Workplace Noise Assessment Costs WA 2026 - Get Free Quotes

Workplace Noise Assessment in WA

A workplace noise survey runs somewhere between $1,800 and $3,000 for a small workshop, and between $3,000 and $6,000 for a factory or a plant of any appreciable size. Personal dosimetry, meaning a small meter worn by the worker through a shift, adds $180 to $400 per worker monitored, audiometric testing costs $70 to $150 per worker, hearing protector fit testing sits at $60 to $120, and control design with reporting runs $1,500 to $5,000. Most businesses need the survey once and the testing on a repeating cycle. Testing recurs on a cycle while the survey itself is generally a one off. Budget for both of them rather than treating the two as one item. Dosimetry, audiometry and fit testing are each priced on a per worker basis.

This is a completely different question from the noise your business sends over the fence. Environmental assessment asks what the neighbours end up receiving, while this one asks what your own workers absorb across a shift, and the two are measured differently, judged against entirely different criteria and enforced by different bodies altogether. A site can comply perfectly at its boundary while exposing its own people to hazardous noise inside. Boundary compliance is covered separately at environmental noise assessment. One duty protects the neighbours and the other protects your own staff. Establish which of the two questions you are actually asking.

The framework sits in the Work Health and Safety Act 2020 and the Work Health and Safety (General) Regulations 2022, administered by WorkSafe WA. Western Australia moved to this national model later than the eastern states, which is why obligations that have been routine elsewhere for years arrived here only recently. That lag explains a great deal of the current confusion. Check that any advice you receive reflects the local dates.

The Exposure Standard

The exposure standard has two limbs and a workplace can breach either one. The first is an eight hour equivalent continuous A weighted sound pressure level of 85 decibels, which averages a worker's exposure across the whole of a shift. The second is a C weighted peak sound pressure level of 140 decibels, which is not an average of anything and can be breached by a single momentary event. Averaging across a shift is what catches sustained noise. A separate peak test is what catches everything else. An average level and a peak level get tested quite separately.

Both of those limbs are determined in accordance with AS/NZS 1269.1, the standard setting out how workplace noise exposure is to be measured and assessed. Naming that standard in a report is what makes the result checkable by somebody else, and Australian Standards are published by Standards Australia. A survey reporting levels without reference to it has not shown its working, and community criteria differ entirely at acoustic consultancy services. Omitting it leaves any reader simply trusting the author. Measurement position, duration and instrument all follow from that standard. Ask which standard the report was written against.

The eight hour equivalent is a dose rather than a level, which is the part people find counterintuitive. Halving the exposure time is roughly equivalent to a three decibel reduction in level, so a worker spending two hours at 91 decibels absorbs about the same daily dose as somebody spending eight hours at 85. Short bursts of very loud work can therefore matter more than a long day of moderate noise. Time and level trade against one another on a logarithmic scale. That relationship surprises most people the first time they meet it. Two hours of very loud work can match eight hours of moderate noise.

The peak limb catches impulsive events that an average would hide. A nail gun, a hammer strike on steel, a pneumatic tool or a burst of compressed air can each exceed 140 decibels C weighted momentarily while contributing very little indeed to the daily average. Any workplace with impact processes needs the peak assessed separately rather than inferred. Have that limb measured wherever impact work occurs.

A practical field indicator is worth knowing even though it proves nothing. Where people have to raise their voices to be understood at about a metre apart, levels are usually high enough to warrant a proper measured assessment. It is a prompt to go and measure rather than a substitute for measuring. Raised voices at about a metre apart is the rough signal to watch for. Treat that as a prompt rather than as any kind of finding. Use it to decide whether to commission a survey.

What Changed in 2024

Western Australia adopted the national work health and safety model considerably later than most of the country. The Work Health and Safety Act 2020 and its associated regulations commenced on 31 March 2022, with a transition period running through until 30 March 2024, so a number of duties that had existed in other states for years only became enforceable here during 2024. The transition period ran a full two years beyond commencement. Several duties only began to bite right at the end of it. Businesses operating in several states carried the newer duties elsewhere first. Their Western Australian sites often lagged behind their eastern ones.

Audiometric testing was among the duties held back through that transition. Regulation 58 came into force on 31 March 2024, and from that date any business providing hearing protection as a control measure, where workers are frequently required to use it because noise exceeds the exposure standard, has had to provide those workers with audiometric testing. That distinction matters a great deal when working out who is owed testing. Frequency of hearing protector use is the practical test to apply. Ask which roles simply could not function without it. Map which roles rely on protection before anything else.

