Rank: Super forum user 
|
Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of - etc. etc. (The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations).
Is it acceptable for a sub contractor to use a Principal Contractor's risk assessments instead of carrying out a risk assessment for persons working for him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I guess if the subbie has considered the content and decided that the assessment is relevant (s&s) and that they work to that assessment or the resulting SSOW/method statement then why not? If on the other hand assumptions have been made......then probably not. Of course the PC would also need to have no objections to its use by the subbie.
I have no idea of modern practice in Construction but it was once very common for the body that is now referred to as the PC to provide a strong guiding hand on risk assessments as they had the benefit of more qualified people and could establish better overall standards of safe working as a result. That was, however, all before the modern craze for confusing risk assessment with checking for safe working practices at the coal face, thus it may well be different today.
P48
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Chris - if there was an accident I would suggest the sub contractor would be charged with failing to produce his own assessment for the tasks his people are exposed to.
So in answer to your question - I would say no.
There is no reason however, why the sub contractor could not be actively involved in the assessment by the PC and can show this was actually done and communicated it to his people.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks Pete and David,
Funny how risk assessment always gets plenty of replies but in this case two opposite views?
Personally I agree with David but would like some more views please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The ratio of experts to opinions is not linear. LOL
The point I tried to make in rather more words than I probably needed was-
It would seem perfectly acceptable for the subbie to "adopt" the RA as the one relevant to that specific activity; it would not be acceptable for the subbie to say " I don't need one I use the PC one".
P48
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
AS I know with carrying out numerous construction site audits & inspection there can be vast amounts of RAMS to proof; as long as activates on site are risk assessed (documented) and capture all significant hazards with suitable controls then I'm content.
I have never heard any other H&S Manager/Advisor/Officer stop sub-contractor'(s) jobs because the employer never carried out the RAMS (I know this is about risk assessment).
As long as the sub-contractor is satisfied the PC has completed a suitable & sufficient risk assessment then 'Jobs Agood'in'
For a PC to complete a risk assessment (gratis) then what sub-contractor is going to turn that down?
My company used to charge £75 per hour for me to complete RAMS (costly business)
Chris enjoy the experience of undertaking these site inspection and stop doubting yourself so much.
To me Management regs (employer to complete risk assessments) can be splitting hairs at times.
If risk assessment(s) are there, suitable & sufficient then what the problem.
Regards
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
ChrisBurns wrote:Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of - etc. etc. (The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations).
Is it acceptable for a sub contractor to use a Principal Contractor's risk assessments instead of carrying out a risk assessment for persons working for him?
In my understanding any sub contractor should carry out his own risk assessment that will be approved by principal contractor, or they can do it together as sometimes risk assessment provided by principal contractor is now deeply understood by sub contractor as they might have a different method statements. The bottom line is that risk assessment should be agreed by both parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Risk Assessments should be site and task specific, how can using someone elses Risk Assessment be specific to anothers tasks, something must differ and therefore would not be covered.
Everyone should carry out their own assessments of Risk, if they are not capable, then in my opinion, they should employ the services of someone who is, at least that way they should be certain that their activities are covered and if there were an accident, so would their company be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Management regs
Regulation 7 Health and safety assistance
The PC has been used as the competent person to carry out the risk assessment.
What's the problem with this
Reg 7 allows assistance to complete risk assessments etc for the employer if He/She not competent to
complete themselves.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris
Every employer is required to be responsible for the risks to which they expose their employees and the control of those risks. If the PC insists on the use of their RAs by the sub/c then the PC has assumed full repsonsibility for the risks and the failures, no matter how these arise.
If the sub/c uses the PCs assessments for ease and does not consider the assessment in the context of the specific task(s) he is undertaking then there is a potential MHSWR breach in addition to any failure responsibility. The PC will again be responsible as controller of the site.
If the sub/c undertakes his own assessment then he is responsible only should it be found to be inadequate after a failure. The PC may or may not have to accept some degree of responsibility dependent on the nature of the failure and the specifics of the accident/incident. From the PCs perspective it is far preferable for the task specific assessment to be undertaken by the sub/c
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Bob, I think you've summed up almost perfectly.
The danger with the PC's risk assessments being used by the Subby is that the Subby does not take any interest in the risks expecting the PC to have covered them all. There is a danger of holes appearing that may not be dealt with.
In this case the Subby is not too clever at risk assessment so has taken the PC's documents on board.
