Chris, really depends on the Principal Contractor / Site involved. For some sites we don't even get requested for R/A's or M/S's as we do the same things each day. We get asked for Safety Policies, Environmental Policies, Insurances, CSCS details, Training certs, Inspection records including PA records etc. Probably loads more that i haven't even thought of.

From working for a PC, we would request RA and MS from the sub contractor for the proposed work which would be amended as required and all ops working on that specific task / job would sign on to it. As the Site Safety Officer I would hold MS and RAs on file. We would also request copies of all training certificates, equipment certs and maintenance records, policies etc etc. PCs dont have to hold all the docs, you could request that they keep all docs on site and complete and admin audit on those docs in a timescale that suits, we used to complete one every 2 weeks (checking everything was in place). It is good practice for companies to have info in place even if you are under 5 employees.

quote=ChrisBurns]Hally, thanks, would all that information be kept on site or at the PC's office? By the way I'm surprised you don't get asked for RA's and MS?

Hally I have had serious issues and arguements with CSCS who are apperently nothing to do with Construction Skills they are a seperate company. CSCS trade test approx 5mins. to complete, and management approx 10 mins. Does this really prove health and safety competency. I can only see it as doing something is better than doing nothing. Also why are SMSTS and the like having to sit it as well. Money making excercise I agree. I could think of much more beneficial safety training as I'm sure most people on here could. Might as well hit your head against a brick wall as talk to CSCS. Sorry Chris off the subject a bit there.

The arrival of a sub-contractor on-site will normally be a planned event and these sub-contractors vetted beforehand. Adequacy of policy, arrangements etc. should all be done off-site as part of pre-qualification, vetting or granting of approved list status. I would be looking for Project specific documentation only, i..e a R/A or M/S specifically developed to deal with unusual. unique or quite specific issues. Keep it simple, keep it focussed and relevant.

I would generally consider "policy" matters to be irrelevant on a live construction project. The Client's H&S goals for the project, as expressed in the pre-construction information and (hopefully) carried over to the Construction Phase Plan should be the focus for all concerned.

We get a lot of requests for our H & S Policy to send to sites in advance, the fact that most of our clients already have this means someone somewhere must have loads of copies. Off topic slightly, we get loads and loads of questionnaires to fill out. One company (not saying who but their corporate site fencing colours are green and orange) have sent in three sets of questionnaires in two weeks, all exactly the same, all saying we need you to complete for each rather than just one as we're seperate offices (and MCG companies all say they want to cut time people spend doing them). Took me five hours to do the first set of three questionnaires along with supporting documentation (even though they have all the docs already...) and then five minutes to do the other two...

Alex I didn't say it is a problem, just asking the question. I think the point Brett made re the PC having a Policy that embraces the subbys is the way to go, that will save asking for subby safety policies all the time.

Alex Who signs the decleration? The subcontract company i.e. MD or the individuals who are actually on site. The individuals on site are the ones that should declare that they are going to comply with the PC's Policies and procedures. The MD can only agree to comply in principle on behalf of it's employees. It's far to easy to say I agree until the judge says well, have you got it in writing.

Chris, would be nice. The excuse i get given is that they are seperate divisional areas (assume in case one area goes bust and doesn't take the rest of the group down?) and that they need to do it that way, so basically they waste loads of subcontractors time and money and their own. Jonathan

Hally - I too have to complete several different contractor applications so I know exactly how you feel. What I cannot understand is a principal contractor requiring to see a subco's health and safety policy on site. I can understand them requiring it as part of the subco approval process. Brett - in answer to your question: isn't that what site rules and inductions are for? I don't need my subbies signing on to my or their safety policy. What I do need is an agreement from them that they will abide by our site rules and their risk assessments / method statements as enforced by my supervisors. I think we're all talking around the same issue here. I'm not advocating the generation of needless paperwork. My posts have been to suggest that proper approval procedures should mean that the operatives need only arrive on site with the documents which relate to the works they are to carry out. Which by reading posts from the rest of you it seems it's an opinion we all share.

Chris - do I take it from that you don't agree with the rest of my post! If I were in your position I'd be advising the client that they are putting themselves at risk by allowing this situation to continue, and draw attention to their duties under CDM. It would appear that the underlying issue is the cost of health and safety, with the programme on one hand and legal compliance on the other. They need to be convinced that a delay of a couple of weeks is nothing compared to a serious accident and subsequent investigation. Negative publicity and all that. In my opinion, the Principal Contractor should be a little harder on the subbies. I think you're right to be concerned. My earlier posts were advocating a sensible contractor approval process which assesses the competence of subbies before they hit site. I take it that the subbies must be doing fairly low risk work? Why, if you're acting on behalf of the client, can't you require the offending contractors to be removed from site? If I was the PC I'd be embarrassed that you'd picked up on this issue on my site. If this is a notifiable project then you may wish to contact the CDMC - who is after all supposed to advise the client on the competence of the PC and the client of their CDM duties. The collection of documentation should be up to the PC - not the client's safety guy. You should be able to check that all is in order. I take it you've recorded this on your inspection reports and supplied these to the client? Apologies if that appears to be a bit scattered. It's been a long day.