Clearer evidence
A structured review of relevant management arrangements, competence controls and operational evidence could help contractors demonstrate how they manage diving risk.
ICDA is developing an independent contractor assurance framework intended to help commercial diving businesses evidence their operational capability and give clients clearer information when selecting diving contractors.
Contractors need credible ways to demonstrate competence to clients. The proposed ICDA framework aims to make that evidence more accessible, consistent and useful.
A structured review of relevant management arrangements, competence controls and operational evidence could help contractors demonstrate how they manage diving risk.
Defined, independently reviewed assurance may help businesses communicate their capabilities and differentiate themselves in procurement. It does not guarantee contract awards.
Meaningful findings should identify opportunities to strengthen systems and operational practice, not simply produce a checklist score.
Assurance requirements would depend on the activities being assessed, not contractor turnover. Audit time and fees could vary significantly by operational scope and complexity. Any approved recognition would clearly state its scope and limitations.
Proposed process only. ICDA has not yet launched an auditor approval or certification scheme.
Independent assurance should support better questions and more informed decisions.
ICDA intends to develop a scope-defined approach that could help clients understand what has been assessed, the evidence considered and any important limitations. Clients and other dutyholders would continue to be responsible for their own procurement decisions and legal obligations.
Recognition would not be a guarantee of compliance, safety performance or suitability for every project.
The proposed framework will require technical consultation and documented rules before any audits or recognition decisions can be offered.
Agree the operational activities, relevant standards and boundaries of the assessment.
Consider documented arrangements alongside representative operational evidence and competent professional judgement.
Explain observed strengths, gaps, limitations and appropriate improvement actions.
Apply impartial decision-making, conflict safeguards, review and appeal procedures before any recognition is granted.
ICDA intends to develop a network of suitably qualified, approved external auditors in different regions. Contractors could commission an eligible auditor to assess their operations against the applicable ICDA requirements, subject to published scheme rules.
Approved auditors could deliver assessments closer to the contractor, reducing unnecessary travel while applying a common methodology and reporting requirements.
Audit effort and cost would reflect the nature, complexity, risk, locations and scope of operations assessed — not the status a contractor can purchase.
Auditors would report evidence and findings. ICDA would retain responsibility for an impartial technical review and any decision to grant, maintain, suspend or refuse recognition.
A small contractor and a large contractor could achieve the same assurance designation against the same applicable requirements, but the certificate would clearly identify the assessed scope. Audit fees and ICDA review/membership fees would be distinct. Fees would never guarantee a favourable outcome.
Payment for an assessment must never determine its outcome.
ICDA intends to establish published criteria, appropriate assessor competence, conflict-of-interest controls and independent review mechanisms. Its commercial ownership will remain distinct from decisions about technical findings and recognition.
ICDA does not currently operate an accredited certification scheme, award contractor assurance status or provide regulatory approval. Any future scheme will clearly state its scope, status and limitations.
We welcome early conversations with diving contractors, clients and technical specialists as the proposed framework develops. There are no live assurance applications or fees at this stage.
See how the proposed ICDA inshore standard compares with selected industry frameworks.
View draft standards comparison →