Like a standard pre-qual questionnaire template?

David, Unfortunately, I have to concur. They are largely cut and paste exercises. Some of the things that I have seen, would blow your mind coming in some of these.

Why not encourage and accept prior accreditation by relevant commercial PQQ schemes and save yourself all this effort at pre-qualification? This will enable you to focus resource on the Project-specific issues at Stage 2. I admit to being wholly confudled by your statement: "Contractors would be able to add additional/specific hazards as identified during their risk assessment process." That doesn't sound like pre-qual activity?

What you describe sounds more like stage 2 evaluation. Stage 1: (prequal) prospective contractors have baseline competencies and resources (via commercial pre-qual preferably in the commercial world via CHAS etc.) Stage 2: Specific response to Project specific issues arising from design, construction, environment, site restriction, new or innovative methods of construction etc. Stage 3: On-Project or on-task evaluation (check that they're doing what they said they'd do (and priced for), complying with standards, providing welfare, etc.) Stage 4: Post-Contract evaluation of overall performance. For complex work, and for evaluation of Principal Contractors, Stage 2 is very important. For general routine trades works Stage 2 can be a simple confirmation of adequate resource being made available. In-depth (re)evaluation of RAMS, sending bits of paper back and forth etc. for the more routine stuff adds little or no value and is a bit of a waste of everybody's time. You can go light on Stage 2 here if you're prepared to resource Stage 3.

Is this an acceptable practice now, to charge for producing RAMS? I thought it was a requirement of H&S law?

I'm widely regarded as a cynic too, but let's not confuse cause and effect. IMO we should devote our efforts to selling the benefits of SSIP etc. to the doubting clients? These schemes are all about removing the burden of "paperwork" at PQQ stage. Perhaps there are clients out there who need to build and achieve confidence around that fact. Dismissing these schemes as 'money making' is I fear somewhat counter-productive. If these schemes were to fall, then contractors would also be back at square one, jumping through the paperwork hoops every single time. No-one can surely want that regression.

To be clear (this from the Builder's Profile web pages: "The Builder's Profile is NOT a pre-qualification scheme - it is a data collection and distribution scheme. It is not designed to compete with the commercial accreditation and verification systems such as Constructionline, Achilles and CHAS. Instead, it is designed to offer them a readily available source of information without the need for them to ask subcontractors to complete additional questionnaires. All the existing schemes have the opportunity to secure huge reductions in time and cost wastage for everyone by accepting the Builder's Profile as their base questionnaire." And if I may, a further caveat: Many PQQ schemes (SSIP etc.) do not specifically assess compliance with CAR06 Regulation 10 (Asbestos Awareness Training). It is advisable to confirm this at some point in the tender process whenever there is a possibility (however remote) of asbestos-containing materials being disturbed or encountered.