Contractor RAMS review checklist: what to check before work starts

Reviewing contractor RAMS before work starts should involve two distinct stages:

1. Review the submitted documents to identify missing information, inconsistencies and matters requiring clarification or specialist input.
2. Verify at the work location that the conditions, people, equipment and controls match the reviewed documents, and complete any separate authorisation process.

Completing the first stage does not prove that the work is safe or authorise it to begin. A suitable document-review outcome is therefore “ready to progress to pre-start checks and authorisation”, rather than simply “approved”.

This guide concerns health and safety requirements and HSE guidance applying in Great Britain. Northern Ireland has separate legislation and regulatory guidance. The two-stage process and document-review outcomes below are a practical framework, not a legal procedure prescribed for every organisation or task. They should be adapted to the work, contractual arrangements, relevant dutyholder roles and the organisation’s own controls.

What does RAMS mean?

RAMS is commonly used as shorthand for a risk assessment and method statement.

A risk assessment should identify the relevant hazards, who may be harmed, the controls already in place and any further action required. HSE’s risk-management guidance also emphasises assigning responsibility for further actions and reviewing whether controls remain effective.

A method statement describes how the work will be carried out. It can set out the sequence of work, the resources needed and the controls to be applied at each stage. HSE explains that method statements are widely used to plan and communicate construction work, particularly where it is higher risk, complex or unusual.

There is no general legal requirement in Great Britain to use one combined document called “RAMS” for every task. Employers must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of risks to their employees and to other people affected by their work under regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. More specific requirements may apply to particular hazards or activities. Whether a method or other arrangement must be recorded in writing depends on the work and the applicable legislation.. For example, HSE’s construction method-statement guidance distinguishes general use of method statements from the written arrangements required for demolition, dismantling or structural alteration.

Information to gather before reviewing contractor RAMS

A reviewer cannot assess whether a submission is relevant to the proposed work without enough information about the job and its setting.

Before starting the review, gather what is available about:

• the contractor and the work being commissioned;
• the exact task, location and planned timing;
• the people, occupants and operations that may be affected;
• known site hazards, access limits and local rules;
• information supplied by the client or site team;
• other contractors or activities taking place nearby;
• required permits, isolations or authorisations;
• applicable construction-phase or pre-construction information;
• previous incidents, problems or lessons relevant to the work; and
• any technical subjects requiring a suitably competent specialist.

HSE’s guidance on using contractors covers defining the work, exchanging information, agreeing controls, cooperation, supervision and monitoring. For construction work, the relevant responsibilities must also be considered under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015.

How to use this checklist

For each question, record one response:

• Yes
• No
• Needs clarification
• Not applicable

Use a separate evidence or comment field to record the document reference, reason for the answer, question to be resolved or action required.

A “yes” should be supported by what the submission actually says. “Not applicable” should include a reason. No single answer establishes that work may begin.

Stage 1: contractor RAMS document review

1. Submission and scope

• Does the submission identify the contractor, project, exact work location, task and planned timing?
• Are the document version, issue date and responsible author or reviewer clear?
• Are the scope, exclusions and limits of the work defined?
• Does the submission reflect the site, client and pre-construction information supplied?
• Are interfaces with occupants, members of the public, other contractors and nearby activities addressed?

The aim is to establish whether everyone is reviewing the same job. Incorrect locations, dates or task descriptions can make otherwise detailed content irrelevant.

2. Risk assessment

• Are the hazards specific to the task, location, equipment and expected conditions?
• Does the assessment identify who may be harmed and how?
• Are the existing and proposed controls clear enough to be understood and acted upon?
• Are relevant specialist or task-specific assessments identified?
• Are assumptions, dependencies and unresolved actions visible?
• Where further controls are required, are the action owner and completion point recorded?
• Is the reasoning clear, rather than relying only on a completed risk matrix or residual-risk score?

HSE warns against copying an example assessment and simply changing the company name. The assessment must address the specific hazards and controls required for the work. See HSE’s risk-assessment template and examples.

A numerical risk score can help an organisation apply its chosen process, but it does not demonstrate that the hazards are complete or that the proposed controls are workable. The reviewer should examine the reasoning behind the score.

3. Method statement

• Does the method describe a logical sequence from arrival and set-up through completion and handback?
• Are the proposed access arrangements, equipment, plant, materials and working methods clear
• Are controls described at the stage of work where they will be needed?
• Is the method consistent with the hazards and controls in the risk assessment?
• Are emergency, rescue or stop-work arrangements included where relevant?
• Does the method explain how the area will be left secure and handed back?
• Is any generic or copied wording contradicted by the actual job details?

A useful method statement should help the people involved understand what will happen, in what order and with which controls. It should also identify important interfaces with the site and other activities.

The level of detail should reflect the work. Excessive generic content can make the important controls harder to find, while a short document may be insufficient for complex or unusual work.