The compensation side changed at almost the same time and in the opposite direction. From 1 July 2024, under the newer workers compensation legislation, the registered baseline hearing test previously required through WorkCover was removed altogether and the approved Audiometric Officer role effectively ceased to exist. Employers who had run that testing for decades found the familiar arrangement gone. One scheme wound down at almost the moment another commenced. The timing could hardly have been worse for anybody seeking clarity. Providers stopped offering the old test almost overnight.

The two changes together confused a great many businesses. One system was withdrawn and a different one commenced within a few months of each other, so employers who noticed only the withdrawal reasonably concluded that hearing testing was no longer required at all. The duty had in fact moved from the compensation scheme to the safety regulator and changed both its trigger and its interval. Some businesses stopped testing altogether and assumed that was correct. Check your own testing records for a gap around that period.

Anybody who stopped testing in 2024 should check their position now. The current duty attaches to frequent reliance on hearing protection rather than to a general noise exposure threshold, and the interval is two yearly rather than annual. The current wording sits with Western Australian Legislation, while duties owed to neighbours appear at environmental noise assessment. Records showing a two year gap are awkward to explain later on. Catching up now is cheaper than being asked about it later.

Audiometric Testing

The trigger for testing is frequent reliance on hearing protection rather than exposure alone. A worker occasionally putting in earplugs is a different case from one who cannot do the job without them. Occasional use sits quite differently from constant reliance. Work out which of those describes each role on site. Mapping which roles depend on protection is therefore the first step. Categorise by role rather than by workplace.

Timing is specific and easy to comply with once it is diarised. Testing has to be provided within three months of the worker commencing that particular work, and then at least once every two years afterwards. Where exposures are very high, at or above an eight hour equivalent of 100 decibels A weighted, more frequent testing may be needed than the two year minimum. Three months from commencement of the work is the first deadline. Two years thereafter is the recurring one. Very high exposures may warrant testing rather more often than two yearly.

The business provides and pays for the testing rather than the worker. That includes the follow up testing where a change in hearing is detected, and it includes maintaining records and giving workers access to their own results. Treating audiometry as a personal medical matter for the employee to arrange misreads the duty entirely. Follow up testing after any detected change sits with the business too. Budget it as a business cost rather than a worker expense.

Acceptable test types are defined rather than left open. Pure tone air conduction threshold testing, evoked otoacoustic emissions, or another method recommended by an audiologist that measures hearing thresholds at least as well are the permitted options, and the testing itself should follow the procedures set out in AS/NZS 1269.4. A pre employment audiometric test can satisfy the initial requirement where it meets those conditions. Procedures should follow the published auditory assessment standard. Equipment needs calibrating in accordance with it as well. Confirm which type your provider actually performs.

Results are meant to drive action rather than fill a file. Where a threshold shift is detected in the results, or a worker reports tinnitus, the controls have to be reviewed to establish whether something better than hearing protection can be implemented instead. The point of the testing is to catch damage while it remains temporary, and treatment at source is covered at noise control solutions. A detected shift triggers a review of controls rather than a file note. Tinnitus reported by a worker triggers exactly the same review. Act on a detected shift rather than filing the result.

Noise induced hearing loss develops gradually, causes no pain and cannot be reversed, and that combination is what allows it to go unmanaged for years. Nobody notices losing the top of their hearing range, the damage accumulates silently across years, and by the time a worker struggles to follow conversation in a noisy room the loss is well established and cannot be reversed. Tinnitus frequently arrives alongside it and is often the symptom that finally prompts somebody to speak up. That gradual onset is what makes measurement and periodic testing worth doing rather than waiting for complaints. Younger workers rarely see it as a present risk. The consequence arrives decades after the exposure.

Surveys and Dosimetry

A noise survey identifies which tasks, tools, areas and workers are creating or receiving the highest exposures. It establishes whether anybody actually exceeds the standard, which is the question every subsequent decision depends on, and it produces the evidence that controls were chosen on a reasoned basis rather than assumed. Every later decision on the site rests on that one answer. It also creates the evidence that controls were chosen deliberately. Regulators look for that reasoning rather than the outcome alone. An undocumented decision is hard to defend.

Personal dosimetry measures what an individual worker absorbs across a full shift. A small meter worn on the person, typically a Svantek, Casella or 3M unit, records continuously as they move between tasks and areas, capturing the actual pattern of a working day including the loud ten minutes that a fixed area reading would miss entirely. It is the only method that measures exposure rather than estimating it. Meters travel with the person rather than sitting in a corner somewhere. The loud ten minutes gets captured whichever way the day goes. Nothing else measures what a person genuinely receives.

Area monitoring answers a different question and both usually appear in a survey. Fixed position measurements map out where the noise actually sits in the workplace, which is what you need in order to design controls, while dosimetry tells you which people are affected by it. Using one where the other is needed produces a report that cannot support a decision. Fixed positions show where the noise actually lives in a building. Ask for both where controls are being designed.

Task based assessment suits workplaces where the work changes constantly. Rather than following a single worker all day, the consultant measures each distinct task, records how long each one takes, and then builds the daily exposure up from those components, which works well for maintenance crews and mobile plant operators whose days are never quite the same twice. Each individual task gets measured and timed separately. Daily exposure is then built up from those component parts. Maintenance crews and mobile plant operators benefit most from it. No two of their working days look remotely alike.

Sampling has to represent the workforce rather than the willing volunteers. Workers should be selected across roles, shifts and areas, and a survey monitoring three people from one shift on a quiet Tuesday has characterised nothing, much as a single logger fails to characterise a site at environmental noise assessment. A handful of volunteers is not a sample at all. Ask on what basis the monitored workers were chosen.

Communication and warning signals deserve consideration alongside the exposure figures. Workers who cannot hear a reversing alarm, a spotter calling out or a plant alarm are exposed to a different hazard entirely, and heavily attenuating protection in an already loud environment can create exactly that situation. Level dependent protectors, communication headsets and visual alarms all exist for this reason. A survey that considers only decibels and ignores what people need to hear has answered half the question. Over protection is a genuine failure mode rather than a theoretical one. Selection has to balance both directions.

Controls and Protectors

The hierarchy of control puts hearing protection last for good reason. Eliminating the noise source, substituting quieter plant, engineering controls such as enclosures, silencers and damping, and administrative measures such as rotating workers or restricting access all sit above personal protective equipment in that hierarchy, and a business relying solely on earplugs has skipped every step that actually works. Everything above it reduces exposure for everyone in the area at once. Protection only helps the individual wearing it correctly. Elimination and substitution sit at the top of it for good reason. Its position in that list is not accidental.

Buying quieter equipment is the cheapest control available and it is a purchasing decision rather than an engineering one. Manufacturers publish sound power data, the difference between models is often substantial, and specifying a noise limit in a purchase order costs nothing. Retrofitting an enclosure to a machine you already bought costs a great deal. A noise limit written into a purchase order costs precisely nothing. Add a sound power ceiling to your next purchase order.

Engineering controls address the source or the path rather than the person. Enclosures, acoustic louvres that admit air while attenuating sound, silencers on exhausts, vibration isolation, damping on panels and barriers between a process and the people around it all reduce exposure for everybody in the area at once. Physical treatment of this kind is covered at noise control solutions. Enclosures, silencers, isolation and damping all operate this way. None of them depend on worker behaviour to be effective. Prioritise these over anything worn on the person.

Hearing protector selection is more technical than it looks and getting it wrong cuts both ways. A protector with too little attenuation leaves the worker over exposed, while one with too much can isolate them from warning signals and speech, which creates a different hazard, and ranges from 3M Peltor, Honeywell Howard Leight and Moldex all publish the data needed to choose properly. Selection should follow the method in AS/NZS 1269.3 using the measured levels rather than a guess. Too little attenuation simply leaves the exposure uncontrolled. Selection should be made using measured levels rather than assumption.

Fit testing is the step most workplaces skip and it explains a great deal. Laboratory attenuation ratings assume a correct fit, real world performance is frequently far lower, and individual fit testing shows what a specific worker actually achieves with a specific protector. Systems such as 3M E-A-Rfit and Honeywell VeriPRO cost $60 to $120 per worker and frequently reveal that the protection assumed is not the protection delivered. Packet ratings assume a fit that most people never actually achieve. Individual testing is what shows the real figure. The cost per worker is trivial against a survey.

Buying decisions made years ago constrain what is possible today, which is the uncomfortable truth behind most noise problems. A press, compressor or extraction fan chosen without any regard to sound power will still be there in a decade, and the cost of enclosing it afterwards frequently exceeds the difference between the model bought and the quieter one available at the time. Businesses that add a noise criterion to their procurement process stop generating new problems, and that single administrative change does more over ten years than any amount of retrofitted treatment. Procurement is the cheapest lever any business has here. It also happens to be the one most often ignored. Specifying a ceiling at tender is the whole intervention.

Mining and Resources

Mine sites in Western Australia operate under a parallel set of regulations with equivalent noise provisions. The mines regulations carry their own noise duties, including audiometric testing requirements that mirror the general regulations, and the resources sector represents a large share of the state's total workplace noise exposure. Equivalent noise duties sit inside the mines regulations themselves, and the regulator for both is LGIRS. Sites frequently run occupational hygiene programmes well beyond the minimum. Confirm which set of regulations covers your site.

The noise sources on a resources site are unlike anything in a metropolitan workshop. Crushing and screening circuits running continuously, haul trucks, drill rigs, compressed air, conveyors, and maintenance work carried out beside operating plant all contribute, and exposure assessment has to account for twelve hour shifts rather than the eight hour reference period. Exposure accumulates across the whole of a swing. Assess exposure across the full shift length actually worked.

Extended shifts change the arithmetic and are frequently mishandled. A twelve hour shift at a given level produces a higher daily dose than eight hours at the same level, so the eight hour equivalent has to be calculated properly rather than read straight off a meter. Rosters of consecutive long shifts compound that effect a good deal further again. Eight hours is the reference period rather than the working day. The two are rarely the same in this state.

Fly in fly out arrangements complicate the testing logistics rather than the duty itself. Getting workers through audiometric testing at the required intervals means either mobile testing on site or scheduling around swings, and providers serving the sector run mobile facilities and regional road trips for exactly this reason. Site electrical and plant work sits at commercial electrician. Swings have to be worked around one way or another. Book testing around the swing rather than against it.

Contractors are frequently the gap in a site's compliance. A principal may have its own workforce well managed while contractors coming and going across a year fall through the cracks, and the duty attaches to the business whose workers they are. National guidance on managing noise at work is published by Safe Work Australia. Principals frequently manage their own workforce quite well. It is the people moving through who get missed. Short engagements make the three month deadline easy to miss.

Workers have a genuine interest in this information and involving them improves the outcome. People doing the job know which tasks are loudest, which machine has become noisier lately and where the protection is uncomfortable enough that nobody wears it properly, and none of that appears in a meter reading. Health and safety representatives are entitled to see group results, individuals are entitled to their own, and a programme run without any of that consultation tends to produce compliance on paper and indifference on the floor. Ask the people wearing the plugs what actually happens. Involving them early also improves the quality of the data collected.

What the Report Contains

A noise survey report should identify who was monitored and why those people were chosen. Roles, shifts, tasks and areas covered all belong in the document, because the representativeness of the sample determines whether the conclusions apply to the workforce as a whole. A report listing results without explaining the sampling has left out something important. Representativeness decides whether conclusions apply beyond those tested.

Measured results should appear as individual exposures rather than an average across the group. Each worker monitored has their own eight hour equivalent and their own peak, and averaging those together hides the person who is most at risk. Peaks should be reported separately from the eight hour figure in every case. Group averages conceal the person who is most at risk. Every monitored worker carries their own individual figure. Ask for the individual figures rather than a group average.

Instrumentation and calibration details need to be stated. The meter or dosimeter used, its class, the field calibration at the start and end of monitoring, and the standard followed all belong in the report, since without them nobody can verify that the numbers mean what they appear to mean. Drift between those two readings invalidates whatever sits between them. Ask for the calibration certificates if they are not attached. Request the calibration certificates alongside the report.

Recommendations should follow the hierarchy rather than defaulting to protection. Where an engineering control is reasonably practicable it should be identified and costed in principle, and where hearing protection is recommended the report should specify a class or attenuation and explain why higher order controls were not adopted. Insulation and lining work sits at ceiling and wall insulation. Falling straight to protection skips the genuinely useful part. Ask why any higher control was ruled out.

The audiometric testing position should be addressed explicitly. A survey that identifies workers frequently relying on hearing protection has effectively identified who is owed testing, and saying so plainly saves the business working it out later. Reports for the surrounding community are covered at commercial acoustic report. Naming the roles that rely on protection makes the testing obligation entirely obvious.

Reviewing the assessment matters as much as commissioning it in the first place. A survey describes the workplace as it was on the days it was done, and new plant, a changed process, a different roster or a new product line can all move exposures without anybody noticing. Treating the report as a permanent record rather than a snapshot is a common mistake, and a review triggered by change costs a fraction of a fresh survey. Note the date, note what has altered since, and reassess when the answer stops matching the document. A survey is a snapshot rather than a standing certificate. Change on the site is what invalidates that snapshot.

What Drives the Price

The number of workers monitored is the main variable in a survey. Each dosimeter deployment involves fitting, briefing, a full shift of recording, retrieval and analysis, and at $180 to $400 per worker a survey covering twenty people costs several times one covering five. Representative sampling is what keeps that number sensible. Monitoring twenty workers costs several times what five does. Deciding the sample well is where a survey budget is genuinely controlled. Monitoring the entire workforce is rarely necessary at all.

Shift patterns affect attendance more than most people expect. A workplace running three shifts needs the consultant present across all of them to characterise exposure properly, and night attendance is charged accordingly. Single shift operations are considerably cheaper to survey properly. Three shifts means three separate attendances rather than one. Night attendance carries the usual premium on top. Tell the consultant your roster before asking for a price.

Task based work costs more than straightforward area monitoring. Where the workforce is mobile and the work varies, the consultant has to observe and time individual tasks rather than simply deploying meters, which is skilled observation work measured in days. Maintenance and construction workforces usually require this approach. Observation and timing of tasks takes days rather than hours. Mobile workforces almost always need that approach. Say plainly how much the work varies day to day.

Audiometric testing is priced per worker and scales linearly. At $70 to $150 each, testing a workforce of forty is a predictable cost, and mobile providers bringing a booth or a truck to site remove the productivity loss of sending people offsite. Booking it alongside other health surveillance reduces the overall total. Onsite testing removes the travel time for your staff.

Control design is a separate engagement from the survey. Once exposures are known, designing an enclosure, specifying a silencer or selecting quieter plant is engineering work costing $1,500 to $5,000 depending on complexity, and treating it as part of the survey fee produces a disappointing report. Building and fitting those controls is quoted at soundproofing installation. Knowing the exposures is not at all the same as knowing the fix. Ask what designing the fix would cost on top.

Record keeping is the part that costs nothing and saves everything. Survey reports, audiometric results, calibration certificates, purchase specifications showing noise criteria and the reasoning behind each control decision all belong in one place, retained and retrievable. The obligation to keep audiometric records runs for a defined period, and beyond the legal minimum a complete file is what demonstrates that decisions were made deliberately rather than by default. Businesses that maintain it spend an hour a year, and those that do not spend weeks reconstructing it when somebody asks. Auditors and inspectors both start with the file rather than the workplace.

Perth Metro Costs

Fees across the Perth metropolitan area track workforce size and shift pattern rather than industry. A quiet office needs nothing at all, while a workshop with twelve staff across two shifts sits mid range whatever it makes, and plant treatment is priced at soundproofing installation. The industry matters far less than the headcount and the roster. Two otherwise similar workshops can differ on shift pattern alone. Roster complexity drives attendance and attendance drives fee. A single day shift operation is the cheapest case by some margin.

Light industrial areas across Malaga, Wangara, Welshpool and Canning Vale generate steady survey work. Engineering workshops, fabrication shops, joinery and vehicle repair all sit comfortably above the standard on some tasks, and the businesses concerned are frequently small enough that nobody has ever formally assessed the exposure. Many of those businesses have never been formally assessed at all. Size rather than risk is usually what explains the gap. Small size is not the same as low exposure.

The Kwinana industrial area and the heavy end of the market operate differently. Larger workforces, continuous shift patterns and permanent occupational hygiene arrangements mean noise assessment is generally part of an established programme rather than a one off, and those sites tend to be well ahead of the small business end on compliance. Established occupational hygiene programmes are the norm at that scale. The small business end is where the compliance gap sits. Benchmark against similar operations rather than smaller ones.

Regional and FIFO Costs

Regional workplace noise work carries travel like everything else in Western Australia, but the audiometric side has a practical answer that environmental work does not. Mobile testing facilities travel to site, which turns an impossible logistical problem into a scheduled one. That option simply does not exist for boundary measurement. Scheduling around an existing regional trip is the single biggest saving available.

Mobile audiometric providers run regional road trips on a schedule. Trucks and caravans fitted with accredited booths travel to regional centres and site locations, testing a workforce in a day or two, and joining an existing trip is considerably cheaper than commissioning a dedicated visit. Ask what trips are already planned for your area. Joining an already planned trip costs far less than commissioning one. Ask what regional trips are already scheduled. Routes get published well in advance.

Combining health surveillance reduces the cost per worker substantially. Where audiometry, spirometry, fit testing and other monitoring are done in the same visit, the travel component is spread across several services rather than carried by one. Most providers offer that combination as a matter of routine. Ask what else the provider can do in the same visit.

Twelve hour shifts and swing rosters need planning around rather than working around. Testing requires a period of quiet before it, workers coming off a night shift are not in a suitable state, and a testing programme scheduled without regard to the roster produces poor data and irritated staff. Construction contractors are listed at builders WA. A period of quiet before testing is a genuine requirement. Schedule testing where workers have had proper rest.

What to Look Out For

Check whether you stopped testing in 2024 without meaning to. The WorkCover baseline test was removed and regulation 58 commenced within months of each other, and businesses that noticed only the withdrawal concluded testing had ended. The duty moved to the safety regulator, applies where workers frequently rely on hearing protection, and runs at three months then two yearly. The duty moved across rather than disappearing altogether. Two years of missing records is the usual symptom of it.

An eight hour equivalent of 85 decibels A weighted and a C weighted peak of 140 decibels are separate tests, and a workplace with impact processes can pass the average comfortably while breaching the peak on a single hammer strike. Nail guns, pneumatic tools and compressed air all behave in the same way. Their contribution to a daily average is negligible while their peak is not. Any site with impact work needs that limb measured rather than inferred from the average.

Do not treat hearing protection as the control. It sits at the bottom of the hierarchy, and elimination, substitution with quieter plant, engineering controls and administrative measures all rank above it, so a business handing out earplugs and stopping there has skipped every step that reduces exposure for everybody at once. Protection depends on a correct fit being achieved every single time. Work upward through the hierarchy before settling for plugs.

Insist on fit testing rather than trusting the packet rating. Laboratory attenuation figures assume a fit that most workers never achieve, real world performance is frequently much lower, and individual fit testing at $60 to $120 per worker regularly shows that assumed protection is not delivered protection. Assumed protection and delivered protection are routinely quite different. Fit testing settles which of the two you actually have. Budget a small amount per worker for it.

Make sure the survey samples properly across the workforce. Roles, shifts and areas all need representing, and monitoring three willing volunteers from one shift on a quiet day characterises nothing. Ask how the sample was selected before accepting any conclusion drawn from it, and see commercial acoustic report for the boundary question. The selection method belongs in the report itself. Ask who was monitored and on exactly what basis.

What to Look for in a Quote in WA

A workplace noise quote should state how many workers will be personally monitored and how they will be selected, whether area monitoring and task based assessment are included alongside dosimetry, which shifts will be attended, the instrumentation and standard being worked to, whether hearing protector selection and fit testing are in scope, whether audiometric testing is included or quoted separately, and whether control design forms part of the engagement or follows it. How many people get monitored, and across how many shifts, is where two prices usually diverge. Query anything at all that the quote leaves unstated. Assume nothing is included unless the document says so.

Put the same picture of the operation in front of each of them. Staff numbers, roles, shift patterns, the plant and tools in use, whether hearing protection is currently issued and any previous survey or audiometric results all shape the scope. A consultant quoting without the shift pattern has not priced the attendance. Nobody quotes for work they were never told about.

Rosters are the first thing a competent consultant will want to see. Somebody wanting to know how many shifts run, whether the work varies day to day, how many people wear hearing protection and when they were last tested is scoping the real assessment. Somebody working off a headcount alone has guessed at the whole job. Shift count, task variability and protection use all shape the eventual work. Somebody asking those things is scoping the actual assessment.

Settle the sample size, the shift coverage and the audiometric question before engaging anybody. Residential criteria are covered at residential acoustic report, with the wider field at acoustic consultancy services. Confirm how many workers get monitored and across which of the shifts. Establish whether fit testing and audiometry sit inside the quoted fee. Ask what control design would cost as a separate piece of work.