PSA TERMS OF REFERENCE
|Project Title:||Revision of the Project Certification Standard 17065 according to NACI requirements|
|Project Manager:||Dr. Alireza Masoudnia|
|WORKING GROUP INFORMATION|
|Type of Working Group:||Technical Working Group|
|Working language||Persian /English|
chnical Working Group Certificat
1 The Project Background
PSA is an Iranian CAB and an inspection company that has decided to provide exemplary services as well as impartiality according to NACI Policy, This includes certifying NACI in general; these services contain design evaluation and test reports that PSA would utilize in making their final decision about the certification of the Iranian and international applicants. That stands to the reason that in addition to revising PSA standards, a working group, which is responsible for this revision process, is also needed to develop evaluation requirements for the projects. Considering that, the project certification standard is a purely technical document, and a Technical Working Group of five members (Technical Experts) is in charge of establishing that.
2 Setup of the project
PSA would set up a Technical Working Group, consisting of four Technical Experts, to deliver the tasks and responsibilities, outlined in the Terms of Reference.
In addition to the TWG, the following people are involved in the project, established in line with PSA:
A Coordinator, who is appointed by the Manager Director to administer the procedure, manage the TWG and the Consultative Forum. The Coordinator is responsible for ensuring that the TWG operates responsibly and in accordance with its terms.
A Steering Committee, which supervises all the phases of the process until the final decision is made by the PSA Board of Directors. Liaisons between the PSA Board of Directors and the Policy and Standards Committee will be established in the Steering Committee although they do not have a decision-making role within the Steering Committee.
A Consultative Forum, which is a self-selecting group of interested/affected members, certificated holders, customers and other stakeholders, keen on providing ongoing, direct and meaningful inputs into the process.
3 The Objectives of the Technical Working Group
The Technical Working Group is expected to revise the standards of PSA.
4 Tasks and responsibilities of the Technical Working Group
The members of TWG would work together throughout this process, discuss issues and interact with each other as a group, in and out of meetings, when it is necessary or ordered by the process coordinator.
In particular, the members of the TWG shall:
- Revise the current version of QM, also need to discuss and recommend whether major changes are necessary to the existing requirements, based on the initial research information provided by the project coordinator.
- Analyze how the PSA Online Claims Platform might be used to facilitate and improve the quality of PSA project certification.
- Analyze and identify opportunities to align PSA project certification with other initiatives (such as ISIRI certification, Public Procurement policies) applicable to the construction sector in different countries/regions.
- Analyze the interaction between the sector of Project Certification and Trademark Service Provider (TSP) to determine whether projects would qualify for TSP or project certification.
- Analyze the existing trademark policies, applicable to project certification, and provide recommendations for the working group, who is responsible for revising the trademark standard of the potential/needed improvements on the trademark rules applicable to projects.
- Analyze, discuss, and develop new accreditation requirements for project certification.
- Seek comprehensive advice on the development and outcome of the PSA Network, from PSA Board of Directors, PSA certificate holders, relevant Technical Experts.
- Provide detailed input into the development of draft versions.
- Review and advise on comments addressed during public consultation.
- Partake in stakeholders’ outreach and information-sharing forums, if possible.
- Decide when a draft is ready for public consultation;
NOTE: This does not require the consensus of the TWG on the content, but consensus (or alternatively the compromise) that a draft is ready to be submitted for stakeholder consultation.
- Recommend that the final draft is ready to be submitted to the PSA Board of Directors for approval.
5 Selection of the members of the TWG
Candidates, in the public, are asked for expressing their interest through CVs to join to the Technical Working Group.
Members of the Technical Working Group will be selected according to the following criteria:
- Ability to provide specific technical input into project certification, PSA chain of custody certification, PSA accreditation and/or construction sector;
- Up-to-date knowledge and experience on PSA’s systems and procedures;
- Understanding the potential impact of a normative document on affected stakeholders;
- Understanding and support for PSA’s mission and vision;
- Desire to achieve and reach consensus on controversial issues;
- Ability to review and put comments on documents submitted in the working language(s) agreed by the TWG;
- Track record on successful working groups, which is an asset;
- Gender balance and the balance of geographical regions, where possible.
Applicants who are not chosen, will be invited to participate to the Consultative Forum.
6 Deliberations and Decision Making
In order to meet and deliberate, there must be a quorum of minimum three TWG members. The coordinator will strive to decide on meeting dates and venues, most suitable for full participation of all Working Group members.
NOTE: A impartial facilitator may be appointed to help the Working Group with running a successful meeting.
All TWG members must participate in each stage of decision-making. If member(s) are not present for making a decision, a provisional decision may be made, subject to participation by the absent member(s). A quorum is required for any provisional decisions, and full-member participation is preferred.
The TWG shall make vigorous attempts to take decisions with consensus (see Glossary). If consensus cannot be achieved, then the decision shall be taken by voting.
When it comes to voting, agreement amongst, at least, 66% of the TWG members (three out of five TWG members) shall be considered a positive decision.
If a decision cannot be reached by voting, then the arguments supporting for and against the issue shall be documented, and the issue shall be forwarded to the Steering Committee for resolution.
In all cases, the outstanding concerns of individual TWG members shall be documented and presented to the PSA Board of Directors in the final report that accompanies the document presented for decision.
