What Does a Principal Contractor Check in a RAMS? | PC Review Checklist

RamsDocs produces construction health and safety documentation tools used by contractors across the UK. This page reflects current CDM 2015 duties and standard industry practice. It should be reviewed and adapted to your specific site, task, and contractor by a competent person.

---

Why the Principal Contractor Owns the RAMS Review — The CDM 2015 Duty in Plain English

The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 are the primary legal framework governing the duties of a principal contractor where a project involves, or is likely to involve, more than one contractor (CDM 2015, legislation.gov.uk). Under CDM 2015, the principal contractor (PC) is responsible for planning, managing, monitoring, and coordinating construction phase health and safety. The contractor who wrote the RAMS remains responsible for the accuracy and suitability of their own work method; the PC reviews it so the work can be coordinated safely within the wider construction phase plan.

RAMS is an industry term that combines two underlying requirements: a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and a safe system of work set out in a method statement. The PC cannot discharge their construction phase duties by simply collecting a document and filing it. They must actively verify that every subcontractor's RAMS is adequate before that work package begins, and they must ensure the controls described are actually applied on site.

A RAMS review is not a box-tick. If a PC approves an inadequate document and a worker is injured, the PC's failure to scrutinise that RAMS will feature in any enforcement investigation. This guide gives you a structured, repeatable process to make every review defensible.

---

The Five Categories a Principal Contractor Must Check in Every RAMS

Every RAMS review should cover five distinct areas. Each maps to a different layer of the PC's duty. The checklist at the end of this page organises all checks under these headings.

1. Document identity, version control and competence declarations
2. Hazard identification — site-specific or generic?
3. Control measures — hierarchy, residual risk and PPE as last resort
4. Method statement — sequence, plant, operatives and emergency arrangements
5. Construction Phase Plan linkage

---

Category 1: Document Identity, Version Control and Competence Declarations

Before reading a single hazard, check the administrative shell of the document. A RAMS with no version number or no named author cannot be traced if it is revised mid-project.

Check for:

• Contractor name, company registration or trading address
• Document title that matches the specific work package (not a generic trade title)
• Version number and issue date
• Named author and their role or qualification
• Named competent person(s) who will supervise the work
• Signature or approval from the subcontractor's responsible person

Why this matters: If a worker is injured and the RAMS in the site file is version 1 but the supervisor was working to an unissued revision, the PC's version control failure is directly implicated. A RAMS without a named competent supervisor is a document without accountability.

Note on accreditation: Holding CHAS, SSIP, or similar third-party accreditation does not substitute for a PC's duty to review the specific RAMS for each work package. Accreditation is a baseline competence indicator, not a RAMS approval.

---

Category 2: Hazard Identification — Is It Site-Specific or Generic?

This is the single most common failure point. A subcontractor submits a RAMS that lists 15 hazards — slips, trips, manual handling, dust — but contains nothing specific to the conditions on your site. That document is inadequate.

The test for site-specificity:

Ask: Could this RAMS have been submitted, unchanged, to a different project this week? If the answer is yes, return it.

Check for:

• Reference to the specific site address or project name
• Hazards drawn from the site-specific Construction Phase Plan (buried services, proximity to public, ground conditions, existing structures)
• Utility survey or service drawings referenced by document number or date
• Named adjacent risks (live carriageway, overhead lines, occupied buildings)
• Seasonal or environmental conditions relevant to the programme dates
• Schedule 3 CDM 2015 risks acknowledged where applicable (e.g. excavation work that puts workers at risk of burial under earthfalls, work near high-voltage power lines)

The generic RAMS trap: A hazard list that reads identically to a Google search result for that trade is a red flag. Specific hazards require specific controls. If the hazard identification is vague, the controls will be too.

---

Category 3: Control Measures — Hierarchy, Residual Risk and PPE as Last Resort

A RAMS that lists PPE as the first or only control for every hazard has not applied the standard hierarchy of controls. The accepted hierarchy in UK health and safety practice runs from elimination at the top through substitution, engineering controls, and administrative controls before reaching PPE as a last resort. This is a well-established principle embedded in industry guidance, not a novel requirement.

