What this is
What is a contractor method statement review?
What is a contractor method statement review?
A structured check of a contractor's proposed method of work and its risk assessment, carried out before work begins. It asks whether the document is specific to this site and task, whether the hazards named match what is actually present, and whether the proposed controls are things the contractor can and will do.
Who should carry out the review?
The contract owner, working with safety, and specifically someone with enough knowledge of the trade to tell a real sequence of work from a rewritten template. A reviewer who does not understand the task cannot judge whether the sequence is genuinely site-specific or merely names the site.
What happens if the method statement is rejected?
Work does not start. The reviewer records what is wrong, the contractor submits a revised version, and the revision is checked before mobilisation proceeds. A document accepted with unresolved concessions should be a visible decision, not a silent lowering of the bar.
Scope
When is a contractor method statement review required?
This review sits between the contractor's paperwork and the pre-work meeting held on site. Confusing the two produces a record that looks thorough but has skipped the step that stops bad work.
Use this template when
- A contractor submits a method statement and risk assessment for a work package before it is due to start
- An existing method statement is reused for a similar task and needs re-checking against this site
- A method statement has come back from the contractor after an earlier rejection and needs re-review
- A high-risk task is planned and the written method is the primary control on how it is done
- A permit-to-work or isolation depends on a method statement that has not yet been checked
Do not use it for
- Pre-Work Meeting Record, the face-to-face briefing held with the crew immediately before mobilising, once this review has already accepted the document
- Contractor Site Induction, which covers general site rules and hazards rather than the specific task method
- Contractor Competency Verification, which checks an individual worker's tickets and training, not adequacy of the method
- The underlying risk assessment itself, the contractor's document, referenced here, not reproduced
- A permit to work, the point-in-time authorisation issued once the method statement is accepted, not the review that accepts it
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 45001 cl.8.1.4 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 45001 treats contracted work as something the organisation must actively coordinate, not something a contractor's paperwork automatically satisfies. The review is where that duty becomes a dated decision.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.4.2 | Hazards arising from contracted work must be identified and the associated risks assessed and controlled, coordinated with the organisation's own arrangements | Hazards and controls |
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.1 | Operational processes must have established criteria, with control implemented against those criteria, including the sequence and conditions of work | Quality of the document |
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.4.2 | Contractor activities and materials with the potential to affect the organisation's workers must be identified before work proceeds | Hazards and controls |
| ISO 45001 cl.7.2 | Competence of persons doing work affecting OH&S performance must be determined, evidenced and verified | Resources and competence |
| ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.2 | Risk assessment methodology and criteria must be defined and consistently applied, and can be compared against the organisation's own assessment of the same work | Related records |
| ISO 45001 cl.8.2 | Emergency preparedness and response arrangements for foreseeable emergencies must be established and understood by those affected | Hazards and controls |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | The organisation must monitor and evaluate the extent to which requirements are being fulfilled | Outcome |
What it does not cover
- Pre-Work Meeting Record, the face-to-face briefing held with the crew immediately before mobilising, once this review has accepted the document.
- The underlying risk assessment itself, the contractor's own record, referenced here for comparison, not reproduced or re-authored.
- Contractor Site Induction, which covers site-wide rules, emergency arrangements and permit requirements, not the task method.
- Contractor Competency Verification, which verifies named individuals hold the tickets and training required, not adequacy of the method.
- Permit to work, the time-bound authorisation issued once the method statement is accepted, not the review that accepts it.
Global
Contractor Method Statement Review requirements by country
No jurisdiction prescribes a method statement review by that name. The duty comes from the general obligation to control contracted-out work, which this review turns into a recorded decision.
OSHA General Duty Clause; multi-employer worksite doctrine
No standard names a method statement, but OSHA can cite a host employer who knew of a contractor's unsafe method and did not act.
An accepted document naming inadequate controls is evidence the host had the chance to catch the hazard and did not.
MHSWR 1999, reg.11-12; CDM 2015 for construction work
Duties to cooperate and coordinate where more than one employer shares a workplace, with CDM setting construction-specific duties.
A generic document accepted unchallenged undermines the client's and principal contractor's own cooperation duties.
