Method statements approved first time, not on the third resubmission.
Method statements, risk assessments, inspection and test plans, project quality plans and HSE plans, written for the actual sequence of work on your site. Prepared by a Chartered Quality Professional who has sat on both sides of the approval desk.
Prefer to prepare them yourself? Order directly in Jumbat Studio: from AED 100 per document, in your client’s template.
The short version
- Technical submissions are rejected far more often for internal inconsistency than for technical error: a risk assessment that does not match the method statement it accompanies.
- In Abu Dhabi, a risk assessment that cites no applicable ADOSH-SF Code of Practice invites a comment before anyone reads the controls.
- An ITP is a contractual document. Hold points stop work until signed off, so they must be agreed with the consultant, not declared unilaterally.
- Every resubmission cycle costs programme time you rarely get back. Getting it right first is cheaper than getting it fast.
Two ways to get your documents
Done for you by Jumbat
We prepare the set ourselves, agree hold points with your consultant and see it through approval. Best for complex, high-risk or multi-discipline packages.
Order directly in Jumbat Studio
Upload your client’s template and scope, choose the documents, and Studio prepares them using the same method behind this service. AED 100 per document, AED 300 per set, with optional Jumbat review and sign-off for AED 200.
What we prepare
The document set a UAE contractor needs approved before work can start, and the plans that govern quality and safety once it does. Each one is written around your actual sequence, plant, materials and site conditions, not adapted from a previous project with the names changed.
Method statements
Step-by-step sequence of work, resources, plant and equipment, temporary works, personnel and competence, and the controls applied at each step. Written so a supervisor can actually follow it on site.
Risk assessments
Hazards identified against each method statement step, with initial risk rating, controls applied through the hierarchy of controls, and residual risk evaluated afterwards.
Inspection & Test Plans
Activity-by-activity inspection regime with acceptance criteria, reference specification and drawing revisions, verifying documents, and hold, witness and review points assigned to each party.
Project Quality Plan
How the quality management system applies to this specific project: organisation, responsibilities, document control, inspection regime, non-conformance handling and handover documentation.
Project Execution Plan
Delivery approach, organisation and interfaces, programme logic, procurement and subcontracting strategy, and the control mechanisms that hold it together.
Project HSE Plan
Site-specific safety arrangements: organisation and competence, risk management, permit systems, welfare, emergency arrangements, monitoring and reporting.
Alongside those, we regularly prepare the supporting documents that approval bodies ask for once the headline submission lands:
Why technical submissions get rejected
Most rejections have nothing to do with the engineering. They are consistency and evidence failures that a reviewer can spot in the first few pages. These are the ones we see repeatedly.
The single most common cause. The method statement describes eleven steps; the risk assessment covers six generic hazards that map to none of them. A reviewer reads the two side by side. Every step that carries a hazard must appear in the risk assessment, using the same wording and the same sequence numbers.
References to plant you are not using, a site layout that is not yours, or a scope that does not match the work package. Reviewers see hundreds of these documents and recognise recycled ones immediately, and once they suspect it, they read everything else far more sceptically.
In Abu Dhabi, a risk assessment for work at height, confined space, excavation or lifting that cites no relevant Code of Practice reads as though the framework was never consulted. Identify the applicable Codes for the task and reference them explicitly against the controls they drive. See ADOSH-SF v4.0 compliance.
Controls listed as “wear gloves, safety glasses, toolbox talk” for every hazard tell the reviewer the hierarchy of controls was never applied. Elimination, substitution and engineering controls must be addressed first, with a stated reason where a higher control is not reasonably practicable.
An ITP or method statement referencing Rev B when Rev D is current is an immediate comment, and it calls the whole submission into question. Reference numbers and revisions must be checked against the current approved set on the day of submission, not the day drafting started.
Naming a scaffolding supervisor, appointed person, confined space attendant or banksman without attaching current third-party certification is a guaranteed comment. Build the competence matrix alongside the method statement, not after the rejection.
An ITP that assigns the consultant a hold point they never agreed to, or omits one their specification requires, will come back. Hold and witness points are a negotiation with the reviewing party and should be discussed before the ITP is formally submitted.
