SIRV / Operational guidance / Contractor safety
Contractor RAMS review checklist: what to check before work starts
A document review is not permission to start work. Good assurance keeps the submitted RAMS, on-site verification and the authorisation decision distinct.
Practical guidance for Great Britain. Northern Ireland has separate legislation and regulatory guidance. Adapt this framework to the work, dutyholder responsibilities and your organisation’s procedures.
Assess the submission
Check scope, risks, method, competence, evidence and unresolved dependencies.
Outcome: revise, refer or proceed to separate pre-start checks.
Verify before work begins
Check actual conditions, people, equipment, physical controls, permits and isolations.
Outcome: separate authorisation by the accountable person.
Download the practical review tools
Record evidence, open questions, actions, revisions, document-review outcomes and the separate pre-start decision.
Editable review workbook · Excel
Structured responses and a review record that distinguishes document review from authorisation.
What RAMS are, and what they are not
RAMS commonly means a risk assessment and method statement. A risk assessment identifies hazards, who could be harmed and suitable controls. A method statement explains the intended sequence of work, resources and control arrangements.
There is no general legal requirement in Great Britain for every task to have one combined document called RAMS. Under regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, employers must make suitable and sufficient assessments of relevant risks. Other requirements may apply to particular work. HSE explains the use of method statements in construction.
Before reviewing, gather the task, site and timing, occupants and affected operations, local rules, interfaces, permits, relevant previous incidents, construction information and questions requiring technical expertise. Refer to HSE guidance on using contractors and, where applicable, the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015.
How to record an answer
For each question use Yes, No, Needs clarification or Not applicable, supported by a document reference, reason, action or question. “Yes” needs evidence from the submission; “Not applicable” needs a reason. No individual answer is permission to start.
Stage 1: Review the submitted RAMS
Work through each section and record evidence, inconsistencies and required actions. Keep the reviewer’s decision traceable.
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.
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. A numerical risk score does not establish that all hazards or workable controls have been identified.
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?
Detail should be proportionate to the work. Excessive generic content can obscure important controls; too little detail may be inadequate for complex work.
People, competence and coordination
- Are supervision and other important responsibilities clear?
- Are 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?
There is no universal job title for the RAMS reviewer. Recognise the limits of the reviewer’s knowledge and authority, and refer specialist issues as needed. Reviewing the submission does not transfer the contractor’s responsibilities.
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 is needed is not the same as issuing one. Permits are separate documented controls, and not every higher-risk task automatically requires a permit.
Review outcome and record
- 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?
Record a reasoned outcome, not a pass score. None of the three document-review outcomes verifies that controls exist at the site.
Document-review decision
Material gaps or contradictions require correction or clarification by the contractor.
The decision requires expertise or authority beyond that of the current reviewer.
The document review is complete. Site checks, permits and the separate decision to commence work remain outstanding.
These are practical outcome labels, not prescribed legal approval statuses.
Stage 2: Verify conditions before work starts
This stage takes place at the work location, not simply by rereading submitted documents.
- Do the actual task, location, timing and site conditions still match the reviewed submission?
- Are the expected workers and supervisor present?
- Have required competence or authorisation checks been completed?
- Have the current RAMS and revisions been communicated and understood?
- Have required inductions and briefings been completed?
- Are specified equipment, plant and physical controls 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 outstanding document-review actions been closed?
- Have changes to conditions, people, equipment or 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, do not start under the existing review. Reassess through the applicable process before the accountable person authorises work.
When to return or refer a submission
Return for revision
Return where the contractor can correct a material problem, such as wrong location, missing stages, generic or conflicting controls, unowned actions or unresolved permit dependencies. State what needs correction and why. Do not rewrite the contractor’s method on their behalf.
Seek specialist review
Refer where the work is technically complex, specialist hazards or calculations are involved, assumptions cannot be verified or the decision falls outside the reviewer’s authority. Referral is not itself a finding that the RAMS are defective.
Common RAMS warning signs
- Different client, project or location appears in the submission
- “Appropriate PPE” is stated without identifying what or why
- Risk assessment and method describe conflicting equipment or methods
- Copied wording contradicts the actual work
- Controls depend on unconfirmed site arrangements
- Emergency or rescue arrangements do not match the job or location
- Residual risk falls without a corresponding change in controls
- Responsibilities are assigned vaguely to “the supervisor” or “others”
- Previous comments remain unresolved
- Current version and dates are unclear
- A signature or approval box substitutes for substantive review
A warning sign prompts a question, an evidence check or referral. It does not automatically make the entire submission unacceptable.
Worked example: lighting replacement in an occupied building
A fictional contractor submission for replacing light fittings has four inconsistencies. Each calls for a specific question before the document review can progress.
Confirm the actual work location and update every relevant section consistently.
Resolve the intended access method and reconcile the risk assessment with the method statement.
Explain exclusion, segregation and coordination with occupants.
Identify the permit as a dependency to be completed through the site’s authorised process.
The reviewer returns the first submission for revision. Once the contractor resolves all four document queries, the reviewer can record the revised version as ready for pre-start checks and authorisation. That is not a declaration that work is safe. The site team must still verify people, conditions and physical controls, complete the permit process and make the separate start-work decision.
Retain a traceable review record
Record the contractor, task, site, reviewed version, reviewer, evidence, questions, owners, completion points, specialist referrals and reasoned outcome. Keep links to revised documents and matters that still require on-site confirmation.
The review record supports accountability and cooperation without transferring statutory or contractual duties from the contractor or other dutyholders.
Where controlled AI can help
Structured document evaluation can help reviewers find missing content, compare locations or methods across files, identify contradictions and retain a traceable list of questions. SIRV AI can surface matters for human attention. It does not approve RAMS, verify the worksite, replace competent judgement or authorise work. See also AI for RAMS review: where it helps and where it does not.
Frequently asked questions
Is a RAMS document required by law?
There is no general legal requirement in Great Britain for one combined document called RAMS for every task. Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 requires a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, alongside other task-specific duties. Written arrangements depend on the work and applicable legislation.
Who should review contractor RAMS?
There is no universally prescribed job title. The person reviewing should be competent to recognise what is missing, inconsistent or outside their expertise, with specialist matters referred to those with suitable knowledge and authority.
Does completing the document review mean work can start?
No. Document review does not verify current conditions, briefings, physical controls, permits or isolations. Separate pre-start checks and the appropriate authorisation decision are still required.
When should RAMS be revised?
When the task, conditions, methods, equipment, people, interfaces or relevant evidence change, or monitoring, incidents or feedback indicate that controls may no longer be effective. Distinguish the current revision from superseded versions.
What is the difference between RAMS and a permit to work?
RAMS describe risk, controls and work methods. A permit to work is a separate formal authorisation for specified work under defined conditions. Reviewing RAMS does not issue the permit.
Guidance and legal references
HSE: Steps needed to manage riskHSE: Risk assessment templates and examplesHSE: Using contractorsHSE: Appointing competent peopleHSE: Permit-to-work systemsHSE: Construction method statementsManagement of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, regulation 3Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015Make document review traceable
Discuss how a bounded document-evaluation workflow can help surface evidence and inconsistencies for qualified reviewers while preserving their authority and accountability.
Discuss a workflow
