How to review a RAMS: decide whether the proposed work can start

Review a contractor's RAMS by comparing it with the actual job and site, then tracing each significant risk to a workable control in the method sequence. Check who will do the work, what equipment and permits are needed, how other people are protected, and what happens if the method changes. Accept it only when the missing facts are resolved and the physical controls can be put in place. A tidy document or a risk-score table is not enough.

This guide is for a client, principal contractor, site manager or other recipient reviewing a contractor's risk assessment and method statement in Great Britain. It is not a substitute for the contractor's own competent assessment or for specialist design of a lift, excavation, isolation or rescue plan. The existing Complys “what to include in RAMS” guide tells an author what a complete document contains. This page addresses the recipient's accept, return or hold decision. The contractor scope-change guide owns changes after work begins; it is linked at the relevant stage here.

HSE says construction method statements can be used to communicate the safe sequence and precautions identified in a risk assessment. They may also help the principal contractor coordinate work and develop the construction-phase plan. HSE notes that for most construction activities a separately titled method statement is not itself a universal legal requirement, although written arrangements are required for particular work, including demolition or structural alteration. HSE construction administration is the primary basis. The review should therefore focus on whether the duties and controls are met, not on a preferred template layout.

What a reviewer is deciding

There are three useful outcomes:

1. Accept for the defined scope, subject to site checks: the RAMS matches the job, significant controls are specified and resources/permits will be verified before starting.
2. Return for revision: important information or a control is missing, contradictory or impracticable. State exactly what must change.
3. Hold or reject the proposed method: work cannot start safely under this method, or a specialist decision is needed first. Examples include unassessed live services, an unsupported excavation, a lift with no competent plan or a missing asbestos decision.

Acceptance is not a warranty that all work will be safe. The contractor still must implement its controls, and the site controller still must coordinate overlapping operations. A reviewer should be competent to assess the submission's risks or obtain specialist review. Do not invent a rule that every RAMS needs a professional engineer's signature; do obtain one for design or engineering decisions outside the reviewer's competence.

A practical review sequence

1. Confirm document control and job identity

Check contractor, project, exact site, activity, work area, dates, author, approver and revision. Does the document cover the instructed work, including preparation, temporary conditions, installation and handover? A generic “working at height” RAMS may not describe a rooflight installation above occupied space. Compare it with drawings, the contract scope, site survey, construction-phase plan and permit conditions. If the work changed since the RAMS was issued, the reviewer needs a revised scope and assessment.

Ask who prepared the document and whether the supervisor and crew will receive the current version. An old copy signed by a different team has limited value. Check whether trade-specific appendices and product safety data sheets are current and actually correspond to materials on site.

2. Trace each significant hazard to a control

Read the risk assessment's hazards, people affected and controls. For each significant hazard, find the point in the method sequence where the control is applied and checked. For example, “risk of falls through rooflights” should connect to the access route, protection system, exclusion below and rescue arrangements. “Use PPE” alone is not a plan for preventing a fall. HSE's work-at-height assessment guidance requires planning and a hierarchy of controls. The reviewer should ask why a higher-order prevention option was not reasonably practicable before accepting a lower-order measure.

Look for hazards created by the method itself: cutting dust, noise, vibration, lifting, temporary openings, hot work, power isolation, vehicle movements, confined spaces, hazardous substances or public access, only where relevant. Do not reward a form that lists every hazard but gives no task-specific method. Risk scores do not overcome missing controls. Conversely, a short document can be adequate for a simple task if the assessment and sequence are clear and proportionate.

3. Test the physical sequence

Imagine the job from delivery to exit. Where will materials arrive and be stored? Who isolates or protects an area? What equipment is available and inspected? When is the hold point released? How does the crew install, test and hand over? Where could another trade or the public enter the zone? HSE says a method statement should describe a logical sequence and can include simple sketches to remove ambiguity. Ask for a sketch where a lift path, access route or exclusion zone is hard to explain in words.

Check whether the proposed controls can physically exist on this site. A tower scaffold may not fit a narrow corridor; a water-suppression method may be incompatible with live electrics; a rescue plan may depend on a person absent from the night shift. If the submitted method cannot be implemented, return it. Do not accept on the assumption that the supervisor will “sort it out on the day.”