“In the event of an emergency, call the emergency services” is not an arrangement. Reviewers expect the rescue plan for this task (confined space retrieval, working at height rescue, spill containment) with the equipment, the trained people and the muster arrangements named.
Getting an ITP right
The Inspection and Test Plan causes more argument on site than any other document, because it is the one that stops work. Each activity needs a defined verification regime and an unambiguous intervention point for every party.
| Point | What it means | Effect on the works |
|---|---|---|
| Hold point (H) | Work may not proceed past this stage until the nominated party has verified and signed | Work stops. Missing this signature can invalidate everything built on top of it |
| Witness point (W) | The party is notified in advance and may attend; if they do not, work may proceed | Work continues, provided notice was given and recorded |
| Review point (R) | Documentation is reviewed after the activity | No effect on sequence, but the record must exist at handover |
| Surveillance (S) | Monitoring at the party’s discretion | None, but expect unannounced attendance |
A defensible ITP states, for every activity: the reference specification and drawing revision, the acceptance criteria, the verifying document that will be produced, the frequency of inspection, and the intervention point assigned to the contractor, the consultant and the client separately. Where an activity has no acceptance criterion, it is not inspectable, and that gap is exactly what gets found at handover.
Witness points carry a contractual notice period, often 24 or 48 hours. Proceeding without giving it converts a witness point into an unwitnessed activity, and the reviewer is entitled to require it to be opened up and re-inspected at your cost. Build the notice requirement into the ITP and into your daily planning, not just into the document.
How it works
- Send us the scope
The work package, contract specification, approved drawings, client HSE requirements and any submission template your consultant mandates.
Day 0 - Clarification and site understanding
A short call or site visit to establish the real sequence, plant, access constraints and interfaces. This is what separates a usable document from a generic one.
Day 1 - Draft preparation
Method statement, risk assessment and ITP developed together so they stay consistent by construction rather than by later checking.
Days 2–5 - Internal review with your team
Your engineer and site supervisor confirm the sequence is what will actually happen. Documents that describe an idealised method fail at the first inspection.
Day 5 - Submission
Issued in your format and template, with the supporting evidence pack assembled and cross-referenced.
Day 6 - Comment closure
We respond to consultant or client comments, revise, and track each comment to closure through resubmission.
As received
Timescales assume a single work package and prompt access to the specification and drawings. A full mobilisation document set for a new contract is a larger exercise and is scoped separately.
What you receive
Contractors submitting these documents constantly should not outsource every one. A common arrangement is that we prepare the first few, build a properly structured house template from them, and train your engineers to produce the rest: keeping us for the complex or high-risk packages. See QHSE training.
Jumbat Studio drafts linked method statements, risk assessments, JSAs and ITPs inside your client’s own template, using the same method behind this service, with optional chartered review before you submit. Get started in Studio or see pricing.
Questions clients ask first
For a single, well-defined work package with the specification and drawings available, typically three to five working days from receiving the scope to a submission-ready document. Genuinely urgent packages can be compressed, but not at the expense of the site clarification step: skipping that is what produces the generic document that gets rejected.
Yes, and we prefer to. Most main contractors and consultants mandate a format, and submitting in the wrong one is an avoidable rejection. Send us the template and any document control conventions and we will work inside them.
We respond to the comments and revise until closure. That is part of the engagement, not a variation. Comments are normal even on strong submissions; what matters is whether they are substantive or cosmetic. We track each one to closure so nothing is lost between revisions.
Where it is warranted, yes, and for anything with an unusual sequence or access constraint it is worth it. For a straightforward package on a site we already know, a call with your engineer and supervisor plus the drawings is usually enough. We will tell you which applies before quoting.
Related but different. This is document preparation, priced per package or per set. Embedded QHSE support is an ongoing arrangement where we act as your QHSE function: running audits, hosting client visits and owning the management system. Contractors with a steady stream of submissions often find the retained arrangement works out cheaper.
They should, and we build them so they do. Risk assessments prepared for project submission are exactly the operational planning evidence clause 8.1 requires, and permit packs and emergency plans feed straight into your management system. Documents produced in isolation from your certified system are a missed opportunity and often a contradiction. See ISO 45001 certification.
Let’s make your next audit a non-event.
Book a free 30-minute consultation. We will tell you honestly whether you need a consultant, and if you do, exactly what it will take.