ISO 45001 cl.8.1.4.2
Management system requirement to coordinate hazard identification and risk control with contractors before work affects the workforce.
Auditors look for evidence the review happened and actually rejected inadequate documents, not just that a file exists.
How to complete it
How to complete a contractor method statement review, step by step
The template checks whether each element of the document is present. It does not ask the four questions that decide whether the acceptance was a real decision.
A reviewer who quietly fixes a method statement to make it pass has removed the evidence it was generic, and taken on authorship of a document they cannot verify on site. The right response to a generic submission is rejection with named gaps, not correction.
Site specific and names the actual equipment ask about the document in front of the reviewer. Scoring against an assumed future revision converts the review into a formality if that revision never arrives as promised.
A control requiring equipment not costed in, a permit nobody has started, or an isolation the site cannot support by the planned start is not a control, it is a sentence. The reviewer's job is to ask what is actually turning up.
Briefed to the crew and copy available at the work point decide whether the review protected anyone. A document that never reaches the people doing the job has produced a compliant record and an unprotected task.
What auditors find
Most common contractor method statement review findings
Method statement review findings rarely concern whether the review happened. They concern whether accepting the document was the right call, and whether anyone downstream ever saw the result.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Generic method statement accepted despite not naming this site's equipment, access route or isolation points. | ISO 45001 cl.8.1.4.2 | Score site specific honestly; reject and return with the gaps named. |
| Hazards and controls section concludes in PPE and supervision without the hierarchy of controls being addressed. | ISO 45001 cl.8.1.1 | Require a stated reason why elimination, substitution and engineering control were rejected first. |
| Method statement accepted with concession, but the changes required were never verified in a revised version. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Do not close the review as accepted until the revision is received and checked against the named gaps. |
| Document accepted but never linked to a pre-work meeting or briefed to the crew before mobilisation. | ISO 45001 cl.7.4 | Hold the record open until briefed to the crew and copy available at the work point are confirmed. |
| Isolation sequence or emergency and rescue arrangements marked not applicable without a stated reason. | ISO 45001 cl.8.2 | Require a reason wherever not applicable is selected, so the judgement is visible, not assumed. |
| Review carried out by someone without competence in the trade being reviewed. | ISO 45001 cl.7.2 | Route specialist trades to a reviewer competent in that trade, not the contract owner alone. |
Case in point
Case in point: the review that accepted the wrong revision
A refrigeration contractor submitted a method statement for a compressor changeout that named a different plant room layout, a leftover from a previous job at a sister site. The reviewer flagged it as generic, marked accepted with concession, and listed the changes required: correct isolation points, this site's confined space arrangements, and the actual lifting route through the loading bay.
The contractor sent a revised document two days later. It was filed and marked revised version received, but nobody re-checked it against the changes requested, and the review was never reopened. The revision still described the wrong isolation sequence, caught only by the contractor's own supervisor during the pre-work meeting, not by the review meant to have already settled it.
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.
6 sections
- Reference
- CON-012
- Archetype
- Review
- Record ID
- CMSR-2026-000
- Scoring
- Adequacy score
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- ISO 45001 cl.8.1.4
- Links
- Links Vendor, Job, Risk Assessment
- Tags
- Contractor, Assurance
- Sections
- 6
- Fields
- 52
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 4
Header
12 fieldsReview ID*
Auto sequence. Format MSR-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
Reject Generic Documents
A method statement that could apply to any job on any site adds nothing. It must name this equipment, these hazards and these controls, in the order the work will happen.
Work Package*
Document Reference
Reviewer*
Quality of the document
6 fieldsSite Specific*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- Generic0 pts
Names The Actual Equipment*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Sequence Of Work Clear*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Written In Plain Language*
The people doing the work have to be able to read and follow it.
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Usable By The Crew On Site*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Length Reasonable*
- Yes3 pts
- Too long1 pt
- Too brief0 pts
Hazards and controls
9 fieldsAll Significant Hazards Identified*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Our Site Hazards Included*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Controls Follow The Hierarchy*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Controls Practical On Our Site*
A control requiring equipment they will not bring is not a control.
