Why discriminate? When the accident happens, who will be justifying this "high"/"low" risk approach? Why not make best use of commercial PQQ schemes and apply them across the board?

I get what Ron is saying and in principle it’s a valid point of view - but I think I get where your coming from too - I did the blanket approach to PQQ for all our contractors and they are many. You can end up asking then totally irrelevant questions for what's required - so I streamlined it down to suit - I did not base this on risk but what we wanted from the supplier and the necesarry information we required. It did end up looking somewhat risk based as for construction projects we obviously required much more detail as apose to suppliers who manitaied our automatic front doors. Therefore, I get where your coming from. As for what to go in there what do you want them to do?

It is of course important to discriminate between "contractor" and "supplier." David, even that Hygiene Supplier may on occasion be tasked with fixing a dispenser to the wall (asbestos awareness, avoiding hidden services). Why wouldn't you want a photocopier servicing company to be able to demonstrate that they have an effective SMS (which includes assessment of the competency of their engineers)? Wouldn't you explore these issues as part of the tender and contract award process?

Perhaps it is worthwhile reconsidering the purpose and the mutual value of commercial PQQ systems - certainly all those within SSIP. They are intended to be applied to ANY contractor, with a purpose of determining whether that contractor's baseline Safety Management System meets acceptable minimum criteria. PQQ systems do not discriminate between those who build tower blocks and those we engage to clean them thereafter. For me, the relative quantification of potential risk arising from the act or omission of the contractor is essentially irrelevant in this context. In summary: >All employers (and in this context, contractors) are obliged to have legally compliant SMS. >Employers engaging contractors are expected to exercise due diligence in determining the competency of their appointments. >Use of commercial PQQ systems (along with a recognition of mutual and equivalent schemes) is a mutually beneficial and cost effective way to deal with these baseline issues at tender or long-list procurement stage, freeing up the resources of the commissioning employer to focus on the more specific and local risk issues and performance measurement after appointment - the points in the contract process where proportionate consideration of risk is actually relevant and important. I do not and will not subscribe to any suggestion that commercial PQQ systems are relevant only to "higher" risk industry or trades. Neither do I consider the use of PQQ systems across the board to constitute any sort of 'sledgehammer' or disproportionate approach. The only real problem with PQQ is a failure by many employers (and particularly larger clients) to recognise and accept them in a non-discriminatory fashion. It is that client failing which is likely to result in yet another costly and confusing revision of CDM- something the whole construction supply chain could well live without.

achrn: Quite the opposite. I refer you to my post at #6: It is of course important to discriminate between "contractor" and "supplier." The commissioning and preparation of a report (provision of a service) does not meet any definition of 'contractor' I would accept and the application of a contractor assessment pqq process is wholly incorrect. I sympathise with you on that one - a client misapplication typical of those I allude to above.