RAMS assurance
RAMS assurance for your own submissions
RAMS assurance checks the risk assessments and method statements your own team has written before they go to the principal contractor, so a pack is not returned for the wrong site, a missing hazard or two documents that disagree. We do not use AI to write RAMS. Your people write them, our system reviews and cross-checks them, and a competent person makes the final decision and signs off.
The problem
Generic RAMS fail twice
Under time pressure the natural response is to copy a previous document and change the project name. Everyone in the industry has seen the result.
01
The wrong site
Access routes, plant and hazards carried over from a different job. A reviewer spots it, the pack is rejected, and the time saved is spent twice over.
02
The missing hazard
Buried services, a live carriageway, an adjacent structure. What makes this location different is exactly what a copied document omits.
03
The rejection loop
Principal contractors return packs that are not site-specific. Rewriting after review costs more than writing properly the first time.
04
Documents that disagree
An exclusion zone, a load or a depth that differs between the risk assessment and the method statement. Each document reads correctly alone, which is why the conflict survives.
How the check works
Your document, checked before anyone else sees it
- Against your own templateThe check runs against your firm's approved format and standard hazard and control library, so a blank section or a control dropped from the standard is flagged.
- Against the task, the location and the sequenceDrawings, the method, the plant and the people involved. Where the document describes a different site, different plant or a step with no control, it is flagged.
- Document against documentThe risk assessment, the method statement, permits and lifting plans are read against each other, so a figure that differs between two of them is caught before a reviewer finds it.
- A competent person decidesOur system flags conflicts and gaps. Your team makes the corrections, and a competent person makes the final decision and signs off. No CDM 2015 duty transfers to software.
Being straight about it
Your own RAMS or a subcontractor's pack
This page is about the RAMS your own team writes and submits. Checking a pack that a subcontractor has already sent you is the same discipline pointed the other way, and we run that as the subcontractor RAMS review service. Both catch the wrong site and the missing hazard. Both catch contradictions between documents that each look correct alone.
Most principal contractors need incoming packs reviewed. Most subcontractors need their own submissions checked before they go. Firms that sit in both roles, which is common in civils, need both, and the two feed each other: the faults a check keeps finding are the faults worth designing out of the template.
If you want to see the checking on real paperwork before committing to anything, the free RAMS pack check runs a full cross-document review on one pack at no charge.
Common questions
Questions about RAMS assurance before submission
Is it safe to use AI on RAMS and safety documents?
Yes, provided AI checks and flags while competent people write, review and sign off. AI is good at finding missing sections, inconsistent figures, expired certificates and requirements that have not been addressed, and it does not get tired at the end of a long pack. It is not a competent person and should never be treated as one. Aldbry designs every workflow so that a named person approves the output, and Corvleo presents findings for review rather than issuing decisions. Accountability under CDM 2015, LOLER 1998, COSHH 2002 and your other duties stays exactly where it sits today.
Does AI replace a competent person under CDM 2015?
No. A competent person is a legal role held by a human being, and no software takes on a CDM 2015 duty. AI can prepare the information that person needs, check documents against each other, highlight what is missing and record what was reviewed, which makes the judgement faster and better evidenced. The judgement itself, and the accountability for it, does not move. Any supplier telling you otherwise is describing something you should not buy.
Can you check our RAMS against our own templates?
Yes, and your own approved material is the right standard to check against. The check reads the document your team has written against your template, your standard hazard and control library and your previous submissions for similar work, then against this task, this location and this sequence. Where a site-specific control is missing, it flags the gap rather than suggesting something plausible, because the fix belongs to the person who knows the site. Your team makes the change and a competent person signs it off.
Does a checked RAMS still need our competent person to sign it off?
Yes, always. The check finds conflicts and gaps and approves nothing. What gets a pack returned is a generic document with the wrong access route, plant that is not on site, or a hazard unique to the location that nobody addressed, and those are the faults the check is built to catch before submission. The RAMS is still written by your team and signed by your competent person, and the accountability for it is unchanged.
Next step
Start with a pack you already have.
Send one subcontractor pack for a free check, or book a short call about the RAMS your teams write each week.