As a H&S professional in construction I am used to having my documentation scrutinsed by others outside of my organisation. With my RAMS for example. Most of the time I am happy (well maybe not happy as such) to make the changes asked for as they are usually minor and sometimes arguably information that I don't really feel need to be on a RAMS but I include anyway. And to be fair on occaision (though less as time goes on) I am required to make changes which actually benefit my RAMS and I adopt for all future RAMS going forward.

However, recently, I have had a busy time and am finding the level of scrutiny to be ridiculous. I have found myself needing to add things like break times, humidity, etc.

I am interested to know from others what parts of their documents are sacrosanct and they would defend even to the point of losing a contract, and also what ridiculous amendments have be asked for?

Edited by user 20 June 2017 13:56:44(UTC)  | Reason: Grammar

I act mainly as Client but try to take a balanced view, after all its the contractors risk except where it could impact my staff. All I really want is the RAMS to include the site/location specific elements showing me that the contractor is aware of these and I am not just looking at the rehashed/tippexed RAMS for the last job, and lets be honest we see still see enough of them!

If it is glaringly generic and not reflective of the work site there are two choices: provide a suitable document OR don't work here

I have been very impressed with those who actually attend site before the works, take notes and then reflect this local information in the documents they provide rather than the generic rubbish pushed by contract managers

Originally Posted by: WatsonD

It is frustrating that I have to curtail my management decisions and documents to fit others. I guess this is probably particular to construction, rather than other industries.

Nope!

I think I have posted this previously but one well know organisation acting as PC was asked to change their methodology in the Method Statement by the client which they did. However on site they carried on with the original methodology despite changing their MS. Unfortunately a fatality took place and in court the PC was questioned why they did not carry out the work as per their MS....I don't think the change in methodology had a significant impact - just as well! It would have been far more interesting if as a result of the client's request this had been a contributory cause of the fatal incident - it will happen one day. Food for thought?

Originally Posted by: RayRapp

I think I have posted this previously but one well know organisation acting as PC was asked to change their methodology in the Method Statement by the client which they did. However on site they carried on with the original methodology despite changing their MS. Unfortunately a fatality took place and in court the PC was questioned why they did not carry out the work as per their MS....I don't think the change in methodology had a significant impact - just as well! It would have been far more interesting if as a result of the client's request this had been a contributory cause of the fatal incident - it will happen one day. Food for thought?

Thanks Ray, I think you have just hit the nail on the head as regards to my frustration.

Originally Posted by: Ron Hunter

Method Statements have grown from the original purpose of supporitng a demonstration of competence and contractual compliance at tender stage and have now become the norm at construction phase for many.

The question arises: If the MS serves to demonstrate the competence of the contractor, does asking him to change it make him any more competent?

If your not happy with any material content in your appointment's MS, then you shouldn't have appointed him!

Ron, whilst the MS is a good indication of the competence of the contractor it is not the only evidence. Sometimes a MS just needs a tweak, something which may have been overlooked, or a section which is not relevant to the task, etc. That said, I have seen some pretty awful documents which do seriously question the competency of the contractor...or perhaps the author.  

OOh don't get me started - bane of my life at the moment.  RAMS that are not for the job they've quoted for, RAMs that suddenly pull a MEWP out of thin air like a rabbit out of a hat when it isn't addressed anywhere except for in a throw away line in an MS.  Stating that an abrasive wheel is to be used (big hot work issue in my situation) when it should have read cordless drill, no work at height plan or rescue plan when they have stated they will be using safety harnesses (incidently with no safe attachment point in relation to the work) and finally the project manager totally refusing to come to site to look at what has to be done so that we can between us work out a safe way of doing the job.  And you get fussed when someone asks you to change something?  I'm stuck with these jokers due to a bigger contractual issue but I am making waves.  The quality of the RAMs I have seen in the past few weeks is so poor that I have stopped jobs from happening altogether and the response I have received from the contractor has to be witnessed to be believed that being the case I will continue to stop work until they get the message and do the job properly.