What this is
What is a contractor equipment verification?
What is a contractor equipment verification?
A host-side check, made before contractor plant and tools may work, that each item is identified, tagged, in inspection date, supported by a certificate that has been seen rather than promised, sound in condition, and suitable for both the task and the environment. It records a result per item, pass, pass with conditions or fail, and names who verified it and who from the contractor stood beside them.
Which equipment does it cover?
Everything the contractor brings that could hurt someone or contaminate product. The repeating Equipment section names the vehicle classes explicitly, from forklifts and pallet trucks to cleaning machines and access platforms, and the Specific categories section carries the statutory families: electrical test, lifting certification, fall protection, access equipment, gas detection calibration and the materials rule for food areas.
Is this the same as the contractor's own inspection?
No, and it does not replace it. The contractor or the hire company owns the maintenance regime and the statutory thorough examination. This record is the host's check that the regime produced something current, and that the item in front of you is the item the paperwork describes. Reading a thorough examination report is not performing one; as a gate rather than a substitute, it is the most productive twenty minutes of the mobilisation.
Scope
When is a contractor equipment verification required?
This record sits at the front of an engagement, alongside induction and access authorisation, and it examines objects rather than people or methods. Its common misuse is being stretched to cover the operator, the work or the contractor's management system, each of which has its own template.
Use this template when
- A contractor is mobilising and bringing plant, tools or protective equipment onto site for the first time
- Equipment is swapped or added mid-engagement, including hire replacements arriving without notice
- A periodic check falls due on a long engagement where the original items are still in service
- A site safety audit or an incident has raised doubt about a specific contractor item
- Work is moving into an area with its own equipment rules: cold store, wash-down, open product or covered process
Do not use it for
- Verifying the operator rather than the machine, which is Contractor Competency Verification (CON-010) and a separate refusal reason at the gate
- Performing the statutory examination, which is a competent person's duty under LOLER reg.9 and cannot be discharged by reading a tag
- Auditing the contractor's own inspection and maintenance system, which is the Contractor Documentation Audit (CON-026)
- Judging how the work is carried out once it starts, which is the Contractor Site Safety Audit (CON-025) whose ID this record links to
- Inspecting your own plant, which belongs to the site equipment inspection programme in KnowMaintain, on different intervals with different owners
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 45001 cl.8.1.4 requirements does this satisfy?
Equipment law is written about the equipment, not about whose name is on the side of it. Suitability, maintenance and inspection duties attach to whoever has control of work equipment to any extent, and food schemes go further, controlling what may be carried into a production area at all.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.4.2 | Coordinate with contractors so that the requirements of the OH&S management system are met before and during the work | Header |
| PUWER 1998 reg.4 | Work equipment must be suitable for the purpose for which it is used and for the conditions of use | Equipment |
| PUWER 1998 reg.6 | Inspection at suitable intervals by a competent person, with evidence of the last inspection available and the result recorded | Equipment |
| OSHA 29 CFR 1910.178(q)(7) | Powered industrial trucks examined before being placed in service and at least daily, and withdrawn where the examination shows an adverse condition | Equipment |
| LOLER 1998 reg.9 | Thorough examination of lifting equipment and accessories at statutory intervals, with the report available to the person using it | Specific categories |
| Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 reg.4(2) | Electrical systems and equipment maintained so as to prevent danger, which for portable equipment means an inspection and test regime | Specific categories |
| BRCGS Food Safety Issue 9 cl.4.9 | Control of physical contamination, including the materials of tools and equipment permitted in open product areas | Specific categories |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Monitor and measure whether operational controls are effective, which for a gate means knowing what it stopped | Result |
What it does not cover
- Contractor Competency Verification (CON-010), which evidences that the person operating the item is trained and authorised; a compliant truck with an unlicensed driver is a compliant truck.
- The statutory thorough examination itself, which under LOLER reg.9 must be carried out by a competent person on a defined interval and cannot be replaced by a host walkaround.
- The owner's maintenance regime, which under PUWER reg.5 keeps equipment in efficient working order between examinations; this record is a snapshot of one morning.
- Task authorisation, which is the permit system, checked by the Contractor Permit Compliance Check (CON-036); passing a machine at the gate authorises nothing at the work point.
- Your own equipment inspection programme, which covers site-owned plant on its own intervals; this template deliberately looks only at what the contractor brought.
Global
Contractor Equipment Verification requirements by country
Every regime imposes inspection and suitability duties on equipment at work. What differs is how directly the duty reaches a host who did not buy the machine.
29 CFR 1910.178(q)(7), 1910.334(a), 1926.404(b)(1)(iii); OSHA Multi-Employer Citation Policy CPL 02-00-124
Equipment-specific examination duties, plus a citation policy reaching the controlling employer on a multi-employer site.
OSHA can cite the host for a contractor's defective equipment where the host could reasonably have detected and corrected the condition, which is exactly the ground a verification record covers.
PUWER 1998 regs 3(3), 4, 5 and 6; LOLER 1998 reg.9; Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 reg.4
PUWER duties fall on any person with control of work equipment to any extent; lifting equipment carries statutory examination intervals; electrical equipment must be maintained against danger.
Regulation 3(3) is the sentence that matters: a site controlling the work is not a bystander to the plant working on its floor, however clearly the contract allocates the machine.
Directive 2009/104/EC on the use of work equipment, articles 4 and 4a
Work equipment must be suitable for the work and inspected by competent persons, with records kept and available.
National implementations set the intervals, and the expected evidence is the inspection record travelling with the equipment, which is what a host should be asking to see.
Provincial OHS regulations; CSA B335 for lift trucks; prime contractor duties
Pre-use inspection and maintenance duties sit with the employer operating the equipment, coordinated by the prime contractor.
Prime contractor status makes the host answerable for contractor plant it allowed to work, so the verification is the artefact that answers the question.
Model WHS Regulations Part 5.1 (plant) and Schedule 5 (registered plant)
Duties on plant cover inspection, maintenance and, for listed items, registration; overlapping PCBUs share the duty.
Registered plant arriving without its registration and examination record should not start, and shared duties mean both the contractor and the host answer for it.
ISO 45001 cl.8.1.4; GFSI-benchmarked schemes (BRCGS cl.4.7 and 4.9)
Contractor arrangements must be verified before and during the work; food schemes control what may be taken into production areas.
The food schemes bite harder than safety law here: a wooden ladder or an absorbent tool handle in an open product area is a finding in its own right, whatever its inspection status.
How to complete it
How to complete a contractor equipment verification, step by step
The form will happily produce a ninety-four percent on four answered questions about two machines. The judgement calls are about denominators, about who answers which question, and about what a conditional pass commits anyone to.
The record carries Items Checked in the Header and Items Assessed, Items Failed and Items Rejected in Result, and they are not the same population. Items Checked counts equipment; Items Assessed counts checkpoints and explicitly excludes anything marked Not applicable. Pick one convention, write it into the programme, and read Score Percent only alongside Completeness Percent.
This is the one question the contractor cannot answer and the one most often delegated to them, because they are holding the pen and the host has been called away. Only the site knows the wash-down regime, the chill hall, the allergen boundaries and the plant room with an ammonia inventory. Marginal is a legitimate answer, and it obliges you to write the condition that makes it acceptable.
The form offers the option and gives you nowhere to state the condition, which is how conditional passes quietly become passes. If an item goes to work with a restriction, indoor use only, no lifting above head height, escorted through the packing hall, put it on an action record and carry the CAPA ID here. A condition that lives only in a gate conversation expires at the shift change.
The record asks for two signatures, Verified By and Contractor Supervisor, and the point is not shared liability. A rejection argued out at the gate with the supervisor present stays rejected; one emailed afterwards gets re-litigated while the machine is already working. Walk to each item and put hands on it: verification from a folder is a document review with a signature block.
What auditors find
Most common contractor equipment verification findings
Findings divide cleanly: half concern evidence that was never obtained, half concern equipment that was compliant somewhere else and wrong here.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Inspection tag present and in date, but the report behind it never seen; Certificate Available recorded as On request. | PUWER 1998 reg.6 | Obtain the report before the item works and record its reference on this record. |
| Hired plant accepted on the hire company's delivery note with no current thorough examination report. | LOLER 1998 reg.9 | Make the current report a condition of the hire order, so it arrives with the machine rather than being chased. |
| Verification carried out once at mobilisation; replacement and additional equipment arriving later never checked. | ISO 45001 cl.8.1.4.2 | Raise a Changeover verification on any swap and a Periodic during run check on engagements past a stated length. |
| Portable electrical tools, leads and transformers in use with no inspection or test evidence; Electrical Equipment Tested left blank. | Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 reg.4(2) | Treat blank as No, and require evidence for every cord-connected item, leads and transformers included. |
| Harnesses and lanyards in service past their inspection interval, with no pre-use inspection regime evidenced. | OSHA 29 CFR 1926.502(d)(21) | Check the item's own inspection record rather than the bag it came in, and quarantine anything out of date on the spot. |
| Powered truck or access platform accepted with no evidence of the daily pre-use examination. | OSHA 29 CFR 1910.178(q)(7) | Ask for the day's check sheet at the gate; a machine with no check for today has not been examined. |
| Item passed as suitable for the task with no separate consideration of the environment it will work in. | PUWER 1998 reg.4 | Answer Suitable For Our Environment separately, against the written rules of the zone the work enters. |
| Wooden ladders, absorbent tool handles and unsealed toolboxes taken into open product areas. | BRCGS Food Safety Issue 9 cl.4.9 | State the materials rule in the contract and check it at the gate; Some is a fail where product is exposed. |
| Gas detection instruments accepted without calibration or bump test evidence before confined space work. | OSHA 29 CFR 1910.146(d)(5) | Require the calibration certificate and a bump test on the day, and record the instrument serial number. |
| Result recorded as Fail with Rejected From Site left blank, and the item observed in use the same shift. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Make rejection an event: tag the item, photograph it, tell the gate, and require a fresh verification before it returns. |
Case in point
Case in point: the platform that was certified for the wrong building
A chilled distribution centre engaged a mechanical contractor for a three-week pipework package at roof level over the chill hall. The verification was completed on the mobilisation morning: fourteen items, tags present, inspections current, condition good, one item passed with conditions, nothing rejected, ninety-four percent. It was signed by both parties and, as far as it went, it was honest.
Eleven days later the hire company swapped the diesel boom lift for a larger machine because the reach was short. No verification was raised, and the record on file still described a machine that had left the previous week. The crew worked with the dock doors closed to hold temperature, the chill hall carbon monoxide detection alarmed, the hall was evacuated and two operatives were assessed on site. Reviewing the original record, the site found Suitable For Our Environment answered Yes in the contractor supervisor's handwriting: the contract owner had been called away halfway through the walk.
Neither failure was a failure of the form. The record treated a moving equipment population as a fixed list, and it let the party being verified answer the only question the host was qualified to answer. The corrective actions were structural: hire orders naming the machine and forbidding substitution without re-verification, a goods-in trigger raising a Changeover verification against any open engagement, and Suitable For Our Environment restricted to host users.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
5 sections
- Reference
- CON-027
- Archetype
- Inspection
- Record ID
- CEV-2026-000
- Scoring
- Pass or fail
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- ISO 45001 cl.8.1.4
- Links
- Links Vendor, Asset
- Tags
- Contractor, Equipment
- Sections
- 5
- Fields
- 49
- Follow up fields
- 5
- Repeating sections
- 1
- Links out
- 4
Header
12 fieldsVerification ID*
Auto sequence. Format CEV-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Completed By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Contractor*
Vendor ID*
Format VEN-0000.