4. Check people, competence and coordination

Identify supervisor, specialist operators, permit issuer, lifting or temporary-works designer where relevant, and the person with stop-work authority. Check training or competence against the actual task rather than treating a generic card as proof of every capability. If several contractors work together, verify who controls the boundary and how information is shared. HSE's contractor guidance says contractors should have the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out work safely and should receive relevant construction-phase information on multi-contractor projects.

Check site welfare and emergency access, particularly where work is remote, out of hours or in an occupied building. The RAMS should state who briefs the crew and how a new worker or replacement shift receives the current method. A signature list attached after work is finished does not demonstrate pre-start understanding.

5. Reconcile permits, specialist plans and evidence

A RAMS cannot silently replace a separate authorisation. Check whether the task needs a permit to work, isolation certificate, excavation permit, lifting plan, temporary-works design, asbestos information, COSHH assessment, traffic plan or rescue plan. Verify which document governs the task and whether the instructions conflict. For example, a permit may identify a locked isolation while the RAMS says only to switch off locally. Resolve contradictions before starting.

Use current primary requirements for the hazards that actually apply. HSE's construction administration page distinguishes method statements, inspection reports and specialist records. A document that says “LOLER compliant” without an identifiable lifting operation, equipment check or competent plan does not answer what will happen on site. Ask the contractor to show the supporting plan rather than inserting legal acronyms into a general-purpose paragraph.

6. Agree the pre-start and change gates

Separate document acceptance from permission to start. Before work, a supervisor should verify that the right people, plant, controls, permits and site conditions are present. Record who checks them and who releases the work. A useful RAMS states what triggers a stop and review: an unexpected material, different plant, changed route, new nearby trade, failed isolation, weather, a changed shift or incident. HSE says method statements should be revised when circumstances change markedly and that checking whether written methods are practised on site is useful monitoring.

When a change occurs, follow the separate scope-change guidance: stop the affected activity, make it safe, assess the change, revise linked documents/permits, brief people and verify restart controls. Do not treat a manager's email “approved” as proof that the crew has the revised equipment and information.

Copyable reviewer checklist

If returning a RAMS, give precise comments: “the excavation section identifies a buried cable but no located route or safe digging sequence” is actionable; “not compliant” is not. Keep the submitted version and decision trail, then review the revised document against the same site. Do not accept a revision that answers one comment by creating a different conflict.

Worked example: roof repair near a public entrance

A roofing subcontractor submits a RAMS for replacing rooflights. It identifies falls but proposes harnesses as its only control, says the roof is “sound,” and omits the public entrance below. The reviewer holds the method. They ask for the access and fragile-surface assessment, prevention controls under the work-at-height hierarchy, a plan for protecting people below and a task-specific rescue arrangement. The subcontractor revises the method and site plan; the reviewer checks that the platform and barriers will actually be in place before work starts. A polished risk matrix would not have cured those omissions.

Common reviewer errors

• Approving on the basis of formatting, risk scores or a supplier logo.
• Checking only the hazard table and not the work sequence.
• Treating “PPE” as a substitute for elimination or collective protection.
• Assuming specialist permits or lift plans are covered because the RAMS mentions an acronym.
• Ignoring the interface with other trades, occupants and public routes.
• Accepting a method that depends on equipment or trained people absent from the site.
• Signing once and never checking the actual work or later changes.
• Treating RAMS approval as transferring all responsibility to the person who signed it.

Complys and next step

The Complys RAMS knowledge centre and free RAMS check page are observed live resources. The RAMS product page is the commercial next step for businesses that create and manage project-specific documents. Public marketing references a checker and subcontractor review, but integration must verify exactly what current code does, how outputs are produced, pricing/terms and human review limits. A software verdict cannot inspect the actual workface or approve a specialist lift, excavation or isolation. This guide should not claim that Complys certifies RAMS as legally compliant.

Take one recent contractor submission and apply the checklist against the real work area. Return it with specific requests if critical controls are missing, then confirm that the accepted version is briefed and implemented. That is the useful result of review.

Source, claim, owner, product, links and writer-side QA

Terminal writer-side disposition: READY.