Check for:

• Evidence that elimination or substitution was considered (even if rejected with a reason)
• Engineering controls specified (e.g. trench support method, vacuum excavation near services)
• Administrative controls documented (permit to dig, exclusion zones, banksman duties, inspection regime)
• PPE listed as the residual layer, not the primary control
• Residual risk rating after controls applied — is it tolerable?
• No control that simply states "take care" or "be aware" — these are not controls

Query trigger: PPE listed as the only control for a significant hazard (e.g. "wear gloves" as the sole control for excavation near live services) — return with a specific request for engineering and administrative controls.

---

Category 4: Method Statement — Sequence, Plant, Operatives and Emergency Arrangements

The method statement section must describe how the work will actually happen on this site, in this sequence, with this equipment and these people. Vagueness here means the document cannot be briefed meaningfully to operatives.

Check for:

• Step-by-step work sequence (not a narrative paragraph)
• Plant and equipment specified by type (e.g. 3-tonne 360 excavator, not just "excavator")
• Exclusion zones and segregation arrangements
• Named or numbered operatives and minimum competence requirements (CPCS card, EUSR, CSCS, first aider ratio)
• Communication arrangements on site
• Emergency procedures: first aid provision, nearest A&E, site emergency number, muster point
• Reference to the Construction Phase Plan emergency contact details
• Inspection and supervision frequency stated

Reject trigger: No emergency arrangements section, or emergency section copied from a previous project with the wrong address or phone number.

---

Category 5: Construction Phase Plan Linkage — Does the RAMS Align with the CPP?

CDM 2015 requires the PC to develop and maintain a Construction Phase Plan (CPP). Every subcontractor RAMS must be consistent with that plan — not a separate universe of controls.

Check for:

• Direct reference to the CPP (document title, version, date)
• Site rules from the CPP reflected in the RAMS (PPE standards, permit systems, welfare locations)
• Induction requirements acknowledged
• Emergency arrangements consistent with the CPP (same muster points, same emergency numbers)
• Any risk specific to this work package that should now be fed back into the CPP

The CPP feedback loop: If a subcontractor's RAMS identifies a hazard not currently in the CPP (e.g. a buried obstruction discovered during pre-commencement survey), the PC must update the CPP before work starts. The RAMS review is a two-way process.

---

The Approve / Return with Queries / Reject Decision Tree

RECEIVE RAMS
     │
     ▼
Run Category 1–5 Checklist
     │
     ├─── ALL ITEMS PASS ──────────────────────► APPROVE
     │                                           Record approval, brief workforce,
     │                                           file signed copy in site file
     │
     ├─── MINOR GAPS (document admin,            RETURN WITH QUERIES
     │    version number missing, one           ◄──────────────────────
     │    control needs strengthening)           Issue written query log;
     │                                           set 48-hour response deadline;
     │                                           do not permit work to start
     │
     └─── FUNDAMENTAL FAILURE (no              REJECT
          site-specific hazards, no            ◄──────────────────────
          emergency arrangements,              Issue formal rejection notice
          generic document, wrong site)         with itemised reasons;
                                               require full resubmission;
                                               do not permit work to start

Decision rule: Any Category 5 failure (CPP misalignment) is an automatic Return or Reject — work cannot start while the RAMS contradicts the CPP.

---

Worked Example: Reviewing a Groundworks Excavation RAMS Near Buried Services

Scenario: A groundworks subcontractor submits a six-page RAMS for excavation works on a live commercial redevelopment. The PC's H&S manager opens the document for review.

