Reviewing Contractor Risk Assessments

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

Thanks to everyone for their comments.

Chris, the word adequacy is what I'm talking about, what happens when they're not adequate and how do you define adequate? The same kind of question Liz, what is an unacceptable RA?

What happens when you get the RAMS back from the contractor after you've told them that they're not adequate / acceptable and they ask you (as they mostly do), "Are the RAMS now OK?" or "will you please review our RAMS and approve them so that we can start the work".

Chris, we also provide our contractors with a comprehensive Contractor Working Standard document that explains mostly everything associated with their working environment. We also have a contractor induction and authorisation process as well as a permit to work system (which has all been reviewed over the past 3 months).

Brendan, thanks for your input. I am fully aware that the contractor's RAMS belong to them, so no worries on that front. However, I disagree that the main duty of care is to appoint a competent contractor. Our main duty of care is to ensure the health and safety of the person carrying out the work, be they employee or indepednent contractor (See Regina v Associated Octel Ltd), which means we then have a DoC to ensure that the risks have been suitably and sufficiently managed.

I do agree thought with the monitoring of contractors 'out in the field' it's something that we don't do particularly well and it's something that we'll be actioning over the next few weeks.

Again, thanks everyone for their input, much appreciated.

Wayne, you must be clear that the risk assessment is the contractors not yours! I agree with Lyn that if you get too involved it becomes your risk assessment and that can be dangerous, particularly if the works are specialised. Your duty of care to the contractor is to provide them with all available information on the area they will be working in i.e. known hazards, structural drawings, services drawings (gas, water, electrical), asbestos registers and the like.

Your main duty of care is to ensure you appoint competent contractors. This is most easily proven by choosing companies who are fully registered with their relevant professional body, can provide copies of H&S policies, robust risk assessments and method statements. I believe this would provide a good audit trail that you have done everything within your power to appoint a responsible contractor. Beyond that, you need them to sign off that they have read and understood any documentation you have provided them with, and provide you with a risk register. You should record how often you check on them 'out in the field' so to speak, noting any concerns and hold regular site meetings making sure H&S, Risk and the risk register is a permanent fixture on the agenda.

Another thing we do is to produce a H&S Information sheet to issue to contractors; this is reviewed and re-sent to all our contractors annually. A copy is also left by the signing-in book at Reception. This covers (in our case) issues such as fragile roofs, the asbestos register, fire & first aid provision etc.

Hi Wayne
I've found myself in the same position before and decided a) I could invite the contractor to site to view all likely hazards for himself involve in the task b) If they refuse to attend site, I send unacceptable RAMS back to them and tell them they are not suitable.
I consider that by accepting inacceptable RAMS you are agreeing to the method and risk assessment being applied, threfore as Chris indicates, you put yourself in line for prosecution.
I also think we should all be careful that we don't get involved with advising contractors on issues in their RAMS, or we may find ourselves the main focus of a prosecution. The contractor could say we told them all the hazards and if they had been invited to site they would have included more but they relied on your information.

Hey Chris, thanks for the reply.

I'm aware of the case (Dundee I think), it was actually the exact case that got us worried as to not going far enough.

Your approach sounds very sensible to me. You need to show that you have checked the contractors' RA/MS for adequacy, and have also made him aware of any specific risks peculiar to your site.
Bear in mind a recent case in which a sub-contractor's employee was injured by falling through a fragile roof. The sub-contractor, the main contractor and the client were all taken to court!

Good morning everyone.

Reviewing contractor risk assessments, how far do we go (the client) in terms of ensuring that the contractors risk assessment is suitable and sufficient?

I have a scenario: -

As the client, we have identified some 'significant risks (SR)' associated with the work-area. In this example, SR are defined as those risks, which we believe the contractor will not have come across on a daily / weekly basis or may be difficult to manage in terms of location, logistics etc. They don't necessarily imply that serious injury is likely to occur.

Anyway, the work is not notifiable under CDM, although the CDM regs apply (as they do in most cases). We have informed the contractor of the SR and ask that they are considered in the RAMS pertaining to the works.

The Project Officer (Client) receives the RAMS from the contractor, however, the Project Officer managing the works is concerned that the contractor hasn't fully understood the risks or hasn't mitigated or controlled the risks sufficiently.

The million dollar question, what does the PO do next?

1. He meets with the contractor and explains his concerns.
2. The contractor goes away and updates the RAMS, with the PO's comments taken on board.
3. The contractor comes back to the PO and asks, are the RAMS now OK?
4. PO says yes and the work commences.

So, what does everyone think, is that the right thing to do? The PO had already done the background checks on the contractor and decided that he was competent based on relevant data i.e. CHAS Registered, ISO 9001 - 18001 etc, H&S Policy etc etc etc.

How far do we go in terms of reviewing contractor risk assessments for suitability?
Did the PO approve the RAMS for the contractor, does the PO then become liable? Is there a risk that he becomes a designer under CDM if he asks for changes to be made that impact on work practices or specification?

Please, comments like as far as you have to just don't help, there has to be a limit??

If it helps, think of Section 3(1) HASAWA 74.


Apologies for the length of the thread, it's just when you have numerous contractors working on a huge estate it's something that has to be managed (SFARP).

Thanks for any help.