What's your view on employing small contractors that do not have any SSIP, stating that they find it too time consuming to complete the application? In my prior "corporate" job - most of the contractors did not have this as we used a lot of "one man band" type companies, so we just checked and reviewed all of their H&S documents. I have now moved into the Public Sector and find they require even the smallest companies to be accredited - is this really feasible - I would be more inclined to ensure they complete a type of PQQ and review all documents according to the work they will be doing Any opinions/advice?

Lazy tendering and buck passing to exclude those without SSIP. Seen this from the other side - you must have.....x, y, z Didn't stop the company getting work just meant we were never considered for principal contractor. We still ended up on site which proved the process adopted was no more than ticking boxes to give the client a false sense of security. Also benefited us that we then worked under the principals RAMS rather than presenting our own.

I don't think using SSIP schemes are feasible for ALL contractors, and that common sense must prevail. consider things from the contractor's point of view, they may be quoting for a low value job of say £1000, but you need them to pay £300 to a SSIP scheme, plus the day or two of their time to actually jump through the proverbial hoops and submit all the information needed. So your contractor is losing 16 hours (ish) chargeable hours, plus the £300 SSIP membership fee, and they might only be making a few hundred pounds out of the whole job? We will be going through this in the next few months, with small companies and one man bands asked to join a SSIP scheme, which ultimately, we will be paying for, whether directly or indirectly. Will the SSIP scheme make the contractor safer? I'm certain it won't!

I would be very reluctant to award a contract to a small contractor who cited lack of time and 'high' cost to get through SSIP. Not sure where Binniem got his figure of £300 from but CHAS for example is just £157 + vat for businesses with les than 5 employees. As an alternative to SSIP requirement there is always the option to request small contractors to access and complete the following HSE document http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg449.pdf. There is a simply policy document and risk assessment template for the small contractor to complete. I would also expect the contractor to demonstrate their arrangements for the various topics that come before the template. But my view is why should the Client organisation have to resource and fund the labour intensive task of assessing the non SSIP responses just because a small contractor is too lazy or penny pinching to apply for SSIP accreditation?

We went with Safe Contractor (SSIP) two years ago. Some managers and contractors have tendered to ignore it but enough is enough. I'm just about to email out all non registered contractors to sign up or they will be removed from the preferred suppliers list. The £160 for a one man band for 12 moths subs is not a lot, but it's the paperwork that they are struggling with, but would you employ a contractor with suspect rams and insurances. I think not!

I am not too keen on SSIP, or procurement processes, it's basically a tick in the box. That said, no system is perfect. Whilst I prefer to review contractor's RAMS and CPP, small one-man band types still tend to not have these which is a concern. Even where they do provide documentation it's often generic and of poor quality. With the revision of CDM 2015 there is a greater onus on contractor documentation and of course it now applies to domestic work. So there is no good reason why even small contractors should not be able to provide RAMS and CPP in my view.

the top and bottom is the SSIP and other schemes available are sometimes useful but depending on internal policy shouldn't be the be all and end all. There's nothing wrong with completing internal PQQ. as long as you do you due diligence. I prefer to do my own personal checks and not rely on an administrator of a scheme whom probably has no actual experience.

EXACTLY........ Most are nothing short of money making schemes, do your internal PQQ and your fine.

This subject has been done to death in the past & with all due respect all these 1 man bands who cannot DO H&S seem to have no problems doing their tax, insurances, NI or buying new cars, nor employing other occupations to help them as the see the need so in this case they should employ 1 man band H&S bods to help them A big problem is that these people see no gain in doing H&S properly, and in many ways I see & agree with their their point, especially so as clients & procurement people want cheap so many 1 man bands trying to do things right get priced out of the market

I totally agree with every word Bob has written in his post.