Definition
Reviewing health and safety proposals within a contractor's tender means assessing the documentation submitted by tenderers to determine whether the contractor has the competence, resources, and plans to carry out the work safely. Under CDM 2015, Regulation 8, the client must not appoint a principal contractor who lacks the relevant skills, knowledge, and experience — and reviewing tender health and safety content is the primary mechanism for discharging that duty.
Why this matters for Health and Safety
- Level 2 application: reviewing tender submissions directly evidences applied health and safety competence in a role-specific context.
- CDM 2015 places a legal duty on the client — advised by the surveyor — to check contractor competence; a superficial review does not satisfy that duty.
- A weak proposal accepted at tender can translate into dangerous site practices; the review is a genuine risk management intervention.
- Assessors on construction, QS, and project management panels routinely probe how candidates evaluated contractor competence.
Key principles
What CDM 2015 requires from the contractor
The principal contractor must plan, manage, monitor, and coordinate the construction phase. Their tender submission should cover: an outline construction phase plan; health and safety policy; approach to producing RAMS; evidence of competence for the project's specific hazards; and HSE enforcement history, including any prohibition or improvement notices.
Evaluating method statements and risk assessments
At tender stage, detailed RAMS may not yet exist, but the submission should explain who produces them, how operatives will be briefed, and how changes to methods will trigger a review. A bare statement that "RAMS will be produced" is inadequate — the reviewer should look for evidence of a systematic, managed approach.
Assessing health and safety competence and resources
The reviewer should check: the qualifications of the site management team; whether a dedicated health and safety adviser is allocated; CHAS or SSIP membership; and recent HSE enforcement history. A contractor unable to demonstrate a credible health and safety team should not be recommended regardless of their commercial bid.
Scoring health and safety within the tender evaluation
Health and safety should be a weighted element of the evaluation matrix — typically 10–20% on publicly funded schemes. Criteria should be documented and applied before any commercial evaluation, creating a defensible audit trail and preventing health and safety standards being traded off against price.
Relevant RICS guidance and legislation
- Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015) — Regulation 8 sets out the client's competence duty when appointing contractors.
- HSE Approved Code of Practice L153 — guidance on assessing competence under CDM 2015; carries legal weight.
- Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 — the general duty framework within which all contractor activities must be conducted.
- Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 — the contractor's risk assessment duties that the tender must evidence plans to discharge.
- RICS Surveying Safely, 2nd edition (2018) — confirms the surveyor's role in advising clients on contractor competence.
Ethics and Rules of Conduct angle
Rule 5 of the RICS Rules of Conduct requires a genuinely rigorous review, not a perfunctory check. Rule 4 (responsibility) is engaged: an incompetent appointment that leads to injury is a direct failure of the duty to protect others. Rule 1 requires that a review recorded as complete was actually carried out. Financial pressure does not override the duty to recommend a safe contractor.
APC-style Q&As
Q (Level 1)What does CDM 2015 require a client to check before appointing a principal contractor?
Under Regulation 8, the client must be satisfied that the contractor has the skills, knowledge, experience, and organisational capability to carry out their functions safely. Reviewing the health and safety content of the tender submission is the primary means of doing so.
Q (Level 1)What documents would you expect in the health and safety section of a tender?
A robust submission would include: the contractor's health and safety policy; an outline construction phase plan; details of the proposed site management team; evidence of CHAS, SSIP, or equivalent membership; the approach to producing and reviewing RAMS; and HSE enforcement history.
Q (Level 2)How would you score a contractor's health and safety submission within a tender evaluation?
(example) On a school extension, health and safety was weighted at 15% of the total score. I prepared a matrix with five criteria — health and safety policy, outline construction phase plan, site management team competence, SSIP membership, and HSE enforcement history — each scored 0 to 5 before commercial bids were opened. One tenderer scored zero on enforcement history, having received a prohibition notice in the previous two years; I recommended they not be shortlisted despite a competitive price.
Q (Level 2)A tender submission states that "RAMS will be produced before work starts." Is this adequate?
No — a bare statement is not evidence of a managed approach. I would require the submission to explain who is responsible for producing RAMS, how operatives will be briefed, how changes to methods will trigger a review, and to provide an example RAMS. Without this, it is impossible to assess the contractor's health and safety management systems.
Q (Level 3)The preferred tenderer on a high-value refurbishment has the lowest price but a weak health and safety submission — no dedicated health and safety manager and a recent HSE improvement notice. How do you advise the client?
I would advise the client in writing that the submission fails the CDM 2015 Regulation 8 competence requirement: the absence of a dedicated health and safety manager is disproportionate for a high-value refurbishment, and a recent improvement notice is a material indicator of deficient management. The client should seek written clarification and evidence that the notice is closed out. If the contractor cannot respond adequately, I would recommend the next ranked tenderer regardless of price differential, and document all advice. Recommending an incompetent contractor exposes the client to criminal liability under CDM 2015 and the adviser to civil liability and RICS disciplinary action.