There is the other issue that he may have read the documents but does not necessarily understand the content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Chris
The reality is that it is common practice in construction for sub-contractors to use the PC's risk assessments, particularly where the work is generically orientated as opposed to some specialist work. Lets's be honest about this, most RAs are generic, cut and pasted when required. Nothing wrong in that either provided the activities cover all the significant risks. However, if the PC allows the subbie to use their RAs, then I would strongly recommend that the subbie signs the RA as evidence that they have conducted an RA, otherwise as Bobs suggests above, the risk, in theory at least, lies with the PC. Who incidentally, is responsible for safety under the CDM Regs and therefore cannot easily transfer liability. Finally, the PC should review and approve the subbies Method Statement/RA anyway because of their position within the risk chain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I wonder how many PC's there are out there that are willing to carry out risk assessments on behalf of sub contractors?
My feeling is it could be dangerous to rely on the PC as the Subby could then become complacent and expect all risks associated with the subby to be controlled by the PC.
CDM regs are vague about this issue but do require the contractor to "promptly inform the PC about risks to other site workers" for example. If the contractor is not involved in the risk assessment process these risks could be ignored.
I have just started advising a small contractor who is presently on site with 9 workers. In the near future they will be recruiting a further 20 workers as another phase begins. Are we to believe that the PC will undertake risk assessments for this contractor as they have in the past?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Most PC`s Ive dealt with insist on us carrying out our own risk assesments and submitting them for approval prior to undertaking any site activities, however on review once or twice ive noticed mistakes ive made in the RAs which nobody else picked up on, so it begs the question does anybody actually read them
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I don't think there is anything malicious about subbies plagiarsing RAs, just pragmatics. Normally subbies produce their own RAs via a method statement, but on occiasions the PC will provide the documentation or amend it in order to get the job done. Some of the RAs are awful with basic errors and typos. Yes, I agree that RAs are rarely read by anyone other than the author, it is another case of 'paper safety'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I attended a meting last year with a client of mine and two HSE Inspectors. One Inspector advised the client to view subby's risk assessments ahead of the project, thoroughly read them, red pen areas not acceptable and send them back for editing by the writer.
No mention there of the PC doing them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris
The HSE are very good at preaching and as I mentioned before, it is often about pragmatics, something some inspectors may not fully appreciate. Assuming the RAs are signed off by the sub-contractor it is their document, regardless of where they or how they got them - job done. If we all held our hands up and admitted copy and pasting how may would be sent to jail? Anyway, the practice is not illegal, so I fail to see what the problem is.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I haven't said anything about cut/copy/paste as I know we all do that.
I even advocate using generic risk assessments as a guide to site specific assessments.
This topic question is about a sub contractor using PC's risk assessments.
The subby does not have a copy of the assessments, I will see what they are like when I go to site next week and report back here - one way or another.
Thanks to all - I appreciate you taking the time here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris,
Some interesting developments since I posted last week. To me it is still as simple as recognising that risk assessment is supposed to identify the hazards and risk controls required to get the work done as safely as possible. Where the input comes from is irrelevant as long as:
-the employer responsible for those affected by the activity agrees and accepts the risk assessment as defining the required risk controls.
-all parties are satisfied as to the competence of those writing the risk assessment and/or are clear as to where they are relying upon specified expertise in identifying specialist hazards and risk controls.
-those charged with the duty to co-ordinate activity have done so
The duty to ensure work is completed within those controls is a part of the overall picture but is a separate matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
If one accepts that a basic principle and required outcome of ANY risk assessment is to determine the answer to the question: "Am I (the employer) doing enough to control the risk, or should I (the employer) be doing more", then how can I (the employer) 'use' someone else's assessment, other than as a basis perhaps to inform my own?
So there's the rub. All these R/As on Site. All copied over from a folder of bland generics, issued with only the Site address amended. In the main, adding no value whatsoever. Control measures usually limited to dealing with acute risks, with no consideration whatosever given to chronic issues (the Project will be long finished before any signs or symptoms appear!). Maybe 3 out of the 5 Steps completed.
So why not pass them around freely? It isn't as if they have any value!
Give me competent people and a Site-specific Method Statement any day.
Scrutiny of R/As belongs at PQQ stage, not on Site.
If this subbie is on Site with no R/As etc. then on what basis was his competency determined before appointment?
Are we still winging it out there?
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
ChrisBurns wrote:Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of - etc. etc. (The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations).
Is it acceptable for a sub contractor to use a Principal Contractor's risk assessments instead of carrying out a risk assessment for persons working for him?
If the subbie finds that the content are suitable and sufficient for the tasks he is carrying out then why not, as long as he has consulted with both the PC and his workforce then there shouldn't be a problem even in the case of an accident.
