What is included in a Legionnaires’ risk assessment fee?

A Legionnaires’ risk assessment fee normally covers the professional work required to understand a premises’ water systems, identify conditions that could allow Legionella to grow or spread, and document the actions needed to manage those risks. The exact scope should be confirmed in the quotation, because a fee for an assessment is not automatically a fee for water testing, ongoing monitoring or remedial work.

Defining the assessment scope: Before the visit, the assessor should establish which buildings, water systems and areas are included. This may cover hot and cold water services, stored water, distribution pipework, outlets, showers, thermostatic mixing valves and other equipment that could affect the risk. The scope should also identify any areas that are excluded, such as vacant buildings, tenant-controlled installations or specialist systems requiring a separate assessment.

Reviewing available information: Time may be allowed for examining relevant records, including water system schematics, asset registers, previous assessments, temperature monitoring results, cleaning and disinfection records, maintenance information and existing control procedures. These documents help the assessor compare the documented arrangements with the conditions found on site and identify gaps in the management system.

Examining the system in operation: The site element commonly involves tracing the system, checking representative outlets and inspecting components that can influence water temperature, flow and stagnation. The assessor may consider infrequently used outlets, redundant pipework, storage tanks, calorifiers, showers, TMVs, flexible hoses and other features where water may remain static or become aerosolised. Access to relevant plant rooms, tanks, outlets and records is therefore an important part of the agreed fee and scope.

Understanding how the system is managed: An assessment also considers who has responsibility for control measures and how routine tasks are carried out. This can include discussions with the responsible person, facilities team or maintenance contractor about temperature checks, flushing arrangements, cleaning, fault reporting, contractor oversight and record keeping. The fee should account for assessing whether these arrangements are suitable for the installation and being followed consistently.

Evaluating the level of risk: The assessor considers factors such as water temperature, stagnation, system complexity, areas of low use, opportunities for aerosol exposure, the condition of equipment and the vulnerability of people who may be exposed. The assessment should distinguish between hazards observed at the time of inspection and weaknesses in the wider control arrangements, so that actions can be prioritised appropriately.

Providing useful assessment documentation: A properly scoped fee should result in documentation that identifies the systems assessed, the information considered, significant findings, control responsibilities and actions requiring attention. It should be sufficiently specific for the responsible person to understand what needs to happen, who should undertake it and whether specialist input, further investigation or a change to the control scheme is needed.

Items that may be charged separately: Unless expressly included, the fee may not cover laboratory water samples, remedial plumbing, tank cleaning, disinfection, replacement equipment, ongoing monitoring visits, updated drawings or a follow-up assessment. These are distinct services because their extent depends on the findings and on the condition and complexity of the water system.

Before accepting a quotation, a business should check whether the fee includes travel and access arrangements, review of existing records, all relevant buildings and systems, photographs or system schedules, and any follow-up clarification. It should also confirm whether the assessment is a one-off review or forms part of a wider Legionella control programme. This prevents a low headline fee from being compared with a more comprehensive scope on an unequal basis.