Hi guys, I'm sure many of you have requested Risk Assessments and method Statements (RAMS) from contractors that are to complete work for you, and I'm sure that you have also sent them back for amending as they were not specific to the work that was planned or, unfortunatley, were not sufficent in terms of quality. After going back and forth with a contractor and still not having a method statement that meets your requirements, is it acceptable to send them examples of your own companie's documents (or unbranded docs if your company policy doesn't allow this). To help guide on what you expect and what others will likely expect also, or is this too much like leading them and could potentially be seen as doing it for them? Hope that makes sense and appreciate your thoughts. Cheers

I have had similar with a contractor (who actually is quite big and should have a good handle on RAMS generally) - the work was out of their usual scope - it was work they were well qualified to do, but it involved them having to work near/on the water (mainly because they did not complete all of a task before the water levels rose in a lake and the area they were working in became partially submerged). I did some googling and sent them a couple of links to help them re-write the RAMS. I was clear not to say what I wanted to see or send them any of my own examples as I can't tell exactly what their own risks are as I'm not the one doing the work, I just helpfully pointed them in the right direction of some easily found public guidance to give thema  strating point!!

As it was, they never came back to me and I think a decision was made to postpone the remainder of the work (it was cosmetic to cover some bolts on a bridge to make it look better aesthetically) until the water levels naturally dropped again! In other cases, I have just gone back to a contractor and asked for some more detail on certain elements of their documents but they always complete them I never do. My own thoughts or company documents are not necessarily going to account for their own circumstances even if the task is the same, so I personally don't think it appropriate to give them my own things as they may just copy them and forget any specific hazards to them. Better in my opinion to allow them to do it themselves but point them in the direction of some public guidance to help if you want to be proactive (I usually suggest HSE or similar!). Hope this helps.  

Ray, you hit the nail on the head. There's often a total disconnect between the supply chain approval process and the health and safety source of competent advice. Too often contracts are awarded on price with litttle or not thought to quality issues.

Those working in construction have an absolute duty to make competent appointments, a duty inferred and implied in other areas. The time to determine competency is before award, not afterwards. It is not unreasonable to ask prospective contractors to provide an outline as to how they will address project specific risks (by providing them with preconstruction info at tender).

Cancelling a contract post-award is fraught with difficulty, and arguing the toss on quality of MS or RAMS after award rarely turns out well.

In all that to-and-fro, the first point of call should be the contractor's source of competent health and safety advice, detail we should also have via the tender process.

Yes but this goes both ways, I have submitted RAMS for them to be rejected because they do not like the terminolgy used. The RAMS are for the workforce not some office based wanna be with no clue as how to do the work.