Why re invent the wheel if the R/A meets the needs and required standards. I would suggest that there are lots of people out there using information recieved from someone else and then if required just tweeked to meet our own needs and if it didn't need tweeking we have just cut and pasted onto our own paperwork.
If it meets the requirements of the workforce and legislation then whats the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Further to my earlier reply, the PC expects everyone to follow his assessments anyway i.e. when entering virtually every site there is a notice telling you what must be worn 'Hard hats must be worn at all times' Why, if you are working on a scaffold with nothing above you 'only sky' what will hit you on the head. But if you don't have it on then you are often removed from site. So maybe it would be better to ask the PC what he expects and then go along with him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
ron hunter wrote:If one accepts that a basic principle and required outcome of ANY risk assessment is to determine the answer to the question: "Am I (the employer) doing enough to control the risk, or should I (the employer) be doing more", then how can I (the employer) 'use' someone else's assessment, other than as a basis perhaps to inform my own?
So there's the rub. All these R/As on Site. All copied over from a folder of bland generics, issued with only the Site address amended. In the main, adding no value whatsoever. Control measures usually limited to dealing with acute risks, with no consideration whatosever given to chronic issues (the Project will be long finished before any signs or symptoms appear!). Maybe 3 out of the 5 Steps completed.
So why not pass them around freely? It isn't as if they have any value!
Give me competent people and a Site-specific Method Statement any day.
Scrutiny of R/As belongs at PQQ stage, not on Site.
If this subbie is on Site with no R/As etc. then on what basis was his competency determined before appointment?
I think the above sums it up exactly, I thought the whole purpose of RAMS was that the person writing and issueing them had taken the time to look around the site and job he/she was writing about that is where in my opinion generic RAMS fall down, I for one wouldn't dream of writing a RAMS unless I had been to the site and knew exactly what the job entailed and then briefed the workforce on the RAMS.
Paul.
Are we still winging it out there?
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think Ron's post has summed up the position very nicely and broadly reflects most of the opinions on the subject. Not sure there is anything else to discuss. We could equally discuss the content and quality of construction phase health and safety plans which are normally plagiarised, cut and pasted, copied and hardly read by anyone other than the author.
I don't know what RAMs has to do with construction risk assements by sub-contractors. A facet of the RA process granted, but surely not relevant to the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
As a site carpenter for over 30 years and the last 20 of those mainly as a sub contractor I should be deeply hurt that the H&S professionals consider us to be at best a little lax over RAs but truthfully I know I am in a minority and most s/cs wouldnt know RAs or method statements if you beat them around the head with them. that is why it is essential that pcs employ s/cs who can demonstrate they have a proven record for doing them The main contractor cant be expected to know every aspect of every trade that comes onto their site especially with the advances in building methods and materials it is essential that s/cs do their own RA to ensure their duty of care to their employees
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Shinerx - thanks for your input, I'm especially interested in your point that you are in the minority. I wonder how many site workers like yourself actually know this forum exists?
Good for you putting your view forward.
Perhaps you wouldn't mind giving a view about the health and safety advisers you have met during your many years experience as a sub contractor. I have a very thick skin :-)
Further - your point re PC's employing S/C's who demonstrate their proven record, that is of course an important element in this discussion. If a S/C is unable to do their own risk assessments what else, health and safety, are they unable to do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I have just returned from a contractors forum and believe it or not, the Client's representative rolled out a new training and competency management system, which will/may include providing contractors with a suite of generic risk assessments! Well, I could have fallen of my chair. I can't name the Client, but suffice to say they are a major player in construction. Playing 'Devil's Advocate', I asked the Client what was the thinking behind these generic RAs. The answer - to make it a more simple process for contractors to comply with the company's infrastructure and procedures. So, make of it as you will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Isn't that just excellent!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Well good on them as long as the R/A's are specifc to the tasks and the all information is communicated to the subbie then there shouldn't be a problem. When someone comes onto our site they may have there own R/A's for the specific task but they also need to be fully aware of ours and to comply with them. Often when a small company 'one man band etc' come to access work they will often ask for assistance in the completion of the R/A, SSOW etc as quite often they have not been asked to produce them. We are always willing to assist and it assures use that they are fully aware of what is expected of tem whilst on site. I did say 'one man band' but it is surprising still how many employees from contractors turn up and when asked about the content of R/A's, SSOW etc they haven't got a clue what your talking about as their company has never communicated the content ot them.
