IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Principal Contractor reviewing subcontractors RAMS
Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi all,
Looking a bit of help. For me it is common practice that as principal contractor all subcontractor risk assessments and method statements are reviewed. I have started a new job and I am going to have to support this with evidence of reasoning as to why. Could i ask if anyone could direct me to specific legislation or legal cases which clearly demonstrate this. I would also be interested in others opinions and how they go about this.
Many thanks in advance
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Most of regulation 11, CDM. Would you be acting as Principle Designer? As a contractor sending teams to construction sites, I have no quarms sending our RAMS to the contractor managing operations. I don't think you need to justify it. I would just request this of all contractors working on site. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/51/regulation/11/made
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Hi
It's a big question you ask as there will be many different angles why a PC will want to review RAMS, or not in some cases, where the sub-contractor adopts the RAMS of the PC. As I see it the main reason why it makes good sense to review sub-contractors RAMS is, to ensure the methodology is safe and practical, which includes how they intend to do the work, supervise, protect their personnel, your staff, visitors, etc. In other words, the sub-contractor has evidenced they have a SSOW to carry out the task. The reality is that very few Method Statements are followed verbatim, but the point is, your sub-contractor has articulated they can do the job properly by submitting their RAMS for review. As a PC you will also have the opportunity to ask the sub-contractor to amend or add to their submitted RAMS before approval.
Now for the legislation bit. There are a number of different pieces of legislation and legal cases which may apply and I don't intend to go through them all. So, as Principal Contractor you are responsible for site safety and security pursuant to CDM Regs. Therefore you need to ensure those working on your site have had a proper induction and to all reasonableness they are able and competent. You are not expected to closely supervise sub-contractors, however you will need to provide support and monitor their performance whilst they are on your site.
I am sure others will add to the bits I have missed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Firstly, heres some examples of legal cases: https://app.croneri.co.u...-arrangements?product=21
Secondly, I don't agree that CDM Reg 11 is the way to go. That focuses on a Principal Designers responsibility, and it is the Principal Contractor who is taking the lead here.
I would look to Regulation 13 instead, and specifically L153, which states:
Planning
123 Planning must take into account the risks to all those affected – workers, members of the public and the client’s employees, if working in an occupied premises. It must cover:
(a) the risks likely to arise during construction work;
(b) the measures needed to protect those affected by planning to provide:
(i) and maintain the right plant and equipment;
(ii) the necessary information, instruction and training; and
(iii) the right level of supervision;
(c) the resources (including time) needed to organise and deliver the work, including its management, monitoring and coordination.
Managing
125 To manage the construction phase, principal contractors must ensure that:
(a) those engaged to carry out the work are capable of doing so;
(b) effective, preventative and protective measures are put in place to control the risks; and
(c) the right plant, equipment and tools are provided to carry out the work involved.
The above (particularly that which I have highlighted) shows that adequate checks need to be made by the PC. RAMS are an accepted process The induction is important but relies on you imparting information to the operatives about your site and your rules and practices.
Edited by user 16 March 2017 08:28:51(UTC)
| Reason: Grammar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Agreed Watson, Reg 13 is the one to look at.
In terms of a case study, I can't give you a link yet as the prosecution has not been completed yet, however I was working with a Principal Contractor following a death on their site a couple of years ago. The operative in question was working for one their sub-contractors on site, a crucial element of Risk Assessment had been missed by all and ultimately was the main contributing factor in the incident occurings. As such the Principal Contractor has been cited under Reg13 for not reviewing the RAMS properly for the works activity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I would agree with what RayRapp and WatsonD have said, were i to add anything, it wuld be that alot of sub-contractors have good RAMS, however you may need to ensure that they have added any site specific information that maybe required, ie - the RAMS as thet are are good for the job, but on your site/area of work there may be hazards that their (for want of a better phrase) 'generic' RAMS hasn't taken into account. This is where the good communication comes in, and if sufficient time has been allowed you can liaise with the respective sub-contractors accordingly - to help them and in turn help you when it comes to reviewing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi all,
thanks very much for everyones input.
It is much appreciated.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Principal Contractor reviewing subcontractors RAMS
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.