4. People, competence and coordination

• Are supervision and other important responsibilities clear?
• Are the necessary skills, knowledge, training, experience or authorisations identified?
• Are induction, briefing and communication arrangements addressed?
• Is coordination with other contractors, site teams and affected operations explained?
• Do the proposed people, time and resources appear consistent with the described method?

The law does not prescribe one universal job title responsible for reviewing contractor RAMS. The appropriate reviewer depends on the organisation, contract, work and applicable dutyholder arrangements.

The reviewer should recognise the limits of their own knowledge, experience and authority. HSE’s general guidance on appointing competent health and safety assistance describes a competent person as someone with the skills, knowledge and experience to recognise hazards and help put sensible controls in place. This does not mean that every RAMS reviewer holds that appointed role. Higher-risk, specialist or technically complex matters may require additional review by someone with suitable expertise.

For construction work, contractors must plan, manage and monitor work carried out by themselves and their workers. They must check that workers they employ or appoint have, or are in the process of obtaining, the skills, knowledge, training and experience needed for the work, and provide appropriate supervision, information and instructions. On projects involving more than one contractor, they must also coordinate their work with others in the project team. Reviewing their submission does not transfer those responsibilities to the reviewer.

5. Supporting controls and dependencies

• Are required permits, isolations, access controls or other authorisations identified?
• Are relevant supporting documents, certificates, inspection records or specialist assessments included or referenced?
• Are responsibilities belonging to the contractor, client, site team or another party distinguished
• For construction work, is the submission consistent with the relevant pre-construction information, construction phase plan and CDM arrangements?
• Are dependencies that must be completed before work starts clearly recorded?

Identifying that a permit will be needed is not the same as issuing one. A permit-to-work system is a separate documented process that authorises specified work under defined conditions and for a specified period. It is not a replacement for risk assessment. See HSE’s permit-to-work guidance.

Not every higher-risk activity automatically requires a permit. The requirement depends on the work, applicable requirements, site rules and the organisation’s control arrangements.

6. Review outcome and record

Before closing the document review, ask:

• Do names, dates, locations, equipment and work details agree across the submission?
• Have all missing, unclear or conflicting points been recorded?
• Has each required action been given an owner and completion point?
• Is the reviewed version, reviewer, date, outcome and reasoning recorded?
• Can the outcome be supported by the evidence contained in the submission?

As an operational framework, record one of three document-review outcomes:

1. Returned for revision: the submission contains matters that the contractor must correct or clarify.
2. Referred for specialist review: the submission raises matters requiring competence or authority beyond that of the current reviewer.
3. Ready to progress to pre-start checks and authorisation: the document review is complete, subject to the separate checks and decisions still required before work begins.

None of these outcomes proves that the controls exist in practice or that the work is safe.

Stage 2: pre-start verification and authorisation

Stage 2 takes place at the site or work location. It should not be completed solely by rereading the documents.

Check:

• Do the actual task, location, timing and site conditions still match the reviewed submission?
• Are the expected workers and supervisor present?
• Have any required competence or authorisation checks been completed?
• Have the current RAMS and any revisions been communicated and understood?
• Have the required inductions and briefings been completed?
• Are the specified equipment, plant and physical control measures present and suitable for use
• Are access, exclusion, emergency and welfare arrangements in place where applicable?
• Have required permits been issued and necessary isolations confirmed through the authorised process?
• Has coordination with other work, occupants and affected people been confirmed?
• Have all outstanding document-review actions been closed?
• Have any changes to the conditions, people, equipment or proposed method been identified?
• Has the appropriate accountable person made the separate decision that work may start?

If the task, conditions or method have changed materially, the work should not start under the existing review. The change must first be assessed through the applicable process.

When to return the submission

Return the RAMS for revision when a material issue can reasonably be corrected by the contractor. Examples include:

• the wrong site, location, task or date;
• missing or unclear work stages;
• generic content that does not reflect the job;
• conflicting equipment or work methods across the documents;
• hazards that are named without usable controls;
• responsibilities or further actions without an owner;
• site information that has been ignored or contradicted;
• missing supporting documents or unresolved dependencies; or
• a required permit or authorisation that has not been identified.

State what is missing or inconsistent and why it prevents the submission from progressing. Avoid rewriting the contractor’s method on their behalf, as this can obscure responsibility for deciding how the work will be carried out.

When to seek specialist review

Refer the submission when deciding whether the proposed approach is suitable requires knowledge, competence or authority the current reviewer does not possess.

This may arise where:

• the work is technically complex or unusual;
• specialist hazards, designs or calculations are involved;
• the submission depends on technical assumptions that the reviewer cannot verify;
• important controls fall within another person’s authorised responsibility; or
• the reviewer cannot judge whether a proposed method addresses the relevant risk.

Referral is not evidence that the submission is defective. It means an appropriately competent person must consider the relevant issue before the review can progress.

Common RAMS warning signs

Warning signs that deserve closer attention include:

• a different client, project or location appearing in the document;
• broad statements such as “appropriate PPE will be worn” without identifying what is required and why;
• a risk assessment and method statement that describe different equipment or methods;
• copied wording that conflicts with the planned work;
• controls that rely on site facilities or actions that have not been confirmed;
• emergency or rescue arrangements that do not match the task or location;
• residual-risk ratings that fall without any corresponding change in controls;
• undefined references to “the supervisor”, “the client” or “others”;
• unresolved comments carried forward from an earlier version;
• dates, names or version numbers that do not establish which document is current; and
• a signature or approval box being treated as a substitute for the underlying review.

A warning sign does not automatically make the whole submission unacceptable. It should prompt a clear question, an evidence check or referral.

Fictional worked example

A contractor submits RAMS for replacing light fittings in a fictional occupied office building.

The document review finds four visible problems:

• The scope identifies Level 4, but the method statement repeatedly refers to Level 2.
• The risk assessment specifies a mobile access tower, while the method statement describes using stepladders.
• The method assumes the area will be empty, although the supplied work information says it will remain occupied.
• The site information states that an electrical isolation permit is required, but the submission does not identify this dependency.

The reviewer records the outcome as returned for revision. The contractor is asked to confirm the correct location and access method, address how the work will interface with occupants and identify the permit as a separate pre-start requirement.

The revised submission consistently identifies Level 4 and the selected access method. It describes how the working area will be managed while the building is occupied and records the isolation permit as a dependency to be completed through the site’s authorised process.

The reviewer records the revised version and closes the four document queries. The outcome becomes ready to progress to pre-start checks and authorisation.

This does not mean the work has been declared safe. The site team must still check the current conditions, people, equipment and physical controls, complete the permit process and make the separate decision that work may begin.

Recording the review outcome

A useful review record should show:

• the contractor, task and work location;
• the reviewed document title, version and date;
• the reviewer and review date;
• the evidence considered;
• each question or inconsistency raised;
• the required action, responsible person and completion point;
• whether specialist review was required;
• the final document-review outcome and reasoning;
• links to revised submissions and supporting records; and
• any conditions that must be confirmed during the pre-start stage.

This creates a traceable account of what was reviewed, what was found and why the submission progressed or was returned. It does not transfer the contractor’s or another dutyholder’s responsibilities to the reviewer.

Where structured document checks can help

Structured document evaluation can help organisations apply the same questions consistently, identify missing information, compare important details across documents and retain a record of queries, actions and outcomes.

SIRV AI can be configured to support this type of document evaluation and highlight matters for human attention. It does not approve RAMS, verify conditions at the work location, prove that controls exist, replace a competent reviewer or authorise work to begin.

For a broader explanation of where AI can and cannot help, see our guide to AI support for RAMS review.

The value of structured checks is that they help the appropriate person find and consider the relevant evidence. Accountable judgement, site verification and authorisation remain with the people responsible for the work.

Frequently asked questions

Is a RAMS document required by law?

There is no general legal requirement in Great Britain to use one combined document called “RAMS” for every task.

Employers have risk-assessment duties under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, alongside more specific requirements that may apply to particular hazards or activities.

Method statements are commonly used to explain how work will be carried out and controlled. Whether written arrangements are legally required depends on the work and applicable regulations. HSE states, for example, that arrangements for demolition, dismantling or structural alteration must be recorded before work begins.

Who should review contractor RAMS?

There is no single universal job title. The appropriate reviewer depends on the type of work, the organisation’s arrangements, contractual responsibilities and any applicable dutyholder roles.

The person must understand the work and relevant information well enough to recognise when something is missing, inconsistent or outside their competence. Specialist matters should be referred to someone with suitable knowledge and authority.

Does completing the document review mean work can start?

No. A document review cannot confirm that site conditions match the submission, that workers have been briefed, that physical controls are present or that required permits and isolations have been completed.

The appropriate outcome is “ready to progress to pre-start checks and authorisation”. The separate decision that work may start must follow the organisation’s applicable process.

When should RAMS be revised?

Review and revision may be needed when the task, site conditions, work sequence, equipment, substances, people or interfaces change. Revision may also be appropriate when monitoring, worker feedback, an incident or a near miss indicates that the existing controls may no longer be effective.

A revision should be clearly identified so that everyone can distinguish the current document from superseded versions.

What is the difference between RAMS and a permit to work?

RAMS normally describe the risks, proposed controls and method of work.

A permit to work is a separate formal process used for specified work under defined conditions. It records the work being authorised, the relevant precautions and the period or circumstances in which the authorisation applies.

Reviewing RAMS does not issue a permit. Where a permit is required, it must be completed through the authorised permit process before the work begins.

Industries

Pharma & Life Sciences

Transport & Infrastructure

Venues

Financial services

Trust

Security & privacy

How SIRV measures impact

Awards & recognition

Case studies