Someone is talking utter bull manure to you. The HSE has not made any such statements either. As long as the PC recognises and adequately controls risk then competence is less likely to be an issue. BUT RA ability is not a good measure of competence.

Simply say to them that you have it on good authority, mine if you like, that people who believe this about quantative assessments are not undertsanding the risk assessment process properly and are therefore not competent to judge competence Bob

Ron could I expain this as it was explained to me. Company policy is that if as a CDM-C I receive an RA which contains numbers, i.e.hazard = 4 x likelihood =3, nomatter what is written otherwise then this RA is not suitable and sufficient. I have been told that enforcement officers are considering these as not S & S and that comanies using this method or RA are not competent. It really is as simple as numbers within an RA = not sutitable and sufficient = not competent to take the role of PC

IMO it is a bit dangerous to tell contractors how to risk assess as you may become liable if they follow your instructions and are found to be not suitable and sufficient. As far as I am concerned if I assess competence and that includes sample ra's as long as they show competence that should be it.

I've CDM-C'd contracts and let the quantitative RAs go because I don't think it's professional to act in the way I'm expected. A CDM-C isn't there as a policeman and by ripping into the PC over things like this can in effect make my role impotent. As you say a savvy PC will probably be able challenge it and use this lunatic idea to his advantage. I'm not sure of the reasons for the "policy" which does say we will not deal with generic RAs in letters to client and PC and RAs by numbers being generic is written in another document about risk assessment so the two together state the case,. When I was on the PC side and a CDM-C got a bit "uppetty" I used to bury them in paper and just say it's all in the documentation to any queries.

Further to Firestar967's post the HSE link goes on to say “People working full time in health and safety often use a version of this method. It provides a good alternative to the 'good practice' approach in Five Steps To Risk Assessment.” The HSE example risk assessments provided on their web site are for what has been termed by the government “low risk businesses / activities” such as betting office, newsagents, estate agents, admin work in a manufacturing company, car park attendants, office cleaning and call centres etc. These are probably best not assessed using a matrix as it is not particularly warranted ( note they don’t have one for doing something more complex like building a leisure centre). They could still be carried out using a matrix, if for instance the admin work in the Manufacturing company was only one of a series of more complex assessments for the rest of the factory and you wished to keep the same format. The HSE site also states “However, it does require a fair degree of expertise and experience” so not for your newsagent who does his own assessment, more for a COMPETANT H&S practitioner. I agree with Ron Hunters post that Quantitative assessments in their purest form and on their own may not be sufficient. My understanding from the course book while taking NEBOSH Diploma was that Quantitative assessments were ETA and FTA type assessments, but that the matrix type are classed as Semi Quantitative and are useful to allow a common approach, in an attempt to overcome individual differences ( unless I got this totally wrong) So if the assessment:- 1) Identifies the hazards 2) Determines who is at risk 3) Evaluates the risks via Likelihood x consequence to give a rating 4) Determines current and new controls that when implemented would change the above calculation to give a new rating at a lower and acceptable level. 5) Implement the controls and record who is responsible for ensuring the controls are in place, used and possibly monitored. 6) Is reviewed periodically or when something changes. What’s the problem ? I find the matrix method allows me to methodically focus on each issue and come review time remind me of what was going through my head, at the time I produced it. I also found the ratings allowed me to target improvement activities, especially useful when you have an accredited management system. It also allowed others to question consequence or likelihood I had attributed, so I could explain further if necessary. I used to work for a specialist contractor for the larger PC's and we never had a problem with the above. If you work for a consultancy what do the others think, you cannot be the only one there?

Cart before horse comes to mind. Why assess competence after appointment - it does nothing to protect the client or the CDMC - The PC has been appointed and therfore the client has deemed them competent. This ticking the boxes approach brings the whole CDM process into total disrepute and if I was PC I would be talking to the HSE firmly about such incompetent rear end covering by the CDMC. Once tendering is complete and the contract awarded then it is ridiculous to try and recapture what should have been done before appointment, even if the tender did require the submission of RAs. If your company's QA system required the completion of such paperwork I as an Auditor would be imposing a non compliance because it was done at the wrong point. Bob

I would also hope that your company (and your Client) are making full use of SSIP and other commercial pre-qual schemes to save everyone a lot of unnecessary work. Assuming this to be the case (and it would be daft not to) then the "level playing" field issues become more apparent. Commercial PQQ schemes do not concern themselves with such arbitrary issues and will have no problem at all in accepting the use of scoring matrices. I wonder just how far away your organisation is from a challenge on this, a challenge which will no doubt be brought to the attention of your client as well..........

Ron The commercial systems can never fully replace a proper internal system especially as they will never have sufficient resources to undertake all that is necessary. The real issue is that this organisation, like many, has not developed a proper competence assessment system and someone with clout in the organisation has a bee in their bonnet concerning this style of risk assessment. The acop appendix provides some good broad bones but a little knowledge is a dangerous thing when used by people who do not understand what they are doing. I have concerns and issues with SSIP but they are minor compared to concerns with organisations such as outlined in the OP. Bob

terrypike I actually mean that ALL contractors etc will never be asseesed under SSIP as there are simply not enough assessors around to do the necessary volume of work. The number assessed will I guess peak at around 30% of the total number of construction involved organisations Bob