It's all a paper excercise to a lot of companies and unless you take note the workforce will work inm the usnal haphazard way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In my experience the rolling out of RAs to the workforce is often poorly implemented. I think the problem is exasperated by the fact there are often too many RAs and most of the tasks these guys do everyday - sucking eggs springs to mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Your earlier post is rather worrying Ray. Any chance you can perhaps influence the client to translate his intention into a "client's rule set" or "Standard Requirements" as opposed to distributing 'Risk Assessments' to all and sundry?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ron, why would I wish to influence the client?
The client already has a very substantial contractors quality, environment, health and safety procedure which is aimed primarily at construction activities. By providing generic RAs to contractors (probably SMEs) it will aid contractors in preparing project documentation in the form of method statements, RAs, lift plans etc. Most large contractors already have a suite of RAs and therefore they would not be much use to them.
It has already been commented by you and others that the RA process has become little more than a cut and paste exercise to ensure compliance with legislation. I guess the Client's actions in providing a suite of generic RAs merely confirms the futility on the RA process. I also agree with your earlier comment, 'give me a site specific method statement and competent people' anyday over a worthless paper exercise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I suppose if all contractors followed the same format for risk assessments it makes the task of checking easier for the PC.
I visit sites where any number of contractors are present and wading through some risk assessments is not an easy task.
What's wrong with the HSE recommended system of 5 steps to risk assessment and the risk assessment written on one sheet of paper? That's what I do and when I show that system to people it all becomes clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
RayRapp wrote:I have just returned from a contractors forum and believe it or not, the Client's representative rolled out a new training and competency management system, which will/may include providing contractors with a suite of generic risk assessments! Well, I could have fallen of my chair. I can't name the Client, but suffice to say they are a major player in construction. Playing 'Devil's Advocate', I asked the Client what was the thinking behind these generic RAs. The answer - to make it a more simple process for contractors to comply with the company's infrastructure and procedures. So, make of it as you will.
Interesting that Ray, everytime we have to submit RAMS to Principal Contractors (and we deal with the majority of the big boys) they all stipulate not to be generic and site specific. If they start offering generic ones to people i can see a lot being missed, although since we deal with site fencing most of the time we're first on site so our hazards don't include the site being open and in constant use etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I believe you and I are on the same wavelength Ray.
CHAS and other PQ systems would not look favourably on this widespread adoption of R/As produced by others! By all means let's have Clients establishing rules and standards, but giving out Risk Assessments is akin to telling the contractor how to do the job, and will surely lead to legal and contractual pitfalls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Turned into quite an interesting thread.
Hally
I think there is a difference between generic RAs and method statements/RAMs/Lift Plans, albeit sometimes quite subtle. For instance, a generic RA might include working with electrical tools. This can be transfered into any method statement which includes this type of activity. There are of course many situations where a generic method statement can be used without comprimising safety. That said, some generic method statements will not be suitable because of the local working environment eg working over or adjacent to water. Its horses for courses...
Ron
I think the issue of plagiarising RAs is largely a moral dilemma as opposed to any legal breach. Provided the RAs are suitable and sufficient blah, blah, then I do not see a real problem. Anyway, the reality is the practice goes on and I suspect it will continue either subversively or otherwise. Perhaps one day someone like the HSE might do some proper research into the pros and cons of h&s legislation, that is, what works and what does not. Roll on Eutopia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Don't know about this "roll on eutopia". I favour Gillette. Occasionally Sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
RayRapp wrote:Turned into quite an interesting thread.
Hally
I think there is a difference between generic RAs and method statements/RAMs/Lift Plans, albeit sometimes quite subtle. For instance, a generic RA might include working with electrical tools. This can be transfered into any method statement which includes this type of activity. There are of course many situations where a generic method statement can be used without comprimising safety. That said, some generic method statements will not be suitable because of the local working environment eg working over or adjacent to water. Its horses for courses...
Ron
I think the issue of plagiarising RAs is largely a moral dilemma as opposed to any legal breach. Provided the RAs are suitable and sufficient blah, blah, then I do not see a real problem. Anyway, the reality is the practice goes on and I suspect it will continue either subversively or otherwise. Perhaps one day someone like the HSE might do some proper research into the pros and cons of h&s legislation, that is, what works and what does not. Roll on Eutopia.
Ray, i agree as we have a large Risk Assessment that covers all of our works to include electrical, fork trucks, factory, warehousing etc...
Will indeed be interesting to see what comes of anything, if anything happens of course.
Ron, i'd never ever trust anyone with the name Gillette (spot the Liverpool season ticket holder...) be they an owner of a football club (badly) or the company who make blades. I'm a safety razor bloke...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.