Hobfolk
Compliance · Method statements & site documents

Written to your scope,
not around a template.

Method statements, risk assessments, inspection and test plans, material and technical submittals, HSE plans, quality plans, prequalification documents. Each one written against your project’s own scope, drawings and programme — not adapted from the last job’s file with the names changed. Wherever the job is.

Start a conversationSee the whole crew
You go home. It doesn't.Every promise gets a row and a due dateEvery enquiry answered, not just loggedA drawing before the quoteUnverifiable is never a passA desk per department, one address eachNothing is sent that a human cannot read backThe folder exists before you price itYou go home. It doesn't.Every promise gets a row and a due dateEvery enquiry answered, not just loggedA drawing before the quoteUnverifiable is never a passA desk per department, one address eachNothing is sent that a human cannot read backThe folder exists before you price it
The case for it

A recycled method statement describes somebody else’s job

The reviewer has seen a hundred templated method statements this year. The one written to the actual scope is the one that stops collecting comments.

Most method statements are the last project’s document with the names changed — which is why they come back covered in comments. The plant list doesn’t match the lift, the sequence describes a site this job doesn’t have, and every resubmission cycle comes out of a programme that had no slack in it to begin with.

The alternative is not a better template. It is a document written from the job itself: the actual scope of works, the actual drawings, the actual plant, the actual interfaces with whoever else is on site. That takes longer to write the first time and less time to approve every time after, which is the only arithmetic that matters when the submittal date is fixed and the start date depends on it.

It is written from what you give this desk — the scope, the drawings, the programme, the site constraints only your people know. Where something is missing, the desk asks rather than assumes; what it never does is pad the gap with boilerplate that reads plausibly and describes nothing. A method statement that survives review is one that could only have been written about this job.

A heavy operation that goes to plan is one somebody wrote down first
A heavy operation that goes to plan is one somebody wrote down first
What's included

Everything below, not a menu underneath the menu

01

Method statements & risk assessments

Task-specific, written to the actual sequence, plant and people — including combined risk assessment method statements where your client asks for them as one document.
02

Inspection & test plans

ITPs built against the specification’s own clauses, with hold and witness points where the contract puts them — not a generic grid with the project name at the top.
03

Material & technical submittals

Compiled clause by clause against the specification: data sheets, compliance statements and supporting documents assembled in the format your reviewing engineer asks for.
04

HSE plans & safety documentation

The project HSE plan and job safety analyses, aligned to your client’s own requirements and kept consistent with the method statements they sit beside.
05

Quality plans & prequalification documents

Project quality plans, and prequalification packs assembled from what your company can actually evidence — never a claim this desk cannot point to a document for.
06

O&M manuals & handover packs

The same desk assembles the operation and maintenance manual through the job, so handover is a formality rather than a reconstruction.
The thing itself

Six pages out of the seventeen, at actual size

A method statement and RAMS as a reviewer receives it — document control, the sequence, the hold points, and the regime it was written against.

Sample method statement & RAMS · 17 pages Real document — fictitious project
Document control and approval — a page of the sample document
Document control and approval
Scope, exclusions and interfaces — a page of the sample document
Scope, exclusions and interfaces
Sequence of operations — a page of the sample document
Sequence of operations
Risk assessment — a page of the sample document
Risk assessment
Permits and hold points — a page of the sample document
Permits and hold points
Inspection and test plan — extract — a page of the sample document
Inspection and test plan — extract
A fictitious project, written to real standards. The UK-to-Gulf duty comparison it carries is worth turning to first. Open the whole document (PDF)
See one

A full method statement and RAMS, written the way we write yours

Seventeen pages for a night-shift installation in a venue that opens to the public each morning: sequence of operations with hold and witness points, lift plan, competence matrix, a 5×5 risk assessment scored before and after controls, permits, COSHH register, rescue plan, an ITP extract and the briefing register. The revision history is left in, including the two revisions it was sent back on — and there is a page setting the UK duties against their Gulf equivalents, because the method survives translation and the regime does not.

Download the sample method statement (PDF)

Cinderstone Mine is not a real project. Every client, contractor, document number, person and signature in it was invented for the sample — no content from any real job appears in it. The standards and frameworks cited are real and were verified current before use.

The run of it

How a job moves through

  1. The scope arrives

    Scope of works, drawings, programme, plant list, site constraints. Whatever is unclear gets asked the same day.

  2. The first draft is written to it

    Sequence, plant, people and interfaces from the actual job — nothing carried over from anyone else's.

  3. Your people review it

    The person who will run the work reads it. If the sequence on paper is not the sequence on site, it changes now, not in review.

  4. Comments turned around

    The reviewing engineer's comments come back as a revision, not an argument — tracked, numbered, resubmitted.

  5. Approved for use

    The revision the crew is briefed on is the revision that was approved. One current document, never two.

  6. Filed against the project

    Every revision kept against the job — and feeding the handover pack, which is being assembled by the same desk as it goes.

The limits

What this desk will not do

Every department has a written boundary. A service that claims no limits has simply not found its own yet, and you will find it for them.

Where this desk stops

  • It prepares; the competent person signs. Where your sector requires a qualified safety adviser or a competent person’s sign-off, this desk writes the information and they approve it.
  • Anything genuinely contested goes to a lawyer, and we say so rather than have a go.
Questions

Asked before, answered here

Is this a template with our project name dropped in?
No. Every document is written from your project’s own scope, drawings and programme. A reviewer can tell the difference in about a page — that is precisely why templated documents collect comments and bespoke ones stop.
What do you need from us to write one?
The scope of works, the drawings, the programme, the plant list, and the site constraints only your people know. Where your client or consultant has a required format or numbering, that too. This desk asks for what is missing rather than assuming — what it cannot do is invent site knowledge nobody gave it.
Will it pass our consultant’s review?
It is written to be approved: against the specification’s own clauses and your client’s stated requirements, with comments turned around as tracked revisions until it is. Nobody can honestly guarantee another engineer’s stamp — what can be promised is a document about your actual job, and a fast, orderly resubmission cycle when there are comments.
Do you work in our client’s format?
Yes. If the consultant or client issues a template, a numbering scheme or a submittal register format, the documents follow it. The writing is bespoke; the format is whatever gets it through review.
What about the O&M manual at the end?
Same desk. The operation and maintenance manual and the handover pack are assembled through the job rather than reconstructed after it — as-builts, product data, warranties and certificates filed the day they happen.
Where are you, and when do you work?
The desk is part of a UK company and works through the UK night — which means a document or a revision that goes in at your close of business is being worked while your site sleeps. The overnight back office is the whole idea of Hobfolk, not a feature of this page.
Two versions

The same guide, told as a story

The story version

The Submittal Is Due Thursday. Who Is Writing It?

Method statements, RAMS, ITPs and submittals written to your own scope overnight, instead of last job's template edited at 22:00 and sent back with comments.

Read the story version
The department

This guide belongs to the Compliance desk

Compliance

Compliance, documents & contracts

RAMS, O&M manuals, handover packs and a confidentiality agreement out before the drawings are.

Open the department Case studies

Every case, in one place

Real, dated things that went wrong in the businesses this office already runs, and the fix each one produced.

See all the cases

The submittal date is coming whether the document is written or not.

Tell us what the job is and what the reviewer is asking for. We will tell you whether this desk can have it ready for that date. This desk on its own is from £1,450 a month, no seat count, thirty days’ notice either way — and the first month is a paid trial you can stop.

Start a conversation Read the method