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Permits Identified*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Isolation Sequence Described*
- Yes3 pts
- Not applicable3 pts
- No0 pts
Emergency And Rescue Arrangements*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Food Safety Controls Included*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Waste And Clean Up Described*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Resources and competence
5 fieldsPeople And Roles Named*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Competencies Stated*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Equipment Listed*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Supervision Arrangements Stated*
- Yes3 pts
- Vague1 pt
- No0 pts
Inspection And Test Points Included
- Yes3 pts
- No1 pt
Related records
1 fieldRisk ID
Our assessment of the same work, for comparison.
Links to FDN-012 Risk ID
Outcome
19 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.
Accepted*
- Yes3 pts
- Accepted with concession1 pt
- Rejected0 pts
Changes Required
Revised Version Received
Briefed To The Crew*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Copy Available At The Work Point*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Deviation Process Explained*
If conditions differ from the method statement, they stop and re-agree. They do not improvise.
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
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
Reviewer*
Signature*
Contractor Supervisor*
Second Signature*
CON-012 · record IDs look like CMSR-2026-000 · Links Vendor, Job, Risk Assessment
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The review itself is a judgement call made once. What fails afterwards is the handoff: the accepted document that never reaches the crew, and the revision that was received but never re-checked.
Holds the review against the job and vendor record, and blocks mobilisation steps until an accepted or revised document is on file.
Checks the hazards and controls named in the method statement against the site's own hazard register, and flags where they diverge.
Connects competencies stated in the method statement to individual verification records for the crew actually turning up.
Watches for a review accepted with concession that never shows a revised version received, and raises it before the pre-work meeting.
This template lives in KnowContractor — contractor management. Prequalification, approval, induction, permits and performance.
Meet KnowContractor→Glossary
Contractor Method Statement Review definitions and key terms
- Method statement
- The contractor's written description of how a task will be carried out, in sequence, including the plant, people and controls involved.
- Site specific
- A method statement naming the actual site, equipment, hazards and access arrangements rather than a generic version reused across jobs.
- Hierarchy of controls
- The ranked sequence of control types: elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, then personal protective equipment.
- Accepted with concession
- A review outcome where the document is approved despite a named shortfall, rather than rejected outright, with the shortfall recorded rather than absorbed.
- Deviation process
- The agreed procedure if site conditions do not match the method statement: the crew stops and re-agrees the method rather than improvising.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about contractor method statement review
How is this different from a pre-work meeting?+
The review is a desk check of a written document, carried out before mobilisation, and can result in rejection. The pre-work meeting is a face-to-face briefing held once the document has been accepted, walking through what was reviewed rather than reassessing it.
Can we accept a method statement with known gaps?+
Yes, but as a visible decision. Accepted with concession, with changes required recorded, keeps the gap on record and forces a decision about closing it, rather than losing it in a plain acceptance.
Who is competent to review a method statement?+
Someone who understands the trade well enough to tell a genuine sequence from a document that has simply had the site name changed. A safety generalist can check sections are present; only someone who knows the task can check the content is real.
Does the review replace the contractor's own risk assessment?+
No. The risk assessment remains the contractor's document. The review checks it against the organisation's own assessment of the same work where one exists, and records whether it is adequate, but does not become that assessment.
What if the contractor cannot revise the document in time?+
The work does not start. The review exists to be a gate a booked schedule does not override; treating the deadline as more urgent than the gap defeats the point of doing it at all.
Should the review be repeated for a routine, repeated task?+
Re-check whenever the site, scope or method changes, even for a contractor whose work is normally routine. Adequate for one site or date is not automatically adequate for the next.
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 Site Induction
Contractor Site Induction
Introduces a contractor to your site rules, hazards, emergency arrangements and permit requirements
Contractor Worker Register
Lists every individual contractor worker on site, with their induction and certification status
Contractor Competency Verification
Verifies that contractor workers hold the tickets and training their work requires
Pre-Work Meeting Record
Records the meeting held before work starts, covering scope, hazards, controls and coordination with site activities
Site Access Authorization
Authorises a contractor worker to enter the site for a defined period and area
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 clauses 8.1.4, 8.1.1, 7.2 and 6.1.2
- Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, regulations 11-12 (GB)
- Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (GB)
- OSH Act Section 5(a)(1) and multi-employer worksite doctrine (US)
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.