RAMS review and approval

[edit] Introduction

Risk assessments and method statements (RAMS) prepared by contractors and subcontractors are commonly subject to review and approval before work is permitted to start on site. This article describes who reviews RAMS, what reviewers typically check, and the common reasons documents are rejected.

[edit] Who reviews RAMS

On projects with more than one contractor, the principal contractor is responsible under regulation 13 of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 for planning, managing and monitoring the construction phase and coordinating health and safety. Reviewing subcontractors' RAMS against the construction phase plan is one of the practical mechanisms by which this duty is discharged.

RAMS may also be reviewed by clients (particularly for work on occupied premises), landlords, facilities managers, and permit issuers where a permit-to-work system operates. In practice, site access is commonly withheld until RAMS have been reviewed and accepted, making timely approval a commercial as well as a health and safety matter.

It should be noted that 'approval' of RAMS does not transfer responsibility for the safety of the work. The contractor undertaking the work remains responsible for the adequacy of their own risk assessment and method of work; the reviewer is checking that the proposed work can be safely coordinated with the wider project.

[edit] What reviewers check

Although there is no statutory format for RAMS, reviewers typically check that:

• The document is specific to the site, the task and the dates of the proposed work, rather than a generic or reused document.
• The scope describes the actual work: location, materials, equipment and plant, and interfaces with other trades working at the same time.
• Hazards identified are relevant to the task and the site, with control measures that go beyond generic statements.
• The method statement sets out a realistic sequence of work that matches the risk assessment.
• High-risk activities (work at height, lifting operations, hot works, excavation, confined spaces) are addressed with the corresponding arrangements — for example rescue plans for work at height that do not rely solely on the emergency services.
• Emergency arrangements are site-specific, including first aid provision and assembly points.
• The arrangements align with the construction phase plan, site rules, traffic management and any permit-to-work requirements.
• Competence and training requirements are stated for the operatives carrying out the work.
• The document is subject to revision control, and arrangements exist for briefing the workforce before work starts.

[edit] Common reasons for rejection

Rejected RAMS delay start on site while documents are revised and resubmitted. Common reasons for rejection include:

• Generic content — documents not tailored to the site or task, often identifiable by vague task descriptions or references to other sites left in from previous use.
• Missing site-specific information — site address, dates, named supervisor, first aider or assembly point absent.
• Mismatch between risk assessment and method statement — hazards identified with no corresponding controls in the work sequence, or vice versa.
• Inadequate arrangements for high-risk work — for example, no rescue plan for work at height, or no exclusion zone for lifting operations.
• No alignment with site arrangements — conflicts with the construction phase plan, site rules or permit systems.
• Documents that cannot be used by the workforce — overly long or technical documents that operatives cannot realistically be briefed on.

[edit] Best practice

Contractors preparing RAMS for submission can reduce the likelihood of rejection by confirming the principal contractor's format and content requirements before submission, completing all site-specific fields, checking the document against the construction phase plan, and reviewing it as conditions change. RAMS should be treated as working documents that are briefed to the operatives carrying out the work, not solely as a submission requirement.

[edit] Related articles on Designing Buildings

• Risk assessments and method statements RAMS
• Risk assessment for construction
• Method statement for construction
• Construction phase plan
• Principal contractor
• CDM 2015
• Permit to work
• Toolbox talk

[edit] External references

• HSE — Managing health and safety in construction (L153), guidance on CDM 2015: https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/l153.htm
• HSE — Construction phase plan: what you need to know: https://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/safetytopics/phase-plan.htm
• RamsDocs — free RAMS pre-submission checker (the checks principal contractors commonly make): https://ramsdocs.co.uk/tools/rams-checker/