Contractor RAMS review and acceptance before work starts

Receiving a contractor's risk assessment and method statement is a handover point, not an approval in itself. Someone must check whether the proposed method fits the actual location, scope, interfaces and sequence of work. The contractor remains responsible for carrying out its work safely; the client or principal contractor still needs arrangements to coordinate work it controls. A useful RAMS review ends with a clear decision and a record of what was checked.

This guide concerns the human review of contractor RAMS **before** a job starts. It does not explain how to write RAMS from a blank page or what to do after the scope changes. The HSE's guidance on using contractors describes identifying the job, choosing a suitable contractor, assessing risk, exchanging information and supervising the work. HSE notes that a safety method statement is not automatically required by law for every job; its value is in describing how the work will be done safely.

Define what the reviewer is accepting

State the work package, location, dates, contractor, supervisor and version of the documents under review. Confirm whether the submission includes supporting items such as drawings, permits, lifting plans or isolation arrangements. Acceptance should be limited to that defined scope. It should not be written as a certificate that every hazard has been eliminated or that the reviewer has taken over the contractor's professional duties.

Decide who reviews technical controls and who checks operational interfaces. A facilities manager might know access restrictions and occupied areas but not be qualified to approve a structural temporary works design. A competent specialist should review the matters within their expertise. Assign a named decision owner and an escalation route before documents arrive.

Check the method against the real site

Use a walk-through or current site information. Does the RAMS describe the correct plant, materials, people, access points and neighbouring activities? Are the hazards and controls tied to the sequence of work? If the contractor will isolate equipment, work at height, disturb services or enter a restricted area, is the separate permit or technical authorisation identified? Check emergency and welfare arrangements, communication with occupants and the plan for subcontractors.

The review is not a search for a particular phrase. A generic document can mention every hazard and still miss the job's actual interface. Record questions where the method conflicts with the site or depends on an unverified assumption. Ask the contractor to revise the document when the method itself is incomplete. A meeting note should not silently override a deficient RAMS.

Make the decision explicit

Use a limited set of outcomes: accepted for the defined scope; returned for revision; or pending specified information. A conditional acceptance should list the condition, its owner, the evidence needed and the point before which work cannot start. Avoid “approved” stamps that hide unresolved items. Record the reviewed version and date, who made the decision and the basis for it.

Send the decision to the contractor's supervisor and the person controlling the site. Keep the accepted version available to the people who will use it. If an attachment changes, make it clear whether the earlier acceptance remains valid. A revised document should be identified as a new version, not quietly substituted for the one reviewed.

Brief the work team and check readiness

Before work starts, confirm that the people doing the job understand the relevant controls and know what would make them stop and seek a fresh decision. A signed attendance sheet alone does not show understanding; ask the supervisor to explain the sequence and the critical hold points. Check that required permits, isolation, access and equipment are actually in place. Acceptance of a document should never be mistaken for permission to start before those site conditions are met.

During work, monitor the agreed controls at a frequency proportionate to risk. If scope, site conditions, equipment or personnel change materially, pause and reassess. The separate contractor scope-change risk assessment guide owns the after-start revision and restart task; keep that process distinct from this pre-start acceptance.

Keep evidence that can answer a later question

Retain the submission, review comments, contractor responses, final version, decision, briefing and any related permit references. Link them by job and date so a later reviewer can see which method was in force when work began. Do not retain unnecessary personal information merely because a document-management system can store it.

For teams comparing how to organise these records, Complys contractor management software is a relevant product overview. Ask for a demonstration of the specific submission, reviewer, version and decision flow you need. The buyer, rather than a software label, must decide who is competent to accept the work and when the site is ready.

Example: a method that is almost right

Suppose a contractor submits a method for replacing rooftop equipment. The sequence and fall controls are described, but the document assumes the lifting area will be empty. The site contact knows another contractor will use the access route that morning. The reviewer should record the interface problem, return the method for a coordinated sequence and identify who will confirm the exclusion area before lifting starts. A generic “accepted subject to site conditions” note would leave the critical decision unresolved. After the revised method is reviewed, the relevant supervisors need the same version and briefing. If the lift later changes because the crane position is unavailable, that is a fresh scope or method decision, not permission to improvise under the earlier acceptance.