civil construction management auditors, with construction assets under audit totalling over $3b at that time. The Client was a small civil contractor who had purchased a SCIMS from CCF, and had assistance from one of Victoria’s most experienced civil construction management consultants and trainers. Everything was set for a smooth Witness Assessment until David Syme referred to the whole business of certification, in his opening meeting to explain the Assessment Team’s role, as"...bulls**t...". Such a comment served only to disgrace everything we were all there to do, and embarrased our Client who, as a small contractor, had gone to considerable effort to accommodate the Witness Assessment.

As a consequence, the Certification Audit and parallel Witness Assessment proceeded uneasily. By the end of the Certification Audit it was clear to all present that the Client had some work to do before certification to the CCF Code could be recommended, this was summarised at the Closing Meeting. However, to the complete surprise of everyone except the Witness Assessment Team, during the debrief to the Lead Auditor, it was the opinion of David Syme that this was not made clear. The Lead Auditor protested, and asked David Syme to wait until he was furnished with additional evidence before finalising his Witness Assessment Report.

A significant body of information was then provided to David Syme, including the Audit Report, corrective actions from the Client, confirmation (which would later equate to sworn affidavits) that both the Client and the Consultant fully expected at the end of the Audit that certification would not be recommended until certain actions had taken place. The evidence was conclusive to the point of being embarrassing. But David Syme stuck to his position. To this day we still do not understand why. The evidence was compelling, and there was no known animosity by David Syme towards Equal Assurance prior to the Witness Assessment. Therefore, on the assumption that David Syme was not completely incompetent or biased against us, the only other conclusion we have been able to draw to date was that possibly CCF’s General Manager Quality & Business Development may have brought influence to bear on David Syme’s decision. Regardless, David Syme set the scene with his opening remarks, and made the call in his closing remarks. As such, we hold him accountable.

Running concurrently to this was the accreditation of our other three assurance programs. Witness assessment for these programs went very well, with no major issues. Our Office Assessment also went well; included in this assessment was the review of numerous CCF Code accounts, and it was clear the JAS-ANZ assessors were very impressed with our management systems, particularly for the CCF Code accounts. Aside from some minor tidy-up, everything was in place to proceed to full accreditation when, way in the background, bad news was brewing.

David Syme had advised that in his opinion, Equal Assurance should not be granted CCF Code accreditation.

The news for us was devastating? What had we done wrong? Our company lead the market in conformity assessment in the civil construction industry, and yet was being told by someone who belittles his own profession that, in spite of our assessment results being outstanding, Equal Assurance was not fit for accreditation!

But then, just when we thought the news could not get more upsetting, we learned that our whole accreditation program to the CCF Code and JAS-ANZ Procedure 27 rested on one single and minor finding...and this is it verbatim:

"The auditor [from the Witness Assessment] picked up deficiencies within the client management system however did not rate these findings as nonconformities."

We could not believe it. That single minor issue raised at the Witness Assessment, for which there was an insurmountable amount of evidence against, was the single item that would prevent us from getting accreditation. Even if the finding were correct (which it was not), we should at least have had the chance to correct it given it was only a minor technicality. But no such opportunity for corrective action was offered. We would have to do the whole Witness Assessment again. In a single stroke David Syme had brought our business to its knees...

...but not to its feet.

It was business-critical for us to allow the other three assurance programs to proceed to accreditation and not have the CCF Code assurance program hold back the other three, and so this became the focus for the two months. By January 2008 Equal Assurance had achieved full-scope accreditation for quality, OHS and environmental management systems, becoming the first Western Australian company to achieve this accolade.

Freed from this, we refocused our attention on the CCF Code. It was clear from some of the hierarchy within JAS-ANZ that, whilst they fully sympathised with our position, they were not at liberty to change David Syme’s position except through appeal. So from February 2008 we began building the case for appeal.

Then, we noticed something remarkable in the marketplace.

It soon became clear that nobody appeared to care about JAS-ANZ accreditation to Procedure 27! Equal Assurance was now an accredited body, registered by CCF to provide CCF Code assurance services, and conducted its business in accordance with the principles of Procedure 27. Clients were happy. Users of the certification such as road authorities, water companies, local governments and so on, were happy. So we asked the question: why bother?

And so we didn’t, and we haven’t. Equal Assurance did not proceed to formally appeal the decision of David Syme, and has suspended its plans for JAS-ANZ
accreditation to Procedure 27.

Today, we are among the leading providers of CCF Code assurance services across Australia. All our auditors and internal quality assurance processes far exceed any of the requirements of JAS-ANZ Procedure 27. Our clients are also leaders, with lower lost-time injury frequency rates (LTIFRs) and generally better performance than the industry average. More so, we are observing an increasing trend in non-CCF registered certification, where clients request to be certified with Equal Assurance directly, not through CCF. There can be no greater faith in our capability than this.

Moving forward, a number of senior operatives within JAS-ANZ have unofficially volunteered to Equal Assurance that the accreditation process built around and supported by JAS-ANZ Procedure 27 was flawed from the start. Indeed it is questionable whether such an accredited framework should have been established in the first place. Whether this position becomes official or in some way puts into effect any meaningful change remains to be seen but, for our part, Equal Assurance remains committed to the civil construction industry and, as such, hopes for the following:

1. The CCF Code be fully re-written, by suitably competent persons, and with full industry consultation.
2. There is clear and unequivocal separation between CCF Code certification and the CCF’s IMS/SCIMS products.
3. JAS-ANZ Procedure 27 be fully re-written to better align with JAS-ANZ Procedures 02, 08 and 10, and ISO 17021.
4. Better promotion of the value of JAS-ANZ accreditation to Procedure 27 to users of certification.

Until then, clients and users of CCF Code certification can be confident in the knowledge that Equal Assurance is fully committed to maintaining a strong presence in the civil construction industry, working continuously to improve its methods and delivery processes.

As an epilogue to the story, David Syme’s Final Assessment Report was not received by Equal Assurance until April 2008; a full seven months after the Witness Assessment. What an embarrassment! Further, in light of all that happened, JAS-ANZ have not asked for payment of any costs associated with our efforts to achieve accreditation to Procedure 27; a greater vindication of our plight we could not have hoped for!