The Coordinator, PSA Staff, Steering Committee members and any other supportive personnel shall not participate in any decision-making.
The TWG shall make the decision and recommend the final draft of the normative document to the PSA Board of Directors for approval. The PSA Board of Directors is in charge of formal decision-making authority on the approval of PSA normative documents.
If the TWG is not able to agree on a final draft within six months after the final round of public consultation, the Steering Committee shall take a decision on how to deal with the process.
7 Work plan and time commitment
The TWG carries out most of its work via e-mail or similar means of electronic communication (e.g. Go-to meeting conference), and through one-on-one calls to the Coordinator when required. Two face-to-face meetings are envisaged: A kick-off meeting and a meeting after the first public consultation to revise the proposal. Optionally, there may be a third face-to-face meeting after the second public consultation.
8 Expenses and Remuneration of the WG
All in-source members benefit from salary along with commission.
9 Confidentiality and conflict of interest
A confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement should be signed by all the Technical Working Group members as well as all supportive staff with PSA at the beginning of their collaboration.
All documents prepared by or presented to the TWG are assumed to be public unless identified otherwise by PSA and agreed by the TWG.
Hence, while members of the TWG have full authority to share the non-confidential materials of discussions and papers, they shall not report or attribute neither the comments of individuals nor their affiliations outside of meetings, conducted as either face to face or virtual.
The default approach of the TWG is that the non-attributable contents of discussions and papers are not confidential, unless specified otherwise.
Members are expected to declare any conflict of interest, when arisen. This will cause the person(s) to be excused from the discussion and to abstain from participating in decision-making.
The working language of the TWG is Farsi. English, as support language, is provided on request.
All drafts for public consultation, as well as other documents, should be translated into English, as requested and as possible. Documents may also be translated into other languages if requested by the Working Group and depending on the resource availability
Part II –Principles for an effective process
Effective WG meetings contain:
- Established solid foundation from scratch including objectives, roles, timetable, etc.;
- Agreed meeting protocols;
- Detailed agendas provided before and during meetings; meeting materials provided well in advance of meetings whenever possible to ensure that members have sufficient time to review.
- Clear decision-making structures such as utilizing decision-making matrix predicated on to-be-considered criteria and scenario-testing.
- Simple, logical discussion format; for instance, while commencing with clarifying the issue(s), the requirement is meant to address before beginning to comment on the specific requirement;
- Regular, ongoing temperature checks on points-of-agreement;
- Decision point, end of day and end of meeting summaries;
- Development of workplan during the first meeting to direct the process;
- Use of PSU and technical experts in drafting the documents to support WG’s role and task;
- Decision on use of sub-groups, break-out groups in meetings, etc.;
- Temperature check from stakeholder groups before a final draft is recommended to the PSA Board for approval;
- When some issues reach an impasse that cannot be resolved by the WG, they will be addressed through the consultative process, with options and perspectives circulated for consultation. The WG will then try to resolve the issues based on the comments received. If the issue is highly technical in nature, additional research/investigation on the issue might also be called upon to provide additional information for making judicious decisions.
- Straw poll of the WG before going to decision-making.
Effective communications and representation of stakeholders
WG members are expected to consult with other colleague(s) to ensure that a wide range of views are sought.
To support stakeholder engagement, the coordinator will also:
- Implement a communication strategy to guarantee ongoing and meaningful stakeholder engagement.
- Push communication proactively towards those who self-declare their interest, or may be impacted by the standard/policy, via email, news, briefs to the self-selecting Consultative Forum as well as the PSA mailing lists like Network Partners, Members, etc.
- Make the following items available for all interested parties via the website:
o Background documentation and references
o WG agendas
- WG minutes (non-attributable)
o Signed-off internal documents and drafts of the WG
o Attributable comments of stakeholders on draft documents (unless requested otherwise, in writing)
- Use tracking tools or document-handling software to facilitate dialogue amongst stakeholders as a part of the consultation process.
- Seek PSA-related forum to provide updates and present input on the documents, for example, at Network Partner meetings, regional PSA meetings, global meetings, etc.
Annex 1: Glossary
As the purpose of this paper, the terms and definitions given in PSA Glossary of Terms as well as the following apply:
Chamber balanced WG: a professional and experienced group of selected PSA members in the field of question, to advise and provide content-oriented input to the development or revision process of a PSA normative document, equally representing the perspectives of the social, environmental and economic chamber of the PSA membership, and southern and northern perspectives in case of a Sub-chamber balanced WG.
Chatham House Rule: “When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed“. The Chatham House Rule desires to encourage openness and share the information at meetings.
Consensus: general agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests.
NOTE: Consensus should be reached as the result of a process considering the views of interested parties, particularly those affected directly, and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. It does not need to imply unanimity (adapted from ISO/IEC Guide 2:2004).
HCV Framework: The High Conservation Value Framework is a national interpretation of PSA Principle and Locally Adapted Standard specifies the location, management, maintaining, monitoring and restoring of HCVs, and it is used for conformity assessment by the PSA.
Technical consultation: targeted internal consultation to receive feedback on a PSA normative document during drafting or re-drafting stage before the document is released for public consultation.
Technical Experts: a group of selected experts with professional experience in the field of questions, to advise and provide content-related inputs for the process of development or revision of a PSA normative document.
 conformity assessment body