What the PC found:

Check item	Finding	Decision
Site address in document	"Various sites as required"	🔴 Return — not site-specific
Utility survey referenced	No mention of CAT scan, GPR or utility drawings	🔴 Return — fundamental gap for excavation near services
Named competent operative	"Experienced groundworker" — no CPCS number or name	🔴 Return — no accountability
Hazard: buried services	Listed as a generic hazard; control = "check before digging"	🔴 Return — inadequate control; no permit to dig referenced
Hierarchy of control	Engineering control (vacuum excavation within 500mm of services) absent	🔴 Return
Emergency arrangements	Phone number listed is head office (no site-specific first aider named, no nearest A&E)	🔴 Return
CPP reference	No mention of the project CPP	🔴 Return
Version and date	Version 1, dated 14 months ago	⚠️ Query — may predate site survey

What the PC did:

The reviewer issued a formal written Return with Queries, itemising eight specific failures against the PC's checklist. The covering note stated: "Work cannot commence until a revised RAMS addressing all eight points is submitted and reviewed. The revised document must reference the utility survey (drawing ref: UTS-001 rev B, dated [project date]) and name the CPCS-carded excavator operator."

The subcontractor resubmitted within 24 hours. The PC re-ran the full checklist. All eight items were addressed. The RAMS was approved, a toolbox talk was delivered from the document, and the signed approval was filed in the site file alongside the revised RAMS.

---

What to Do After Approval — Briefing, Records and Revision Triggers

Briefing: Acceptance is not the end. CDM 2015 requires workers to be given suitable information, instruction and supervision. The RAMS must be briefed to every operative carrying out that work package before they start — typically via a toolbox talk or task briefing. The briefing should be recorded with attendee signatures.

Records the PC must retain:

• The accepted RAMS (final version with PC review/acceptance record where the PC uses one)
• The query log or rejection notice if any prior version was returned
• The toolbox talk attendance record
• Any permit to work or permit to dig issued under the RAMS controls
• Records of site inspections that confirmed controls were in place

Retain all records for the duration of the project and for a reasonable period after practical completion, in line with your organisation's document control policy.

Revision triggers — when a RAMS must be re-reviewed:

• Scope of work changes (different area, different plant, deeper excavation)
• A near miss or incident occurs during the work package
• Site conditions change from those described (unexpected services, ground instability)
• Programme dates shift and the risk profile changes (e.g. working in winter conditions not described)
• The CPP is updated with new information that affects this work package
• A new operative joins who was not included in the original competence declaration

Never allow a subcontractor to verbally update a RAMS. Any change must be documented, re-reviewed by the PC, and re-briefed to the workforce.

---

Common Reject Reasons — Top 5 Failure Points

Failure	What it looks like	Required corrective action
Generic hazard list	Identical hazards to last project; no site name	Rewrite hazard identification from site survey and CPP
No utility survey reference	Excavation RAMS with no CAT/GPR or drawing reference	Add specific drawing number, date, and permit to dig procedure
PPE as primary control	"Wear gloves and hi-vis" listed under every hazard	Apply hierarchy; specify engineering and administrative controls first
No named competent person	"Competent operative" with no name or card number	Name operative(s) with qualification/card number
CPP not referenced	No mention of Construction Phase Plan	Add explicit CPP reference; align site rules and emergency arrangements

---

PC RAMS Review Checklist

Use this checklist for every subcontractor RAMS submission. Mark each item: ✅ Pass / ⚠️ Query / ❌ Fail. Any ❌ = Return or Reject.

Section 1 — Document Identity & Version Control

• 1.1 Contractor name and address present
• 1.2 Document title matches the specific work package
• 1.3 Version number and issue date shown
• 1.4 Named author with role or qualification
• 1.5 Named competent supervisor(s) with qualification/card reference

Section 2 — Hazard Identification

• 2.1 Site address or project reference in the document
• 2.2 Hazards drawn from this site's specific conditions
• 2.3 Utility survey or service drawings referenced (if excavation or groundworks)
• 2.4 Adjacent risks identified (live road, overhead lines, public proximity)
• 2.5 Schedule 3 CDM 2015 risks acknowledged where applicable

