Ive worked in Facilties and with Contractors of all types for years. If a contractor tried to charge me for something that helps me determine their competence e.g RAMS I would kick them off site.

In ten years my company  (large company, 40 sites 2500 staff) have never come across the issue you describe. We use many, many different types of contractors for a multitude of services.

Bottom line is I wouldnt never pay for anything associated with the control of Contractors other than the actual service they provide.

Possibly you need to get your estates team to include this as part of the scope of work, that way they cannot come back and charge it as an extra.

Amazing, client being charged by contractor for specific documentation that is required by LAW. Evident there is a question of competence with regards all parties involved here. Anyone requesting such a thing from our organisation or submitting a generic RAMS, would be shown the door and never allowed to return.

Would ask if your organisation reviews the contractors they are employing, if there is a selection process in place based on HSE. Next they will be asking you to pay for their traing and insurance premiums, that’s if they have any competence or insurance.   

Either way, need to sit down and review the selection process, on occasions we have put in place RAMS for individuals to ensure the potential risk were covered and control measures suitable for the risks, but never charged for it. We actually ensure they are competent in the area of work to be undertaken.

Don’t forget as a Client or Premises Holder, you have a duty of care and depending on type of work and most defiantly have certain regulations to fulfil.

Can I just ask you what sort of job you are asking these companies to do at you site when they refuse this? Its just your comment about not wanting to undertake a "10 minute safety induction as it makes the late for their next job", makes me think you are looking for companies to provide site specific RAMS for very short duration visits, such as an hour or two?

Also when you mention estates, this leads me to think this is NOT a construction site, but a workplace?

In which case, I have to say that I agree with them. If a BT engineer has been called to look at a fault on a line and is there for about half-an-hour then the site specific RAMS and induction is too much and you need to establish a system which is appropriate for the works being undertaken rather than a one rule fits all approach.

Just to give a bit of further conteext, the last job we encountered this problem was when we asked an air con repair company to fix one of our units. They actually said they charge for all RAMS (not just site specific ones). I appreciate that this would sound like a low risk job to most of you but the air con unit in question is extremely high up (in an atrium area) and would require a tower scaffold to access. 

Just to be clear- the additional charge was not for the tower scaffold but for the company to supply any RAMS before the job commenced. 

Originally Posted by: spenhse

Amazing, client being charged by contractor for specific documentation that is required by LAW. Evident there is a question of competence with regards all parties involved here. Anyone requesting such a thing from our organisation or submitting a generic RAMS, would be shown the door and never allowed to return.

Which statute requires all work by all contractors to have a job-specific site-specific risk assesment and method statement?

Thanks Stonecold for the reply, if there is five or less employees then the risk assessment has not got to be written down. Remember, a risk assessment is not about creating huge amounts of paperwork, but rather about identifying sensible measures to control the risks in your workplace that affect the employees and others.

Let’s be honest here, Generic Risk Assessments on majority of occasions are worthless, as they do not cover the work, usually wrote by someone that does not even know the working environment, let alone know the hazards involved with the work being undertaken. Suitable and sufficient assessment of the work / environment has to be undertaken by LAW.

Employer, should ensure it is suitable and sufficient of the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking.

Ask yourself a quick question, if an accident was to occur and you issued / accepted a generic risk assessment. Which happened to miss the blatantly hazard, do you think the assessment was sufficient and suitable.

Unfortunately, have undertaken Investigations involving accidents to very close friend, found the Risk Assessment was not suitable and sufficient, actually wrote by an individual that sat in an office, who did not know anything about the work or area. The company was charged, prosecuted for lack of information, as they were missed the obvious hazards. We all do, risk assessments, every day, self-consciously. The risk assessment process is nothing new, what is the way it is captured and wrote down. Today, I am an advocate of writing simple RISK Assessment with Hazard & Control Measures to mitigate or element the hazards or level of risk and involving persons undertaking the work.

Generic Risk Assessments are “Model Risk Assessments” ok, if you control a number of similar workplaces containing similar activities, you can produce a 'model' risk assessment reflecting the common hazards and risks associated with these activities. But to introduce these “Model RA” must

• satisfy yourself that the 'model' assessment is appropriate to your type of work

• adapt the 'model' to the detail of your own work situations, including any extension necessary to cover hazards and risks not referred to in the 'model'

Nobody adapts generic / model risk assessments, they are just passed from job to job, majority of occasions insufficient for work being undertaken.

 It is possible to create a generic which is not site specific but some contractors I have dealt with assume this means re-use an old site specific risk assessment and claim it is good enough I have had people try to fob us off with an assessment for using a scaff tower and claiming that it also applies to conventional scaffolding or using an assessment for indoor work and trying to apply it out of doors.

The key thing about a truly suitable generic risk assessment is that it describes its own limitations-it makes it clear what it is to be used for and what it is not to be used for. To produce a good generic can be a challenge and sometimes it is simply easier produce a new one for each site.