AI-assisted RAMS review for organisations assessing contractor submissions
SIRV AI helps organisations assess contractor risk assessments and method statements against their own requirements.
SIRV AI highlights missing information, inconsistencies, exceptions and supporting evidence for human review, helping teams make RAMS assessment more consistent, traceable and easier to manage at scale.
For organisations reviewing contractor submissions. SIRV AI supports document assessment; it does not authorise work or replace the competent person responsible for the decision.
More than checking a RAMS document
SIRV AI supports the complete assessment process, from initial submission checks and contractor clarification through evidence-based review, human decisions and retained outcomes.
The workflow is pre-engineered, then configured and validated against your organisation's requirements, avoiding the cost and risk of developing and proving an equivalent process internally.
Review contractor RAMS against your requirements
A contractor's RAMS may be comprehensive but still fail to address the requirements of a particular site, activity or operating environment. SIRV AI is built to support assessment against your organisation's defined requirements, helping reviewers identify where submitted information is incomplete, inconsistent or requires clarification.
Contractor submission
The risk assessment, method statement and relevant supporting documents submitted for review.
Your assessment requirements
Applicable site rules, contractor requirements, procedures and assessment criteria authorised for use in the workflow.
Findings for human review
Identified exceptions, supporting evidence, missing information and matters requiring clarification or competent judgement.
The result is a structured assessment that helps reviewers establish what the contractor has addressed, what remains unresolved and what action is required before making a decision.
The challenge is making consistent, evidence-based review decisions
Organisations managing multiple contractors can receive substantial volumes of RAMS. Reviews are often undertaken by project managers and operational teams with differing levels of experience, alongside their other responsibilities.
Incomplete submissions consume reviewer time before substantive assessment begins. Revisions and repeated clarification add further work.
Different reviewers may identify different omissions or interpret requirements differently, especially across sites and projects.
Findings, clarifications and decisions scattered across emails and documents are difficult to retrieve, revisit or use when experienced staff leave.
SIRV AI helps teams apply consistent review requirements, identify incomplete submissions earlier and produce structured findings linked to available evidence.
From submitted RAMS to reviewable findings
SIRV AI supports two stages: initial completeness checking, followed by substantive assessment against the organisation's requirements. The reviewer controls decisions and returns.
Receive submission
Make the RAMS and supporting documents available for assessment.
Check completeness
Check defined requirements such as mandatory documents, contractor details, relevant dates and location information. Identify missing, inconsistent or apparently invalid items.
Notify the reviewer of the reasons. Following reviewer confirmation, request a corrected submission from the contractor.
Where the submission meets initial requirements, assess the RAMS contents.
Evaluate requirements
Assess against applicable criteria, procedures and site-specific requirements.
Present findings and highlighted evidence
Assess submissions requirement by requirement. Show the proposed verdict, supporting evidence and analysis alongside the original RAMS, highlighting relevant passages for reviewer verification. Flag insufficient evidence for human review.
Human review and decision
The competent reviewer accepts, challenges or returns findings and determines whether clarification or further action is required.
Record outcomes
Retain findings, return reasons, revisions, decisions and follow-up actions as configured for the workflow.
Configured and validated against the customer's submission requirements and review process before deployment.
One finding, from requirement to decision
A contractor submits RAMS for maintenance work involving plant and electrical equipment. The method statement describes isolation but does not explain how it will be secured or verified.
In SIRV AI, the reviewer can inspect the original RAMS next to each requirement, proposed verdict, supporting evidence and analysis. Highlighted passages help them verify the result before accepting or changing the verdict and recording any follow-up.
“Equipment will be isolated before maintenance begins.”
“Relevant energy sources must be isolated, secured against inadvertent re-energisation and verified before work starts.”
Finding: securing and verification arrangements not specified
The method statement does not explain how isolation will be secured or verified. Clarification is required.
| Supporting evidence | Method statement Section 4.2 compared with site isolation procedure Section 3.1 |
|---|---|
| Action required | Clarify the isolation, securing and verification arrangements |
| Human decision | Reviewer requests a revised method statement before accepting the RAMS |
The finding identifies a gap in the submitted information, not proof that physical controls are absent.
Illustrative example using fictional documents and requirements. Not a measured customer result.
Document review is not authorisation to start work
SIRV AI assesses submitted information against defined requirements. It cannot establish whether the contractor has implemented the controls described or whether site conditions make the work safe to proceed.
Competent reviewers remain responsible for assessing findings, resolving questions and making decisions.
AI-supported document assessment is one part of contractor assurance, not a replacement for site verification, permits or authorisation procedures.
Why buy a pre-engineered RAMS review workflow?
General-purpose AI tools can assess documents and identify possible omissions. Organisations can also develop their own AI-assisted review processes. The challenge is making those capabilities repeatable, testable and reliable across teams.
SIRV AI provides a pre-engineered starting point, configured and validated against your organisation's requirements.
Consistent assessment
Defined submission and review requirements, with findings presented in a structured format.
Evidence and uncertainty
Source-linked findings with unresolved questions and insufficient evidence highlighted.
Human oversight
Competent reviewers make decisions; outcomes and actions can be recorded.
Validation and ongoing reliability
Representative test cases, review points and ongoing checks as requirements change.
Rather than designing, integrating and proving the entire process internally, organisations can configure an established workflow for controlled operational assessment.
Test the workflow on your own RAMS
Before committing to deployment, organisations can evaluate SIRV AI with representative contractor submissions and approved requirements. A focused, paid sprint establishes whether the workflow delivers measurable operational value.
Define
Agree scope, assessment criteria, current process and success measures.
Configure and test
Test submission checks and substantive assessment using authorised examples.
Review evidence
Check missed exceptions, finding accuracy, reviewer effort and supporting evidence.
Decide
Review limitations, implementation needs and the case to deploy, refine or stop.
Suitable for organisations with recurring contractor RAMS assessments, representative submissions and competent reviewers available to test results. How a SIRV AI sprint works.
Is SIRV AI suitable for your RAMS review process?
SIRV AI is designed for organisations regularly receiving and assessing contractor submissions, particularly where:
- Multiple sites, projects or teams review RAMS
- Reviews must follow defined organisational or site-specific requirements
- Incomplete submissions and repeated clarification create operational cost
- Consistency between reviewers matters
- Review decisions and follow-up actions need to be traceable
- There is a credible business case for improving review effort and assurance
Particularly relevant to facilities management, estates, infrastructure and other complex operational environments.
Discuss your RAMS review process
See how SIRV AI checks submission requirements, assesses RAMS against defined criteria and presents evidence for human review. An initial conversation can establish whether a bounded evaluation sprint is appropriate.
Discuss a RAMS review workflowFrequently asked questions
Can SIRV AI review RAMS against our own site requirements?
Yes. The workflow can be configured to assess submissions against defined organisational requirements, site rules and assessment criteria. The authorised reference documents and checks must be agreed and validated during implementation.
Can SIRV AI identify incomplete submissions before detailed review?
The workflow can check defined submission requirements such as mandatory documents, dates, contractor details and location information, and present missing or potentially invalid items and return reasons for reviewer confirmation.
Does SIRV AI approve RAMS automatically?
No. It produces reviewable findings. Competent people remain responsible for acceptance, clarification and any work authorisation.
Can SIRV AI identify inadequate control measures?
It can highlight apparent omissions, inconsistencies and potentially inadequate controls against defined requirements. Findings need competent review and should not be treated as proof that physical controls are absent.
How can we assess whether it works with our RAMS?
A focused sprint uses representative submissions, defined requirements and agreed assessment measures to establish performance, limitations and deployment needs.