Section 3 — Control Measures

• 3.1 Elimination/substitution considered (and documented if rejected)
• 3.2 Engineering controls specified
• 3.3 Administrative controls documented (permits, exclusion zones, supervision)
• 3.4 PPE listed as residual layer, not primary control
• 3.5 Residual risk rating present and tolerable

Section 4 — Method Statement

• 4.1 Step-by-step work sequence (not narrative only)
• 4.2 Plant and equipment specified by type
• 4.3 Operative competence requirements stated
• 4.4 First aid provision and nearest A&E named
• 4.5 Site emergency number and muster point consistent with CPP

Section 5 — CDM / CPP Linkage

• 5.1 Construction Phase Plan referenced by name/version
• 5.2 Site rules from CPP reflected in RAMS
• 5.3 Emergency arrangements match CPP
• 5.4 Any new hazard identified fed back into CPP before work starts

Get the PC RAMS Review Checklist →

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Does CDM 2015 specifically require subcontractors to submit RAMS? A: CDM 2015 requires suitable and sufficient risk assessments and safe systems of work. "RAMS" is an industry term for the document that combines both. The PC's duty under CDM 2015 is to plan, manage, monitor, and coordinate construction phase health and safety — which includes verifying that those assessments and systems of work exist and are adequate before each work package begins.

Q: What if a subcontractor refuses to revise an inadequate RAMS? A: The PC should not permit work to start until the work package has suitable risk assessment and safe-method evidence that is consistent with the construction phase plan and site rules. Allowing work to proceed under an inadequate RAMS may expose the PC and contractor to enforcement risk. Document the refusal in writing and escalate through your procurement or contract management process.

Q: Can the PC rely on the subcontractor's CHAS or SSIP accreditation instead of reviewing the RAMS? A: No. Accreditation schemes are third-party competence indicators, not statutory approvals. The PC's legal duty to manage and monitor the construction phase cannot be delegated to a scheme certificate.

Q: How often should a RAMS be re-reviewed? A: Any time scope, site conditions, programme, or personnel change from those described. See the revision triggers listed above. There is no fixed calendar interval — the trigger is change, not time.

Q: What records must the PC keep after approving a RAMS? A: The approved final RAMS, any query/rejection log from earlier versions, toolbox talk attendance records, and relevant permits. Retain for the duration of the project and a reasonable period after practical completion in line with your document control policy.

Does a principal contractor check COSHH assessments as part of a RAMS review, or only the risk assessment and method statement? In UK construction practice, RAMS is commonly treated as a four-component package covering Risk Assessments, Method Statements, COSHH Assessments, and Training Records — not simply the two documents suggested by the literal acronym. The source extract from Construction method statements (managing the work) confirms that specific regulations require separate risk assessments for hazardous substances (COSHH) alongside the general site risk assessment. A PC reviewing RAMS for any work package involving hazardous substances should therefore verify that a distinct COSHH assessment is present and adequate, not assume the general risk assessment covers it.

Should a principal contractor obtain and review RAMS before awarding a subcontract, or is pre-commencement review sufficient? Pre-commencement review is the minimum, but best practice is to scrutinise RAMS quality at tender stage, before contracts are awarded. Reviewing documents at this point allows the PC to identify inadequate hazard identification or missing components — such as absent COSHH assessments or undemonstrated competence records — while there is still commercial leverage to require revision or select a better-prepared subcontractor. Waiting until mobilisation to discover a generic or incomplete RAMS compresses the programme and can create pressure to approve documents that would otherwise be returned.

---

Disclaimer: This page and the checklist it contains are intended as a practical guide to PC RAMS review under CDM 2015. They do not constitute legal advice. All RAMS documentation must be reviewed and adapted to the specific site, task, and contractor by a competent person. RAMSDocs templates and checklists are PC review-ready tools designed to reduce RAMS rework — they do not guarantee regulatory compliance or approval by any principal contractor or enforcing authority.