RAMS assurance
Subcontractor RAMS review for principal contractors
A subcontractor RAMS pack should be read as one submission, with every document checked against the others, because that is where the dangerous errors sit. Aldbry reviews packs that way, as a managed service and inside Corvleo, and returns an evidenced review sheet showing exactly what was checked. The decision to accept the pack stays with your competent person.
The problem with reading one document at a time
The errors that matter are relational
A pack of ten documents can be individually plausible and collectively wrong. Reading them in sequence cannot find it.
01
Figures that disagree
An exclusion zone stated as one distance in the method statement and a different one in the risk assessment. A wind limit for the lift that contradicts the limit for the plant it sits beside. Both documents read correctly on their own, and the gang gets two different instructions.
02
Plant with no method
A crane or rig named in the lifting plan that no method statement covers, or a substance in the method statement with no COSHH assessment anywhere in the pack. The gap is only visible when you hold the documents side by side.
03
References that do not line up
A method statement citing revision 2 of a risk assessment when revision 3 is what was supplied, or a referenced permit or plan that is not in the pack at all.
04
Competence that has expired
A named operator whose card expired before the works start date. Easy to miss in a hundred-page pack that arrives the day before mobilisation.
What you get back
An evidenced review sheet, not a verbal opinion
The output is a document you can file, show and act on, grouped so the serious findings are unmissable.
- Findings grouped by severityCritical and warning findings separated, so the pack's real blockers are not buried among tidy-ups.
- Every finding cites its documentsEach conflict names the documents involved and quotes what each one says, so you can put the two side by side and resolve it.
- A suggested action per findingWhat to change and in which document, addressed to whoever is reviewing the pack.
- A record of what was checkedCDM 2015 does not prescribe a review format, so the evidence you keep is what demonstrates you discharged the duty.
Why this is worth doing properly
The cost of finding it afterwards
HSE reported in Construction statistics in Great Britain 2025 that 35 construction workers died in 2024/25, and that the construction fatal injury rate is around 4.8 times the all-industry rate. The HSE fee for intervention rate rose to £188 per hour on 1 April 2026. A contradiction between a method statement and a risk assessment is the kind of thing that surfaces in an investigation, and at that point the question is what your review found and what you did about it.
That is the argument for an evidenced review rather than a signature on a cover sheet. The CDM documentation article covers where the duties sit in more detail, and Corvleo RAMS Assurance is the live module that does the cross-checking.
Common questions
Questions principal contractors ask
What is the best way to manage RAMS compliance?
Review every pack against the other documents in it, not one document at a time, and keep the sign-off with a competent person. Most RAMS problems are relational: an exclusion zone stated as one distance in the method statement and another in the risk assessment, plant named in a lifting plan that no method statement covers, or a control that appears everywhere except the assessment where it matters. Reading each document in isolation cannot find any of that. Corvleo's RAMS Assurance module is live and cross-checks every document in a pack against the others, then a person reviews the findings. You can see it on one of your own packs through the free RAMS pack check.
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.
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.
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.
Read next
Go deeper
CDM 2015 documentation
Which documents CDM relies on, and where the duties stay.
AI for civil engineering
Temporary works, permits to dig, lift plans and traffic management.
RAMS review checklist
The ten cross-document checks, in the order that finds the most.
AI for construction
What AI can and cannot do, document by document.
RAMS assurance
The other half: your own RAMS checked before you submit them.
Next step
Send one pack. We will show you what the manual review missed.
The free RAMS pack check is limited to three per week because a person reviews each one. Remove personal data before you send.