Rank: Forum user 
|
Hello everyone,
Situation: Principal Contractor X has awarded a package of works to Contractor A. Contractor A has subcontracted alot (lets say80%) of the package to Subcontractor B. Subcontractor B has provided RAMS for their work. Contractor A has submitted to Principal Contractor X RAMS for only 20% of their package of works, and haven't mentioned the other 80% subbed out to Subcontractor B, but have provided PCX with their subcontractors RAMS.
My thoughts are, that under CDM, Contractor A has a duty to plan, manage and monitor the construction works under their control. Within the 'plan' aspect comes the duty to risk assess, and clearly duties cannot be subcontracted out. I'm of the opinion that Contractor A must be providing full RAMS for 100% of their pacakge of works. Subcontractors B's RAMS show that Subcontrator B has risk assessed the tasks, but doesn't prove that Contractor A have risk assessed the tasks. And ultimately, (within their own duties) Contractor A are responsible for those under their control. If I work for Principal Contractor X - am I justified in asking Contractor A to provide me with RAMS for their whole package of works, and that, offcially, their subbies RAMS are basically for their eyes, not mine (obviously, I would keep a copy on site but you get the gist).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Dandal88,
This link to HSE page might be helpful to you.
Construction - Construction Design and Management summary of duties (hse.gov.uk)
It summarises the duty holder responsibilities. The Client is the one who must ensure Principal Contractor carries out their duties and PC must ensure Contractors carry out their duties. If you work for the PC then you must coordinate, cooperate, monitor etc and ensure those contractors do the same. It is all about ensuring H&S at each stage of the construction project.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
If A has assessed, agreed and endorsed the RAMS provided by B, then they have planned how the work will be done and I don't see what more they need to do. There wouldn't, for example, be any point in them rewriting B's RAMS in A's template.. A is providing RAMS for 100% of the work even if they don't have their letterhead on them all, by providing both A's RAMS and B's RAMS. By providing B's RAMS to X, A is implicitly endorsing them. You could of course ask them to confirm in writing that they have agreed them to get an explicit endorsement.
|
 3 users thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Hi
I would consider what the works are ? If Contractor A has subbed out a specialist task to Contractor B I would say that Contactor B is the company with the skills knowledge and experiance to assess the works / asociated risks and would be the contractor to produce the assessment being competance. If contractor A&B are competing the same task them a global RAMS for both from contractor A would suffice as they know the job, have the skills, and Contractor B would be under their control and safe system of work. Contractor A clearly still has responsibilities as they have engaged them, so providing the risks are recognised , removed or controlled by the competant person / company I would say they are covered.
|
3 users thanked simon1972 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Kate and simon1972, Thanks for your responses. My concern mainly lies in the fact there's nothing to prove that Contractor A has assessed, agreed or endorsed their subcontractors RAMS, they've just given them to us, so we have two seperate documents that don't acknowledge one another. Simon you are correct, they have subbed out the more specialist works, and the specialist subcontractor has assessed the risks involved in this. I think I would feel more comfortable if there was a link between the RAMS, or contractor A mentioned that X amount of the package is being subcontracted to specialists who have risk assessed the task blah blah blah. I appreciate there isn't a necessity for this, but I think it would create a clear conduit between the documents. The main thing is, tasks being carried out have been assessed and controls adopted, I'm more thinking of legal loophole avoidance if the unthinkable was to happen!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Dandal You are likely to need to look at what the Contract between X and A says. If the Contract says that A has to have their imprimatur on the risk assessment documentation for all works done by A or their supply chain, then that is what needs to happen. If the Contract says that A can't sub-contract it would be unusual, but the Contract might well say the A has to have systems in place to only sub-contract to those with appropriate skills, knowledge and experience and the Contract might also say that A has to have systems in place to check how their subbies behave - may or may not say that means vetting risk assessment documentation and then checking that what is says in the RAMS or whatever is put into practice. Along the way X needs to be confident about what A and thier subbies do will be appropriate. Whether that means implicitly or explicitly is somewhat immaterial except in terms of tick boxing. Ultimately, the subbie is far more likely to produce a "suitable and sufficient" assessment of the risks arising from their works than those who pay them to do something that is of such specialism that A can't do it themselves. P
|
1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
What a messy situation. The PC has the duty to plan manage and monitor the work therefore all contractors on the project have the duty to provide the PC with all required information. If a contractor sub contracts out then the subby must provide RAMS and whoever they go to the RAMS must end up with the PC. I will always require the sub contractors to complete a Competence Questionnair. Reason being in my opinion the PC must know who is working on the project and must also ensure competence. I get the RAMS direct from the sub contractors and liaise directly with them. I once worked as PC on a project dismantling a factory that contained all sorts of chemicals and included decommissioning an undergroung tank containing highly flammable liquid. The sub contractor filled in a competence questionnaire for me but told me he had no insurance, (one of the questions). He did get insurance but had I not had him complete the form he would have carried on without. Finger on the pulse at all times.
|
1 user thanked firesafety101 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
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.