Links to FDN-005 Vendor ID
Their Equipment, Your Site, Your Problem
A failed harness or an untested extension lead brought onto your site becomes your incident. Check it at the gate, not after somebody is hurt.
Verified By*
Verification Point*
At the gate before entry, at the work point, or during an audit.
Items Checked*
Equipment
Repeats14 fieldsEquipment Type*
Identification Number
Owner*
Contractor owned, hired, or subcontractor owned.
Inspection Tag Present*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Inspection Current*
- Yes3 pts
- Expired0 pts
Certificate Available*
- Yes3 pts
- On request1 pt
- No0 pts
Visual Condition*
- Good3 pts
- Acceptable2 pts
- Poor0 pts
Guards And Safety Devices Intact*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Suitable For The Task*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Suitable For Our Environment*
Wash down areas, cold stores and food zones all impose requirements a general site does not.
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Food Area Compatible
- Yes3 pts
- Not applicable3 pts
- No0 pts
Result*
- Pass3 pts
- Pass with conditions2 pts
- Fail0 pts
Rejected From Site
Photo
Specific categories
6 fieldsElectrical Equipment Tested
- Yes3 pts
- Not applicable3 pts
- No0 pts
Lifting Equipment Certified
- Yes3 pts
- Not applicable3 pts
- No0 pts
Fall Protection In Date
- Yes3 pts
- Not applicable3 pts
- Expired0 pts
Access Equipment Inspected
- Yes3 pts
- Not applicable3 pts
- No0 pts
Gas Detection Calibrated
- Yes3 pts
- Not applicable3 pts
- No0 pts
No Wooden Or Absorbent Items In Food Areas
- Confirmed3 pts
- Some1 pt
- Many0 pts
Related records
1 fieldSite Audit ID
The audit that examined this equipment.
Links to CON-025 Audit ID
Result
16 fieldsItems Assessed*
Excludes anything marked N/A.
Items Failed*
Score Percent*
Calculated on submission. High is good. N/A items leave the denominator.
Result Band*
- Pass3 pts
- Caution1 pt
- Fail0 pts
Completeness Percent*
How much of the template was actually answered. A high score on a half completed form is not a high score.
Items Rejected*
Work Delayed
Feeds Scorecard*
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Verified By*
Signature*
Contractor Supervisor*
Second Signature*
CON-027 · record IDs look like CEV-2026-000 · Links Vendor, Asset
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The check itself takes twenty minutes and works. What fails around it is the certificate that was going to be emailed, the replacement machine that arrived on a Friday, and the rejection the gate was never told.
Holds each verification against the vendor record and the engagement, so any open job without a current verification of the equipment actually on site shows as an exception.
Tracks contractor and hired items in the asset register with their examination and test dates, and flags an item whose certificate expires mid-engagement before it expires.

Watches goods-in and hire movements against open engagements, raises the Changeover verification, and chases the certificates recorded as On request until they are seen or the item is stopped.
Applies the food area rules, so equipment materials, absorbent items and wash-down compatibility are judged against the zone the work enters rather than the site as a whole.
This template lives in KnowContractor — contractor management. Prequalification, approval, induction, permits and performance.
Meet KnowContractor→Glossary
Contractor Equipment Verification definitions and key terms
- Thorough examination
- A statutory examination of lifting equipment by a competent person at six or twelve month intervals, producing a written report that must be available to the user.
- Competent person
- For examination purposes, someone with the knowledge to detect defects and assess their significance, independent enough to report them without pressure.
- Pre-use check
- The operator check at the start of each shift, distinct from statutory examination; for powered trucks a daily requirement, not a good practice.
