Contractor prequalification should answer a practical procurement question: can this legal entity support the specific work under the proposed arrangement? A large document folder, a familiar logo or general experience is not enough. The review must connect company evidence, project capability, proposed personnel and delivery responsibilities.
Prequalification is not a permanent guarantee. It is a structured decision based on the scope and information available at the time, with conditions that must be revisited when the work or team changes.
Confirm the full legal name, registration details, address and contact information of the organisation that will sign the agreement. Match insurance, policies, certificates and financial documents to that entity. Documents issued to a related company do not automatically apply.
If a group uses different entities in different countries, explain their roles clearly. The client should know which company employs people, invoices the work, holds the contract and accepts responsibility for delivery.
Describe the industry, location, scope, programme, work environment and contracting model. A workshop fabrication package, vessel riding squad and client-directed workforce assignment require different evidence and controls.
Build the questionnaire around material risks and responsibilities. Avoid collecting documents that have no bearing on the proposed assignment.
Request examples that resemble the scope, scale and environment of the new work. Ask what the contractor delivered, which boundaries applied, how many people were involved and who supervised execution.
Use case studies, completion evidence or reference discussions where appropriate. Photographs and marketing statements may illustrate capability, but they should not be treated as proof without context.
Check how the contractor plans work, controls drawings and changes, selects personnel, manages materials, requests inspections and prepares handover records. For defined packages, ask for the proposed supervision and quality responsibilities.
Where specialist processes are involved, identify the project documents and qualification evidence that must be accepted before production. A general company approval does not replace task-specific technical review.
Compare personnel experience and qualifications with the actual tasks. Confirm who will supervise and how substitutions are approved. Where personal data is reviewed, use an agreed secure route and limit access.
For workforce assignments, also check the client’s capacity to direct and support the proposed number of people. Contractor competence and site readiness must work together.
Review the contractor’s approach to risk information, inductions, permits, incident reporting, supervision and coordination. Then map those arrangements to the client’s own site system. Generic policies are useful only when the project translates them into practical responsibilities.
Identify simultaneous work, restricted areas and emergency communication. Agree who has authority to stop or change the activity.
Check whether the proposed programme, resources and mobilisation lead time are realistic. Clarify equipment, consumables, accommodation, transport, payment, reporting and variation procedures.
Do not confuse a low hourly rate or short promised lead time with a complete offer. Compare the same responsibilities and exclusions across bidders.
Record approved, rejected and outstanding items. Give every open point an owner and due date. State whether approval is unconditional, limited to a scope or dependent on evidence before mobilisation.
Set review triggers: change of legal entity, scope, key personnel, work environment, insurance or performance issue. Keep the decision and supporting evidence traceable.
There is no universal period. The client should set a review cycle and reopen the assessment when the entity, scope, key personnel, evidence or risk profile changes.
No. It is an overview. Relevant case information, scope details, records or references provide stronger context for the proposed assignment.
Core governance questions can be standardised, but technical and operational evidence should be tailored to the work being purchased.
Review RAM company information, our published project experience and service capability, or send us your procurement requirements.
We use Google Analytics to understand how this site is used and to improve enquiries. Google Analytics loads only after you accept. You can change your choice at any time. Form contents are never sent. Read our Privacy Policy.