Version 1.2.0. First effective 30 July 2026 as v1.0.0. Published by PlanOps. Licensed under CC BY 4.0: use it, print it, adapt it, with attribution. The argument for the standard is in What a competent RAMS review actually tests.
What this is
A published, versioned standard for reviewing a subcontractor's risk assessment and method statement (RAMS) against the requirement the principal contractor issued for the activity. It defines twenty tests in four parts, the weight of each, the duty each one evidences, and an arithmetic method that turns the reviewer's verdicts into a 0 to 100 score where every point lost is traceable to a named criterion.
It is written so that a health and safety manager can adopt it on paper without any software. It is also the standard PlanOps runs automatically on every RAMS submitted through the platform.
It is not a British Standard and it is not a legal opinion. Passing a test here is evidence towards a duty, not a discharge of it.
How to use it on paper
The whole standard fits on two sides of A4: download the one-page checklist (PDF), print it, and put it next to the submission.
- Have the requirement you issued for the activity to hand: the risk category, the legislation you cited, any permit, any temporary works reference, the activity description, the risk level, and your organisation's own rules if any.
- For each of the twenty criteria, record a verdict: met, partially met, not met, or does not apply. "Does not apply" covers two situations: a criterion the activity does not engage at all (for example criterion 20 when no organisation rules were issued), and a criterion whose comparison material you do not have (see "The document-only subset" below). Every criterion must carry a verdict.
- For each criterion that is partially met or not met, record a severity: critical, major or minor. Critical means work under this RAMS could kill or seriously injure someone (no rescue plan, no temporary works design). Major means a material gap that must be closed before work starts. Minor means a limited deficiency that would not, on its own, materially affect safe execution.
- Score it using the method below, or simply apply the caps: any critical not met, serious gaps, send it back; any critical partially met, significant gaps; any major finding, at best gaps to close.
- Return the verdicts to the subcontractor with the review. The list of what was tested is the review.
The four parts and twenty criteria
Weights sum to 100. The "evidences" column names the duty the criterion is evidence towards. Abbreviations: MHSWR is the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999; CDM is the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015; HSWA is the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; Part 2A is Part 2A of the Building Regulations 2010 (England, competence, from 1 October 2023).
Part 1: Is the risk assessment real? (18 points)
| # | Criterion | The test | Weight | Evidences |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Method statement supported by risk assessment | Every safety-significant method statement step rests on an assessed risk, and the two documents cross-reference each other rather than sit side by side. | 9 | MHSWR reg 3 (suitable and sufficient assessment); CDM reg 15(2) plan, manage, monitor |
| 2 | Foreseeable hazards and controls for this trade, this activity and this site | The risk assessment covers the hazards this activity actually presents on this site, with controls that follow the hierarchy of control. | 9 | MHSWR reg 3 and Schedule 1 (general principles of prevention); CDM reg 13(2) and 15 |
Part 2: Does the method statement say enough? (56 points)
Each criterion asks the same shape of question: is this section present, specific and adequate?
| # | Criterion | The test | Weight | Evidences |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Scope of works stated and specific | The method statement states its scope (locations, boundaries, exclusions, interfaces) specifically enough for the remaining criteria to be audited against it. Tests presence and specificity only; whether the scope matches the activity you asked for is criterion 18. | 5 | CDM reg 15(2): you cannot plan what you have not defined |
| 4 | Programme | Duration, sequence and working hours are stated well enough to judge the controls against them. | 3 | CDM reg 13(1) and 15(2) sequencing and coordination; reg 12 construction phase plan |
| 5 | Resources, competence and equipment | People, plant and equipment are named, with competence requirements and evidence (cards, tickets, certificates) where applicable. | 5 | CDM reg 8 and 15(7) (no worker without skills, knowledge, training and experience); Part 2A reg 11E and 11F; PUWER 1998 |
| 6 | Hazard identification | Hazards are task-specific rather than generic, and the identification has been reviewed and approved by a competent person. | 7 | MHSWR reg 3 and reg 7 (competent assistance) |
| 7 | Control measures | Supervision, permits, inspection regimes, briefings and PPE are specified and workable. | 8 | MHSWR reg 5 (arrangements); CDM reg 15(2) and 15(8) supervision; PPE at Work Regs |
| 8 | Emergency arrangements | Rescue, first aid, welfare and raising-the-alarm arrangements are specific to this activity and location. | 7 | CDM reg 30 (emergency procedures) and 31 (emergency routes and exits); MHSWR reg 8; CDM Schedule 2 welfare |
| 9 | Temporary works | Temporary works coordination, design, checks and lifting responsibilities are addressed where the activity involves them. | 6 | CDM reg 19 (stability of structures); BS 5975 as recognised practice; LOLER 1998 where lifting |
| 10 | Interface with others and the public | Segregation, signage, security, dust and noise controls address who else is affected. | 5 | CDM reg 13(1) and 13(3) coordination; reg 17 safe places of work; reg 18 site security; HSWA s3 |
| 11 | Training and information | Induction, task briefing, specialist training and card requirements are stated. | 4 | CDM reg 13(4) and 15(9) site induction; reg 15(8) instruction and information; MHSWR reg 13; Part 2A reg 11F |
| 12 | Environmental issues | Waste, pollution prevention, noise, permits and monitoring are addressed. | 3 | Construction phase plan content; Environmental Protection Act 1990 s34 duty of care; site consents |
| 13 | Monitoring and review | Checking, enforcement, change management and briefing records are described. | 3 | CDM reg 15(2) "monitor"; MHSWR reg 3(3) review of assessment |
Part 3: Does it answer the requirement you issued? (22 points)
Each criterion compares the submission against the requirement for this activity.
| # | Criterion | The test | Weight | Evidences |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | Addresses the risk category on your requirement | The submission engages the specific hazard category your requirement identifies. | 4 | CDM reg 13(1): the PC defines the risk the RAMS must answer |
| 15 | Addresses the legislation cited on your requirement | For each piece of legislation or guidance named on the requirement, the relevant requirements are addressed in the method and controls. | 4 | The regime cited (for example LOLER 1998, Work at Height Regs 2005, CAR 2012, COSHH 2002, Electricity at Work Regs 1989) |
| 16 | References the permit process you require | Where the requirement calls for a permit, the submission references raising and closing it. | 3 | CDM reg 15(3) follow the construction phase plan and site rules; reg 12 |
| 17 | Addresses the temporary works you referenced | Where the requirement references temporary works, their design, inspection and coordination are addressed. | 3 | CDM reg 19; BS 5975 |
| 18 | Scope matches the activity on your requirement | The submitted scope neither falls short of nor overruns the activity the requirement describes. Tests conformity only; whether a scope is stated specifically enough to audit at all is criterion 3. | 4 | CDM reg 13(1) and 13(3) coordination: the right RAMS for the right work |
| 19 | Controls proportionate to the risk level you set | Controls match the risk level recorded on the requirement rather than a generic baseline. | 4 | MHSWR reg 3 "suitable and sufficient" is proportionate; CDM reg 15(2) |
Part 4: Does it meet your own rules? (4 points)
| # | Criterion | The test | Weight | Evidences |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | Organisation requirements | Gaps against your organisation's own requirements (client standards, framework conditions, site rules beyond the regulations). Does not apply when none were issued. | 4 | CDM reg 13(3) and 15(3): comply with the construction phase plan and site rules |
Two conduct rules apply to Part 4 and are not scored: cite each organisation requirement by its exact reference when it is used as a test; and where no organisation requirements were issued, do not invent any, mark criterion 20 as does not apply.
The document-only subset
The twenty criteria divide by what they need in front of the reviewer, and any review claiming this standard must say which set it ran.
Criteria 1 to 13 are document-only. They can be assessed from the RAMS itself: whether the risk assessment is real and whether the method statement says enough. Together they carry 74 of the 100 weight.
Criteria 14 to 20 are comparison criteria. Every one tests the submission against something the reviewer must hold: the requirement issued for the activity (its risk category, cited legislation, permit, temporary works references, activity description and risk level) for 14 to 19, and the organisation's own rules for 20. Without that material there is nothing to compare against, and the standard's own rule applies: a criterion whose comparison material is absent is recorded as does not apply and leaves the denominator. It is never guessed from the document, and its absence is never scored as a failure.
A review run without the requirement is therefore a document-only review: thirteen criteria over an applicable weight of 74 (less anything else that does not apply), and stated as such. It is a legitimate first pass and an incomplete review, and the result must say which it was. This is exactly how the free review at planops.ai/rams-review runs: it reads one document with no sight of any project, so it assesses the thirteen document-only criteria and reports criteria 14 to 20 as not applicable. Inside a project, where the requirement and the organisation rules exist, all twenty run.
Any result from a document-only review should carry the subset on its face, not in a footnote: "Document-only review: 13 of 20 tests assessed, applicable weight 74", ahead of the score. A document-only 92 and a full-review 92 are not the same level of scrutiny, and the result is the place to say so.
Scoring method
The score is arithmetic over the verdicts. The reviewer is never asked for a number.
Verdict factors.
| Verdict | Factor |
|---|---|
| Met | 0 |
| Partially met | 0.5 |
| Not met | 1.0 |
| Does not apply | removed from denominator |
Severity factors.
| Severity | Factor |
|---|---|
| Critical | 1.0 |
| Major | 0.6 |
| Minor | 0.25 |
| None | 0 |
Formula.
applicable_weight = sum of weights of criteria that apply
deduction(i) = weight(i) x verdict_factor(i) x severity_factor(i)
score_before_caps = 100 x (applicable_weight - sum of deductions) / applicable_weight
score = round( min(score_before_caps, cap) )
where cap = 100 when no cap condition below appliesBecause no deduction can exceed its own weight, the score is inside 0 to 100 by construction.
Caps. Applied after the arithmetic, lowest cap wins.
| When | Maximum score | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Any criterion not met at critical severity | 49 | A single critical failure (no rescue plan, no temporary works design) puts the RAMS in the bottom band regardless of how much else it does well. Weighted deduction alone would leave such a submission in the nineties. |
| Any criterion partially met at critical severity | 69 | A partially addressed critical risk cannot sit above the significant-gaps band. |
| Any criterion not met or partially met at major severity | 89 | The top band is defined as "no material gaps; any findings are minor". A major finding contradicts that definition, so it must put the score below 90 however small the criterion's weight. Without this cap two major findings on low-weight criteria scored 96. |
Coverage rule. Every criterion must carry a verdict. A score derived from a partial assessment is not a score: when any criterion is unassessed, report the score as unavailable and name the criteria that were missed.
Unavailable rule. When the review could not be read or completed, the score is null with a stated reason. Zero is never used to mean "could not assess". Zero is a real score, reserved for a submission that fails every criterion critically.
Bands
Band names describe the RAMS overall; they are not descriptions of the severity of individual findings. A single major finding places the whole document in the gaps-to-close band, because the top band is defined by the absence of material gaps.
| Score | Band | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 90 to 100 | No material gaps | Nothing was flagged against the twenty criteria that would hold this document up at review; any findings are minor and do not, on their own, affect safe execution. |
| 70 to 89 | Gaps to close | The substance is there, but at least one material gap remains. Work should not start until the points listed are closed. |
| 50 to 69 | Significant gaps | Several criteria are only partly addressed, or the shortfalls are wide. Expect it to come back for revision rather than be accepted as issued. |
| 0 to 49 | Serious gaps | The submission has serious deficiencies, or at least one critical test has not been addressed. Send it back for rework before it goes any further. |
| No score | Not scored | Not every criterion could be assessed, so no overall result is issued. The individual findings still stand. |
Worked examples
1. Everything met, no organisation rules issued. Criteria 1 to 19 met; criterion 20 does not apply. Applicable weight 96, deductions 0. Score 100. No material gaps.
2. One major gap only. Everything met except emergency arrangements (criterion 8, weight 7), not met at major severity. Deduction 7 x 1.0 x 0.6 = 4.2 of 96 applicable, which is 95.6 before caps. The major-finding cap brings it to 89. Gaps to close. A major gap cannot sit in the top band.
3. The steel-frame erection RAMS. A synthetic example used to design and test the method (the subcontractor and site are fictional). Twelve-storey steel frame, requirement titled "Tower crane operations, steel frame erection", citing LOLER 1998, CDM 2015 and BS 7121, requiring a lifting permit and referencing the crane foundation temporary works, adjacent to an occupied office building with a noise restriction.
| # | Verdict | Severity | Deduction | Points lost (of 100) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Met | None | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | Partially met | Major | 2.70 | 2.81 |
| 3 | Met | None | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | Not met | Major | 1.80 | 1.87 |
| 5 | Partially met | Major | 1.50 | 1.56 |
| 6 | Not met | Critical | 7.00 | 7.29 |
| 7 | Partially met | Major | 2.40 | 2.50 |
| 8 | