Hot Topic July 18, 2026

The AHA and APP Survival Guide: What QARs Are Rejecting in 2024

QARs across USACE districts are applying the 2024 EM 385-1-1 documentation standards with unprecedented consistency. Here are the rejection patterns we're tracking — and exactly how to avoid them.

Rejection #1: The Missing ENG Form 6293

This is the number one reason APPs are being rejected across every USACE district we track. Contractors are submitting APPs with their old cover page — or worse, no standardized cover at all — and QARs are issuing deficiency notices within 48 hours. The fix is simple: your APP template must include the new eight-page ENG Form 6293 as the cover sheet. Not stapled to the front. Integrated. The QAR expects to see it as page one.

Rejection #2: Generic Hazard Controls in AHAs

The 2024 manual's emphasis on the hierarchy of controls has changed what an acceptable hazard control looks like in an AHA. "Wear PPE" and "use caution" are no longer sufficient as primary controls. QARs are looking for engineering controls first, administrative controls second, and PPE only as the last line of defense — and they want to see that hierarchy reflected in every row of your AHA.

If your AHA template doesn't have a dedicated column for the control hierarchy level (elimination → substitution → engineering → administrative → PPE), you're inviting rejection. Even better: include a column that shows why higher-level controls weren't feasible for that specific hazard. That level of documentation is what separates a first-pass approval from a deficiency notice.

Rejection #3: The Training Matrix Gap

We're seeing a spike in rejections where the APP references training requirements but doesn't include the actual training documentation matrix. The 2024 manual is explicit: the matrix is part of the submittal package, not a separate document you produce later. Missing matrix = rejected APP. Missing edition notation on training dates = deficiency notice. Missing refresher due dates = conditional approval with a tight correction deadline.

Rejection #4: Site-Specific Plans That Aren't Site-Specific

This is the one that catches experienced contractors off guard. You submit a fall protection plan that worked on your last three USACE projects. It references OSHA 1926 Subpart M, EM 385-1-1 Chapter 21, and has all the right equipment specs. And it gets rejected. Why? Because nowhere in the plan does it reference the actual structures, elevations, or definable features of work on this project.

The 2024 manual raised the bar on site-specificity. If your fall protection plan says "all elevated work surfaces above 6 feet" but doesn't name the specific bridge abutments, roof sections, or shaft openings on this contract, the QAR is going to flag it. The same goes for confined space plans (name the spaces), excavation plans (reference the specific trench locations), and emergency action plans (reference the actual site layout and nearest medical facilities).

Rejection #5: The CE-SOHMS Integration Statement

This is a new one specific to the 2024 revision. The APP must now include a statement describing how the contractor's safety program integrates with the government's CE-SOHMS framework. It doesn't need to be lengthy, but it does need to demonstrate that you understand CE-SOHMS and have aligned your program accordingly. We're seeing rejections where the APP is otherwise solid but omits this statement entirely.

The Fix: A Submittal-Ready Checklist

Before you submit your next APP or AHA package, run through this checklist:

  • ENG Form 6293 cover sheet — integrated as page one, fully completed
  • Training documentation matrix — all personnel listed with roles, training tiers, completion dates, and refresher due dates
  • Training edition notation — every entry shows whether training was under 2014 or 2024 manual
  • AHA hazard controls — hierarchy of controls column populated for every hazard, not just "wear PPE"
  • Site-specific detail — plans reference actual project features, structures, and locations by name
  • CE-SOHMS integration statement — included in the APP, even if brief
  • Residual risk documented — every AHA row shows the risk level after controls are applied

Run that checklist against your next submittal and you'll be ahead of 90% of the contractors in your district.

Stop Getting Rejected

Our document templates are built specifically to pass 2024-standard QAR review. 98% first-pass approval rate.

Get Compliant Templates