By Shruti Verman | CertIOSH
4 Min read

Every principal contractor I have worked with has said some version of the same thing: “We have a process for managing subcontractors.” And most of them genuinely believe it. The paperwork exists. The pre-qualification questionnaire was completed. The induction was signed off. And then something goes wrong on site, and when you trace it back, the subcontractor had no real understanding of the site rules, their RAMS were copied from another job, and nobody had checked whether they actually had the competence they claimed on paper.

Here is where it consistently falls apart — and what to do about it.

1. Pre-qualification that ticks boxes, not risks

Most subcontractor pre-qualification processes ask the right questions on paper: Do you have a health and safety policy? Do you carry out risk assessments? Have you had any prosecutions in the last three years?
The problem is that answers are self-reported and rarely verified. A subcontractor can answer “yes” to all of the above and still turn up on site with no meaningful safety management in place. Pre-qualification is a starting point, not a guarantee.
What works better: Ask for evidence, not just answers. Request a copy of their actual H&S policy, a sample risk assessment for a task relevant to your project, and their accident/incident record for the last two years. Review these before they set foot on site — not as a formality, but as a genuine competence check.

2. RAMS that nobody reads

Method statements and risk assessments submitted by subcontractors are often generic documents pulled from a folder, lightly edited with the project name dropped in. They describe the task in broad terms, list every hazard imaginable, and specify controls so vague they are meaningless in practice.
The bigger problem is that even when RAMS are reviewed and approved, the workers actually doing the job have often never seen them.
What works better: Make RAMS review a two-way conversation. When you approve a method statement, ask the subcontractor supervisor to walk you through how they will brief their team. Make it a condition of starting work that the operatives can explain the key controls in plain language — not recite the document, but demonstrate they understand it.

3. Inductions that inform but don’t land

Site inductions cover a lot of ground: site rules, emergency procedures, welfare facilities, permit to work systems. They are often delivered in a room, via a presentation, to a group of people who have just travelled to a new site and are thinking about the job ahead.
Research consistently shows that retention from a single passive induction is low. Yet most sites treat the signed induction sheet as evidence that the information has been received and understood.
What works better: Keep the formal induction short and focused on the non-negotiables. Then use the first day on site — while work is setting up — to do a walk-and-talk with the subcontractor supervisor. Show them the hazards specific to where they will be working. That conversation will stick far longer than a slide deck.

4. Assuming someone else is checking

On larger sites with multiple subcontractors, there is a real risk that everyone assumes someone else is monitoring safety performance. The principal contractor assumes the package manager is watching. The package manager assumes the site manager has it covered. The site manager assumes the HSE Advisor will pick it up on their next inspection.
Nobody is actively watching.
What works better: Assign clear, named ownership for each subcontractor package. That person is responsible for regular safety interactions — not just paperwork reviews, but actual conversations on the tools. Brief, frequent, and informal beats occasional and formal every time.

5. Not acting on early warning signs

Near misses, unsafe behaviours, and minor non-compliances are often logged but not acted on with any urgency when they involve subcontractors. There is sometimes a reluctance to challenge a subcontractor — particularly a specialist or one that is behind programme — because the commercial relationship feels fragile.
This is how serious incidents happen. The warning signs were there, but the pressure to keep things moving overrode the obligation to stop and address them.
What works better: Be clear from the outset — in the contract, in the pre-start meeting, and in the induction — that safety non-compliances will be addressed immediately and that programme pressure is never a reason to bypass controls. Then follow through consistently. Subcontractors who know the site team means it will behave accordingly.

Managing subcontractor safety well is not complicated, but it does require genuine attention — not just administration. The paper trail matters, but it is the conversations, the site presence, and the willingness to act early that actually keep people safe.

Shruti Verman is an HSE consultant and NVQ assessor with four years of UK construction site experience.
Evoris Global Consulting provides HSE advisory, auditing, and training services to organisations in the UK and India.
Get in touch: hello@evorisglobal.com