Hypothetical (not) scenario:

Client HSE bod on the project of a small CDM non-notifiable construction project dismisses the need to review the principal contractors RAMS on the basis that we have a copy of their CPP.

What would you do? Do you review your contractors' RAMS when they do work for you?


IND368 states: "The contractor must assess the risks for the contracted work and then both of you must get together to consider any risks from each other’s work that could affect the health and safety of the workforce or anyone else."
OHSAS 18001 section 4.3.1 - activities of all persons having access to the workplace, including contractors.
OHSAS 18002 p. 17 - the hazards arising from contractors' activities, etc....

Any thoughts? or additional legislation/guidance that I can quote?

Thanks

It very much depends on the client or client's representative and their knowledge of the work, plus the risks it may pose to the organisation. As a rule I would want to review the RAMS regardless of whether I have reviewed the CPP. I don't think there is any legal requirement for the client to review the RAMS of their contractors and I'm sure many do not.

I am thinking more along the lines of that we are inviting contractors on site, applying a floor treatment and they couldn't reassure me that they used safe materials. It is also a contractual requirement that they provide us with their RAMS prior to doing the work.

We've had similar discussion here many times.

Evaluation of competency should take place before appointment - not after. If you already have a CPP then you've already appointed. What's going to happen at that late stage if you start to pick over that RAMS and decide there are things you don't like? Delay? Dispute? ££££?

What is the purpose of paper review at this late stage?
What are the potential outcomes of a presumption of client review or 'acceptance' of a specific RAMS which turns out later to be seriously flawed?

Some years ago (4) we were asked to go to a major UK company who believed they had a CDM project (under 2007 Regs) and had already appointed a PC - with designs/plans etc. They hadn't considered CDM or the appointment of a CDMC. Issue no. 1 came when we looked at the project itself, which we then advised was a safety issue now and the need to address the potential for falling from height - with a solution advised, ordered, training and implemented (this was a failure on the clients RA's).

So back to CDM - we were formally appointed as CDMC - and issued our PCI and awaited receipt of the PC's RAMS, which were forthcoming and formally rejected as neither suitable nor sufficient in addressing the risks identified. Consultations were had with the PC's SHE Advisors and this led to the PC actually changing their SHE Advisors!! Only when we, as CMDC, did we release approval for the RAMS and subsequent acceptance of the CPP from the PC - until then the project was delayed.

The Client, when asking us for justification for delay was told that it was the failure of the PC to apply risk management techniques effectively and therefore inevitable delays would occur until we were happy with the documentation (we are your best friend). Subsequently legal claims were made through the PC due to contractural delays and loss of production!!

RayRapp, totally agree. The PC's safety personnel (consulatants) were not knowledgeable about the job, nor the CDM process, this was our issue. We told the PC that too, which didn't go down well, but as the Clients representative we couldn't do anything else. You can't let under prepared, inadequately resourced (from a H&S perspective) and not so competent (again H&S) loose on a job that was quite technical.

Have even seen this in large power plant 'outages' whereby I have had to prohibit contractors from working on our behalf due to poor RAMS (to a degree were a scaffold risk assessment never identified the hazard 'at height' on Scaffold Erection / Dismantling) - and thereonin lies the problem - competence in terms of H&S.