What a Principal Contractor Checks in a RAMS
When you submit a RAMS to a principal contractor (PC), it enters a formal review process with real consequences. A thin, generic document gets bounced back — or worse, accepted without scrutiny and then challenged when something goes wrong on site. Understanding what a PC is actually looking for helps you write a RAMS that does its job.
Why the Principal Contractor Reviews RAMS at All
Under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015), the principal contractor has a statutory duty to plan, manage, monitor and coordinate construction phase health and safety. Part of that duty means ensuring that the activities of contractors are properly controlled before work starts. Reviewing RAMS is one of the principal mechanisms for discharging that obligation.
This is not a box-ticking exercise — or at least it should not be. A PC who rubber-stamps RAMS without meaningful review is failing their CDM duties.
The First Check: Does It Actually Match the Job?
The most immediate thing a competent PC looks for is specificity. A RAMS that could apply to any site, for any client, at any time raises an immediate red flag.
A reviewer will ask:
- Does the risk assessment name this site, this task, and these conditions?
- Does the method statement describe how this crew will actually do the work, step by step?
- Are site-specific hazards reflected — restricted access, proximity to other trades, existing services, ground conditions?
Generic documents copied from a previous job — with another company's name still in the footer — are rejected regularly and rightly so.
Checking the Risk Assessment (the RA Part)
The risk assessment element should meet the standard set by Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999: a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to workers and others who may be affected.
A PC will check:
| What they look at | What they want to see |
|---|---|
| Hazard identification | Real hazards for this task, not a recycled generic list |
| Who is at risk | Workers, other trades, members of the public where relevant |
| Existing controls | Controls already in place before the task starts |
| Residual risk rating | A realistic rating after controls, not before |
| Hierarchy of control | Elimination and engineering controls appearing before PPE |
The hierarchy of control matters. If the only controls listed are PPE and supervision, a knowledgeable PC will push back. PPE sits at the bottom of the hierarchy for good reason — it protects only the wearer and only when worn correctly. Engineering controls and elimination should appear first where reasonably practicable.
Checking the Method Statement (the MS Part)
The method statement is the operational document — it tells the workforce and the PC's site team exactly how the work will be carried out safely, in sequence.
A PC will check that it covers:
- Sequence of work — clear steps in the order they happen
- Plant and equipment — what is being used, inspection requirements, any relevant thorough examination certificates (e.g. for lifting equipment under LOLER 1998)
- Substances — if COSHH-regulated materials are involved, the method statement should reference the COSHH assessment and specify controls such as LEV, RPE type, and exposure limits where relevant
- Work at height — if the task involves working at height, the Work at Height Regulations 2005 require that work at height is avoided where possible, then collective protection before personal protection. The method statement must show this hierarchy, not just state that a harness will be worn
- Emergency arrangements — first aid provision, rescue plan (especially for rope access or confined spaces), site-specific emergency contacts
- Supervision and communication — who is in charge, how instructions reach the workforce, what language or literacy considerations apply
Competence and Authorisation
A PC will also check whether the people named in the RAMS are actually competent to carry out the work described. This means looking for:
- Named supervisors and their relevant qualifications or experience
- Operator licences where required (IPAF, NPORS, CPCS as appropriate to the task)
- Evidence that subcontractors carrying out specialist work (confined space entry, hot works, asbestos-adjacent work) hold the relevant training and certification
A RAMS that names "a competent operative" without any further detail does not give a PC sufficient assurance.
Signatures and Briefing Records
A completed RAMS needs to show that the workforce has actually read and understood it — not just that a supervisor has signed it on their behalf. PCs typically require:
- A toolbox talk record or briefing sheet signed by each operative before work starts
- Confirmation that operatives had the opportunity to ask questions
- A version control system so everyone is working from the current document if changes are made
What Happens After Review
A PC may approve, return for revision, or conditionally approve a RAMS pending further information. If significant changes are made to the scope, method, or site conditions during the project, the RAMS should be reviewed and reissued — and the PC notified. CDM 2015 places an ongoing duty on the PC to monitor and coordinate throughout the construction phase, not just at the start.
Practical Takeaway
Write your RAMS as if the PC's reviewer is standing next to you on site, checking whether what is written matches what is actually happening. Specificity, a credible control hierarchy, and evidence of genuine workforce briefing are what separates a RAMS that holds up from one that does not.