- Inspection tag
- A label asserting when an item was last inspected and when it is next due; evidence that a regime exists, not that the item is sound.
- Hired plant
- Equipment on short-term hire rather than contractor owned, where the examination records sit with a third party and are the evidence most often missing.
- Pass with conditions
- A result that admits an item only under a stated restriction; without the restriction recorded and communicated it is an unconditional pass with extra words.
- Environment suitability
- Whether the item can be used safely and hygienically in this area: wash-down, temperature, atmosphere classification, exhaust emissions and product exposure.
- Controlling employer
- In OSHA's multi-employer citation policy, the employer with general supervisory authority over a worksite, citable for hazards it could have detected and corrected.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about contractor equipment verification
The contractor is approved and insured. Why check their equipment at all?+
Because insurance pays afterwards and approval describes a management system, not the machine at your gate. The duty also follows you: PUWER reg.3(3) applies to anyone with control of work equipment to any extent, and OSHA's multi-employer policy reaches the controlling employer. Choosing not to look does not move the duty; it removes the evidence that you exercised it.
How often should we re-verify on a long engagement?+
On every equipment change, without exception, and periodically for the rest. Monthly is defensible for powered plant, lifting and access equipment; quarterly is thin. A Changeover check on two items takes minutes and is the highest-yield check in the programme.
Can we accept a certificate on request?+
For non-statutory items, briefly and with a date. For lifting, access and portable electrical items, no. On request scores one where Yes scores three, because the value of the check is that somebody compared the document's dates and serial number with the machine. A promised report and no report are the same record.
Who should answer Suitable For Our Environment?+
A host user, always. The contractor knows the machine; you know the chill hall, the wash-down schedule and the open product boundary. If nobody present knows the area's rules, that is not a reason to write Yes; it is a reason to get the area owner to the gate before the item moves.
What do we do with an item that fails?+
Tag it, record Rejected From Site, photograph it, and make sure the gate knows the item number, because rejected equipment reappears. Then let it cost the contractor something visible: Items Rejected and Work Delayed feed the scorecard, and a supplier refused twice should hear about it at the next award.
Does passing a machine mean we have taken on the risk of it?+
No, and the fear of that is why some sites do not check. Verification does not transfer the contractor's duty to maintain and examine their equipment, and it does not make you the competent person. It evidences control you already had. The alternative is not neutrality; it is a documented absence of oversight on a site where the duty applied anyway.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Contractor Onboarding and Management
Contractor Prequalification Questionnaire
Collects a contractor's safety, insurance, training and performance information before they are approved
Contractor Safety Statistics Review
Reviews a contractor's injury rates, citations and experience modifier over recent years
Contractor Risk Classification
Classifies a contractor by the risk of the work they do, from low risk services to high risk construction
Contractor Approval Record
Records the decision to approve a contractor to work on site
Contractor Safety Program Review
Reviews the contractor's own written safety programme against your requirements
Subcontractor Declaration
Records any subcontractors a contractor intends to use
More in Contractor Audits
Contractor Site Safety Audit
Audits a contractor's work on your site against their method statement and your requirements
Contractor Documentation Audit
Audits whether the contractor's records, permits and training evidence are complete and current
Subcontractor Verification Audit
Checks that subcontractors have been vetted to the same standard as the main contractor
Contractor Audit Follow Up
Checks whether a contractor has closed the actions raised in a previous audit

Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO 45001:2018 clause 8.1.4, procurement and contractors
- Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, regulations 3, 4, 5 and 6 (GB)
- Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998, regulation 9, thorough examination (GB)
- Electricity at Work Regulations 1989, regulation 4 (GB)
- OSHA 29 CFR 1910.178(q)(7), 1910.334(a) and 1926.502(d)(21) (US)
- OSHA Multi-Employer Citation Policy, CPL 02-00-124 (US)
- BRCGS Food Safety Issue 9, clauses 4.7 maintenance and 4.9 physical contamination control
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.