How should organisations compare legionella risk assessment prices?

The most reliable way to compare legionella risk assessment prices is to compare the total value and usability of each proposal, not simply the lowest quoted fee. A sound comparison examines the commercial assumptions, the assessor’s suitability for the premises, the quality of the resulting management information and the work needed after the assessment has been completed.

Start by defining the brief that every provider must price. This should include the types of premises, relevant water systems, access arrangements, available records and any known changes to the site. If one quotation is based on a straightforward inspection and another allows for a more complex building or fragmented water system, their prices are not directly comparable. Giving each provider the same background information reduces the risk that a low initial figure is based on assumptions that later change.

Ask each provider to separate the main fee from possible additional charges. The quotation should make clear whether the price is fixed or estimated, whether VAT is included, and whether travel, access difficulties, repeat attendance or administrative work could be charged separately. It should also identify any activities that are outside the quoted service, such as remedial work, further investigation, laboratory analysis or a later review. These exclusions do not necessarily make a proposal unsuitable, but they should be visible before a decision is made.

Consider how the provider intends to deal with the site’s management arrangements, not just its physical equipment. Legionella control depends on responsibilities, monitoring, record keeping and responses to abnormal results as well as on the condition of tanks, calorifiers, outlets and other components. A useful assessment should help the duty holder understand what must be managed, who is responsible and which actions need to be prioritised. A low price may be poor value if it leaves the organisation without practical information for managing those duties.

The assessor’s suitability should be examined in relation to the premises being assessed. Relevant questions include:

• What experience does the assessor have with similar building types and water systems?
• What technical qualifications, training and professional experience support the work?
• How are findings checked before the assessment is issued?
• Does the provider hold appropriate professional indemnity and public liability insurance?
• How will the organisation communicate with the assessor if a finding needs clarification?

Evidence of competence is more useful than a generic statement that the provider is experienced. An organisation can ask for an anonymised example of the type of deliverable supplied, while ensuring that confidential client information is not disclosed. The purpose is to understand whether the report is likely to be usable by the people responsible for the water safety management system.

Prices can also differ because providers use different commercial models. One may charge for the assessment as a single project, while another may divide the work between an initial visit, document review and separate reporting. Neither approach is automatically better. The important issue is whether the stages are clearly described and whether the total expected cost can be understood. Where optional services are listed, ask which are necessary for the stated brief and which are only available if later required.

When reviewing the proposed output, look for a clear link between observations, risk significance and management action. The document should enable the responsible person to distinguish immediate concerns from routine improvements and to track what has been completed. It should also explain the basis for any recommendation, rather than presenting an unexplained list of defects. This makes it easier to judge whether the fee buys a meaningful management tool rather than an inspection record with limited practical use.

Price should be considered alongside the organisation’s legal and operational responsibilities. The Health and Safety Executive’s guidance, including the principles set out in the Approved Code of Practice and guidance on the control of legionella bacteria in water systems, provides a useful reference point when checking whether a proposed service is suitably structured. A quotation should not be accepted solely because it uses familiar terminology; its methods and deliverables should be consistent with the risks and duties relevant to the premises.

A practical comparison table can record the following for every quotation:

• the premises and systems included;
• the information the client must provide;
• the assessment stages and expected deliverables;
• all included and excluded charges;
• the assessor’s relevant competence and insurance;
• how findings will be prioritised and communicated;
• the arrangements for queries, amendments and future review.

Finally, retain the quotations and the reasons for the procurement decision. This creates a useful audit trail and helps the organisation assess whether the selected service remains appropriate when the premises, water systems or management arrangements change. In practice, the strongest proposal is the one with a transparent price, realistic assumptions and a deliverable that supports responsible ongoing control—not necessarily the one with the smallest headline fee.