Understanding the review is the fastest way to pass it. A principal contractor reviewing your RAMS is not assessing writing quality. Under CDM 2015 they must plan, manage and monitor the construction phase and coordinate the work of every contractor on site, and they are answering one question: can this work proceed here, alongside everything else happening, without creating a risk I am accountable for?
Everything they check follows from that question.
The order a review actually runs in
1. Is it the right document, for the right work, at the right revision?
Scope against the order or subcontract package, correct project, current revision, dated and signed. Documents fail here more often than anyone expects — the wrong package submitted, or revision 2 sent when revision 3 was requested.
2. Is it site-specific?
The checks in generic versus site-specific RAMS: named supervisor, named first aider, a muster point that matches the site plan, and no traces of a previous project. A document that fails this test usually goes back without the rest being read, because everything below it is now suspect.
3. Does the hazard register match the scope?
The reviewer reads the scope, forms an expectation of what hazards must appear, and checks. Working at height, manual handling, silica dust, hot works, plant movements, live services, confined space, lone working, noise, vibration — whichever the scope implies. A missing hazard is the most serious single finding available, because no control can exist for a hazard nobody identified.
4. Are the controls real and in the right order?
Specific, enforceable controls that follow the hierarchy of control, with PPE last rather than first. A reviewer will pick two or three of the highest-scoring hazards and read those control measures closely; if they are strong, the rest usually is too.
5. Is residual risk recorded?
Blank residual columns are an automatic return on most sites. So is a residual score that is still high with nothing said about it.
6. Do the arrangements fit the site?
This is the part only the principal contractor can do, and it is the reason they cannot simply accept your word for it. Does your lift plan conflict with the tower crane's operating hours? Does your exclusion zone block the fire escape route? Does your delivery need the gate that is closed to traffic between 8 and 9? Does your hot work sit under the sprinkler isolation another trade has in place? Compatibility with the construction phase plan and with the other contractors is the whole point of the review.
7. Competence, permits and statutory paperwork
Cards and tickets appropriate to the work and in date, insurance where required, and the right permits identified at the right points in the sequence. Where the work needs a permit — hot works, confined space, excavation, roof access, isolation of services — the reviewer checks that the RAMS says so and names who obtains it. If your site's permit regime is unfamiliar, what a permit to work is explains the standard structure.
8. Emergency arrangements and rescue
First aid, muster point, reporting route — and, where the work involves height, confined spaces or excavation, an actual rescue plan. "Call 999" is not a rescue plan for a worker suspended in a harness, where suspension trauma makes the time to recovery the critical variable.
What gets a document returned
- Hazards that do not match the scope, in either direction.
- Blank residual risk scores.
- Controls that are exhortations: "take care", "be vigilant", "work safely".
- PPE as the primary control for a significant hazard.
- A copied muster point, first aider or A&E — or a previous project's name anywhere in the file.
- A COSHH substance in the method with no assessment reference.
- Plant listed with no operator competency stated.
- No named supervisor.
- No rescue plan where one is plainly required.
- Missing signatures, dates or revision numbers.
None of these require expertise in your trade to find. That is why they are found, every time, and why they are worth eliminating before submission.
How to make the review easy
Reviewers are working through a queue with a start date pressing on them. A document that is easy to verify gets approved faster than one of equal quality that is hard to navigate.
- Use the principal contractor's template or section order if they have published one.
- Put document control, scope and personnel on page one.
- Number your hazards and reference those numbers in the method statement stages, so a reviewer can trace a control to a hazard without hunting.
- Attach the supporting evidence they will otherwise ask for: cards, insurance, LOLER and PUWER records, safety data sheets, lift plans.
- Submit a text-based PDF or Word file, not a photograph of a printout.
- Submit early enough that one round of comments does not cost you the start date.
When your document comes back
Fix the finding, not the sentence. If the comment is "no control for silica dust", adding an FFP3 mask to the PPE list has not answered it — on-tool extraction or water suppression is the control, and the mask is what remains after it. Then update the revision number, note the change in the revision history, and re-brief anyone already briefed on the old version. The mechanics of that loop, and why keeping both versions matters, are in how often a RAMS should be reviewed.
If you want to see the document the way the reviewer will, run it through a structured check first and read the output in severity order — understanding your first report explains how to work through one. The findings marked critical are, almost without exception, the ones that get a document returned.
This article is general guidance on UK construction documentation practice. It is not legal advice, a compliance certification or a substitute for review by your own qualified health and safety personnel, who remain responsible for deciding whether any particular document is adequate. See our disclaimer.