Aldbry
  1. Home
  2. Insights
  3. RAMS review checklist

Safety documentation

A RAMS Review Checklist for Principal Contractors

Most problems in a subcontractor pack are not errors inside one document. They are contradictions between documents that each look correct on their own, which is why reading a pack one file at a time finds so little. This checklist is built around that, and it assumes a competent person is making the decision at the end of it.

  • Aldbry Insights
  • 6 min read
  • 17 September 2026

Why a document-by-document read fails

The most common problems are contradictions between documents that each look correct on their own: the same control stated with two different figures, a lifting operation or item of plant with no corresponding method statement, a substance named with no COSHH assessment in the pack, a method statement citing a revision of a risk assessment that is not the one supplied, and competence records that have expired before the works start.

None of those are visible while reading a single file. They only appear when the pack is treated as one submission and the documents are compared against each other. That is the whole basis of the checklist below.

Before you start

Two things make the review worth doing. The pack should be complete, because reviewing half a submission mostly produces a list of things you already knew were missing. And the reviewer should be the person who can accept or reject it, or be reporting directly to them, because a review nobody acts on is an expensive way to produce a document.

The checklist

Ten steps for reviewing a subcontractor RAMS pack

In this order, because each step narrows what the next one has to look at.

  1. Read the pack as one submission

    List every document it contains before reading any of them in detail, including revision numbers and dates. You are checking a set of documents against each other, so you need to know what is in the set.

  2. Check the scope matches the actual activity

    Compare what the method statement describes against the work the subcontractor is actually coming to do, on this site, in this sequence. A pack written for a different job is the single most common failing, and everything downstream of it is unreliable.

  3. Compare figures that must agree across documents

    Exclusion zones, depths, loads, distances, heights and durations. Where the same figure appears in the method statement and the risk assessment, it must be the same figure. Note every disagreement with both sources quoted.

  4. Match every item of plant to an assessment

    Take the plant named anywhere in the pack and confirm each has a matching assessment and, where relevant, a lifting plan. Plant that appears in one document and nowhere else is a gap, not an oversight to be assumed away.

  5. Match every substance to a COSHH assessment

    Substances named in the method statement need a corresponding COSHH assessment in the pack. A safety data sheet is not an assessment, and its presence does not close this out.

  6. Check revisions and cross-references line up

    Where a document cites another by revision, confirm the cited revision is the one supplied. A method statement referring to revision B of a risk assessment, with revision A in the pack, is a real finding however minor it looks.

  7. Check competence records against the programme dates

    Cards, tickets, training and insurances should be valid for the period of the works, not merely valid today. A record expiring mid-package is a finding worth raising before mobilisation rather than during it.

  8. Check permits and interfaces

    Where the work needs a permit, confirm the pack references the right permit regime and the right survey or design information. Then check the interfaces: who else is working nearby, and whether both methods can be true at the same time.

  9. Check emergency and rescue arrangements

    Any activity requiring rescue, such as confined space entry or work at height, needs the arrangement present in the pack rather than referenced in passing. An arrangement named but not supplied is the same as one that does not exist.

  10. Record what you checked, then decide

    Write down what was reviewed, what was found and what you asked for. The regulations do not prescribe a review format, so the evidence you keep is what demonstrates you discharged the duty. Then a competent person accepts, rejects or returns the pack.

Where the duty sits

CDM 2015 requires the principal contractor to plan, manage and monitor the construction phase and to coordinate it so that work is carried out without risks to health and safety, which in practice means satisfying yourself that a subcontractor's proposed method and controls are suitable before work starts. A checklist supports that judgement. It does not make it, and it does not move it.

The same applies to any software used in the process. AI can compile, compare and flag, and it can produce the record of what was checked. It cannot hold the duty.

What this costs in practice

Done properly on a pack running to a hundred pages, this is most of a morning, and packs frequently arrive the day before a start on site. That is the honest reason these checks get skipped, and it is worth naming rather than pretending the problem is diligence.

The cross-document comparisons in steps three through six are mechanical, which is exactly the kind of work that automates well. Corvleo's RAMS Assurance module is live and does that comparison, then presents the findings for a person to review. If you want to see it on a pack of your own, the free RAMS pack check runs one at no charge, and there is a full review service if you want it on every pack rather than once.

The principle worth keeping: the checklist finds what the documents say about each other. Whether the method suits this site, these conditions and these people is a judgement, and it stays with your competent person.

Common questions

Questions about reviewing RAMS

How do you check a subcontractor RAMS pack?

Read the pack as one submission and compare the documents against each other, because that is where the real problems sit. The checks that matter are the figures that must agree across documents, plant and substances that need a matching assessment somewhere in the pack, controls that are missing from the document where they count, references and revisions that do not line up, and sign-offs that are absent or out of date. Aldbry does this as a managed service and inside Corvleo, and the output is an evidenced review sheet rather than a verbal opinion, so you can show what was checked. The decision to accept the pack stays with your competent person.

What are the most common problems in subcontractor RAMS?

The most common problems are contradictions between documents that each look correct on their own. In practice that means the same control stated with two different figures, a lifting operation or item of plant with no corresponding method statement, a substance named with no COSHH assessment in the pack, a method statement citing a revision of a risk assessment that is not the one supplied, and competence records that have expired before the works start. None of these are exotic, and all of them are easy to miss when a pack runs to a hundred pages and arrives the day before a start on site. That is the kind of thing an investigation finds afterwards, which is why it is worth finding first.

What does CDM 2015 require of a principal contractor when reviewing RAMS?

CDM 2015 requires the principal contractor to plan, manage and monitor the construction phase and to coordinate it so that work is carried out without risks to health and safety, which in practice means satisfying yourself that a subcontractor's proposed method and controls are suitable before work starts. The regulations do not prescribe a review format, so the evidence you keep of having checked is what demonstrates you discharged the duty. AI can compile, compare and flag, and it can produce the record of what was checked. It cannot hold the duty. That stays with the dutyholder, and the review decision stays with your competent person. Our CDM documentation article goes through this in more detail.

Read next

Go deeper

Free RAMS pack check

Run this checklist on one of your own packs, at no charge.

Request a check

Free tools

The pack check and the admin cost calculator, both free.

See both tools

Fit-out

Hot works permits, occupied buildings and handover documentation.

AI for fit-out

Next step

Run the checklist on a real pack.

Send one subcontractor pack and we will do the cross-document comparison and send the findings back, with the documents quoted. No charge, and the decision stays yours.

Free RAMS pack check See the review service Book a call
Free pack check Book a call