Who reviews your RAMS, and what they are looking for
On most sites with more than one contractor, your RAMS goes to the principal contractor before you start. Under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015), the principal contractor has to plan, manage and coordinate the construction phase, so they need to know how you will do your work and how it fits around everyone else’s.
The reviewer is not marking your English. They want to see that you have thought about this job on this site, that your method matches your risk assessment, and that what you plan to do fits their site rules. Approval does not take responsibility off you: you still own the risks of your work. It just means they are satisfied it can go ahead on their site.
The twelve most common reasons RAMS are sent back
- It is obviously generic. Another client’s name left in, a site address that does not match, or hazards that cannot exist on this job. Nothing loses a reviewer’s trust faster. See why site-specific RAMS matter.
- The site details are missing. No address, no dates, no named supervisor, no first aider, no assembly point, no nearest A&E. These are the first things most reviewers check.
- The scope is vague. “General roofing works” tells the reviewer nothing. Say what you are doing, where on site, with what materials and plant, and which other trades you will be working next to.
- The risk assessment and the method do not match. A hazard with no control in the method, or a control in the method for a hazard you never assessed. Reviewers read the two side by side.
- The steps are not in the order the work happens. A method that jumps from setting up to making good with nothing in between, or puts the edge protection after the work at height, shows nobody has walked through the job.
- High-risk work has no proper arrangements. Work at height with no rescue plan, lifting with no lift plan or exclusion zone, excavations with no service checks, hot works with no permit. A rescue plan that only says “call 999” is a common reason for return.
- It ignores the site’s own rules. Different working hours, a permit system you have not mentioned, traffic routes you would block, or a hot works ban. Your RAMS has to fit the construction phase plan, not the other way round.
- Competence is not shown. No mention of who will do the work and what training or cards they hold, or a statement that “all operatives are competent” with nothing behind it. Check what cards and tickets the site requires.
- Plant, equipment, PPE or substances are missing. No list of plant and tools, no inspection arrangements, PPE that does not match the hazards, or substances used without a COSHH assessment.
- The emergency arrangements are not for this site. Where is the first aid kit? Who is the first aider? How would someone be got down from a scaffold or out of a trench? Which hospital is nearest?
- It is not controlled. No revision number, no date, no author, no sign-off by a competent person. Reviewers need to know which version they are approving.
- Nobody could brief from it. Fifty pages of copied regulations bury the few things the team actually needs to know. Reviewers send back documents that operatives could not realistically be briefed on.
Check it before you send it
| Check | What a reviewer wants to see |
|---|---|
| Site and dates | The right address, start date and duration, and the client and principal contractor named |
| People | Supervisor, first aider and the team, with the training or cards the site asks for |
| Scope | Exactly what you are doing, where, and who you are working near |
| Method | Steps in the order the work happens, from arrival to leaving the area safe |
| Risks and controls | Every hazard has a control, and every control appears in the method |
| High-risk work | Rescue, lifting, excavation, hot works or confined space arrangements where they apply |
| Site fit | Working hours, permits, access routes and site rules from the construction phase plan |
| Emergency | First aid, assembly point, nearest A&E and how a casualty would be recovered |
| Control | Revision number, date, author and competent person sign-off |
If you do not have the site information you need, such as the assembly point, permit system or delivery times, ask the principal contractor before you write the RAMS. It is quicker than guessing and waiting for comments.
When it comes back with comments
- Read every comment before you change anything. One comment often points to a wider problem, such as a method that does not match the site layout.
- Fix the cause, not just the line. If they say the rescue plan is missing, think about the whole work at height section, not one sentence.
- Issue it as a new revision. Change the revision letter and date, and list what changed so the reviewer does not have to read it all again.
- Brief the team on the approved version. The version you brief and sign on site must be the one that was approved.
- If you disagree, say why. If a comment does not apply to your work, reply with the reason rather than ignoring it. Reviewers are usually happy to discuss it.
Getting approved first time, every time
The contractors who rarely get RAMS sent back do three things. They get the site information before they write. They build the document from the work they will actually do, in order. And they have someone competent read it with fresh eyes before it goes. Our ten tips for creating RAMS that work on site go through each of these in more detail.
How AutoRAMS helps
AutoRAMS asks for the site details reviewers look for first: address, dates, area type, access, your team and the nearest A&E. It builds the risk assessment and method from the jobs you choose for that visit, so the two match, and high-risk jobs bring their own controls with them. Every amendment becomes the next revision, and your team can sign the briefing on their phones. Your competent person still needs to read it and add what only someone who knows the site would know. AutoRAMS gives you a thorough starting point, not a replacement for their judgement.