Not sure whether they are within their rights but in my experience you may need to toe the line if you want the work.

We are predominantly a subcontractor to some of these so called 'big boys' of the construction industry and, in my opinion, a lot of what they preach is smoke and mirrors and sensible risk management is blown out of the water if something makes their life that bit easier. Here is a recent example, one client insisted that all of our operatives must have their nominated asbestos awareness training (£55 each plus the associated costs with freeing the workforce up for a day) even though they all have UKATA accredited training - this was to build a brand new building!

It is not that unusual for the PC to require a sub-contractor to use its documentation on a project. This could be for good reason such as the contractor does not have sufficient HSQE processes or just for consistency on the project. In some cases the Client intervenes and requests certain documentation to be used, again sometimes for good reason.

However, I do agree with TJA, in that all too often the reasons for using the PC's documentation is often not clearly articulated or warranted, such is the nonsense which occurs these days on projects.

Could also be quite a useful way of ensuring that each RAMS submitted is specific to the actual job the work relates too. Too often you see generic catch-all RAMS submitted that you have to sieve through to find the relevant parts. Asking the sub-contractor to re-write on a different template forces them to consider the best method of working and control of associated risks.

Years ago we did a lot of work for GNER (Great North Eastern Railways) they insisted that we use their RAMS format.

As mentioned above, if you wanted the work there was very little choice.
And again, as mentioned above, I think it was for consistency.

A

Absolutely reasonable, especially when contractors and staff work side by side. One site, one format. Simples

Gary