Structure, scope, sequence, controls, and responsibilities.
A clear MS removes ambiguity during installation of HVM bollards and crash rated bollards. Capture scope, references, and drawings (911, 931), list materials/tools, and break work into sequenced steps that align with civils (611–629) and controls (521–529). Embed QA checkpoints mapped to the ITP (714), safety notes tied to RAMS (722) and LOTO (725), environmental controls (726), and signatures. Attach evidence templates (716) to speed approvals (717, 938). This page sits under this section and the broader chapter hub. For UAE authority context, see SIRA Bollards (UAE). Where installation planning helps, also see What to Expect and the Installation Guide.
Important: This is a general guide. For live projects we develop a tailored
Method Statement & Risk Assessment (MS/RA) and align with authority approvals (e.g., SIRA) where in scope.
721.1 Purpose of the MS
Describe how works will be executed safely and to spec. The MS aligns HVM bollard tasks with crash rated bollard dependencies (421).
The Method Statement (MS) is the agreed, controlled description of how the team will deliver the works. It connects site activities to design intent, approved drawings, and applicable standards, making sure workmanship, tolerances, and safety devices & measures are consistent with the tested system. It should point to the rating-critical dependencies (421) that must not be varied without formal change control (537).
Keep language precise, define responsibilities, and state acceptance criteria for each step. Cross-reference the Inspection & Test Plan (ITP) (714) to ensure every pre-concealment or risk-bearing activity has verification. Tie MS checkpoints to evidence rules in 716 Evidence Capture Standards.
| Aspect | What matters | Where to verify |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | Installed system matches tested family & footing | Global crash ratings |
| Operations | Duty limits, fail-state, safety measures proven | Installation Guide |
721.2 Scope & boundaries
Define included activities and explicit exclusions. Clear scope avoids HVM bollard drift.
State what is in scope (e.g., utility detection per 242 Underground Detection, foundations per 620, controls cabling per 515) and what isn’t (e.g., third-party landscaping). Note interfaces to other trades and any works by others. Include assumptions and constraints so reviewers can judge feasibility and risk.
721.3 Sequence of operations
Step-by-step flow from set-out to reinstatement (612–629). Sequencing preserves crash rated bollard tolerances.
Present steps in chronological order with “hold/witness points” clearly marked. Typical flow: permits & mark-out (611), set-out/benchmarks (612), excavation & shoring (613), dewatering (614), ducting/draw pits (615), drainage pits/sumps (616), utilities resolution (617), rebar cages & anchors (621), sleeves/glands (622), formwork & cover (623), pour & vibration (624), grout & levelling (625), datum checks (626), curing/protection (627), backfilling/compaction (628), and surface reinstatement (629). Reference acceptance tolerances from 312 Height setting and 322 Clear-Gap.
721.4 Roles & competencies
Name responsible persons and qualifications (131). Competence protects HVM bollard quality.
Define a RACI with the Site Supervisor, Permit Controller, Lifting Appointed Person, QA/QC Inspector, and Commissioning Engineer. Reference stakeholder duties in 131 Stakeholders & Responsibilities. List required certifications (e.g., confined-space, hot-works, electrical authorization) and the escalation path for technical decisions (e.g., design queries via 849 Tender Queries & Addenda).
721.5 Plant, tools & materials
List approved equipment and storage (611.6). Suitability prevents crash rated bollard damage.
Specify fit-for-purpose plant (rated lifting gear, trench boxes, dewatering sets), calibrated instruments (levels, torque wrenches), and test equipment (loop simulator 529, insulation resistance tester for 515 Cables). Include acceptance checks for delivered bollards (ID, finish, durability), storage conditions, and handling to avoid sleeve/finish damage. Reference lifting and equipment rules in 724.
721.6 Hold points & inspections
Embed ITP checks before concealment (714). Hold points secure HVM bollard evidence.
Tag hold points against specific steps (e.g., cage inspection before pour, sleeve position before grout, datum check before backfill). For each, define method (inspection/test), acceptance band, evidence type (photo, form, log), and sign-off role. Field records must follow 716 Evidence and feed into 638 SAT / Witness Procedure. Nonconformances route to 719 Nonconformance & Defects with corrective action and retest plan.
721.7 Interfaces & constraints
Note utilities, traffic, neighbors (617, 215). Interfaces keep crash rated bollard work buildable.
Document site constraints: utilities red-zones (617), traffic & pedestrian flows (215), access windows, noise curfews, and neighboring businesses. Include Permit to Work (723 PTW & Toolbox Talks) dependencies and authority approvals (see SIRA Bollards for UAE). Confirm temporary works requirements (e.g., shoring 613, 857 Temporary Works & Traffic Management).
721.8 Emergency procedures
Reference EFO/site emergencies (547). Procedures safeguard HVM bollard crews.
State incident response, communication, and muster points. For bollard-specific events, include 547 Emergency Modes (e.g., EFO initiation and cooldown, safe local mode, lock-down). Describe 725 LOTO steps for power events, and name who can authorize resets. Record actions for the 735 Post-incident inspection.
721.9 Attachments & references
Include drawings, permits, RAMS links (931, 611, 722–723). Attachments speed crash rated bollard approvals.
Bundle the MS with an index: drawing list and mark-ups (931), permits & NOCs (611), RAMS (722), PTW/Toolbox materials (723), calibrated tool list, and evidence templates (716). Add change control/versioning rules (537) and the transmittal format used for 938 Submission-Pack Guidance. For authority routes and expectations, see 717 Authority Submittals.
Related
External resources
- ASIS Security Risk Assessment Standard
- NPSA: Hostile Vehicle Mitigation
- FEMA 426 / DHS: Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings
721 Method Statement (MS) Format — FAQ
What’s the difference between an MS and the ITP?
The MS explains how the work will be done safely and to spec; the ITP lists the checks, methods, and acceptance criteria to confirm the work meets requirements. The MS references the ITP’s hold and witness points.
Who signs the Method Statement?
Typically the Contractor’s Responsible Person prepares it; the Project/Site Manager, HSE lead, and QA/QC reviewer sign internally; the Client/Consultant acknowledges via transmittal and may require formal approval depending on contract.
Do we need to update the MS after a variation?
Yes. Any approved Variation Order or design change must be reflected in the MS, ITP, and attachments. Use the project’s change control and versioning rules to supersede prior revisions and notify stakeholders.
How does SIRA affect the MS in the UAE?
SIRA submittals often require clear method descriptions, evidence standards, and witnessable tests. Align your MS with the authority’s expectations and include the relevant certificates and drawing references in the submission pack.