Can a low legionella risk assessment price indicate incomplete work?

A low legionella risk assessment price may reflect a narrower scope, limited site time or additional work being excluded from the quoted fee. It can still represent suitable work where the premises are straightforward and the scope is clearly defined. The important issue is whether the price supports a proportionate, site-specific assessment rather than a generic document.

Price differences often arise from the way an assessment is carried out. A thorough assessment normally involves reviewing the water systems in operation, examining relevant records, speaking with those who manage or use the systems and inspecting areas where conditions could support legionella growth or spread. The assessor should be able to explain how the proposed work will address the actual complexity of the premises.

Possible indicators that a low quote has gaps include:

• A limited or unclear scope: the quotation does not identify which buildings, outlets, plant rooms, storage vessels, hot- and cold-water services or specialist systems will be assessed.
• A largely remote process: the supplier relies mainly on a questionnaire or existing paperwork without establishing whether the records accurately describe the installation.
• Insufficient attention to less visible assets: low-use outlets, redundant pipework, showers, thermostatic mixing valves, calorifiers, tanks and other parts of the system may be omitted even though they can affect risk.
• A generic report: the findings use standard wording but do not link hazards to specific assets, locations, conditions or control measures.
• No clear treatment of management responsibilities: the report does not identify who controls the premises, who carries out routine tasks or how responsibilities are divided between an owner, landlord, managing agent, facilities team and contractors.
• Unclear exclusions: surveying additional buildings, reviewing records, producing an asset register, water testing, remedial advice or follow-up support may all be charged separately without being identified at the outset.

The assessment should also consider the people who may be exposed, how water is used and whether any individuals are particularly susceptible to illness. A price may be misleading if it covers only a basic inspection while leaving the assessor without enough information to judge occupancy, usage patterns, changes to the system or relevant operational controls.

Another useful test is the quality of the proposed output. A meaningful report should record the systems and areas considered, describe significant findings, identify weaknesses in existing controls and set out practical actions in a way that allows the responsible person to act on them. Recommendations should be prioritised or otherwise explained so that the organisation can distinguish an immediate control concern from a lower-priority improvement. A document that merely confirms that checks were completed, without showing the reasoning behind its conclusions, provides limited evidence of a suitable assessment.

Water sampling is a separate consideration. A risk assessment can identify whether testing may be appropriate, but testing is not automatically included in every assessment fee. If samples are proposed, the quote should state which locations will be sampled, which laboratory arrangements apply and whether interpretation of the results is included. Conversely, the absence of testing does not by itself make an assessment incomplete; the need for sampling depends on the systems, circumstances and risk information available.

Before accepting a low quote, an organisation should ask for the following in writing:

1. Which premises, systems and outlets are included?
2. Will the assessment be based on a physical inspection, document review, interviews or a combination of these?
3. What information and records must the client provide?
4. Are water testing, asset registers, drawings, photographs and remedial recommendations included?
5. What report will be supplied, and will it identify findings by location and asset?
6. Which follow-up actions or revisions would incur additional charges?
7. What qualifications, experience and relevant competence does the assessor have?

Comparing these details is more reliable than comparing the headline fee alone. Two quotations may appear different in price because one includes several buildings, a detailed asset review and a comprehensive report, while another covers only a limited area or relies on information supplied by the client. The lowest price is therefore not automatically poor value, but a low fee accompanied by vague scope, extensive exclusions or generic reporting warrants further clarification.

Organisations should retain the quotation, agreed scope, site information and completed report as part of their water safety records. If important systems were inaccessible, records were unavailable or areas were excluded, those limitations should be visible in the report and addressed through a defined next step. This makes it possible to judge whether the assessment is complete for the premises concerned and whether further work is genuinely required.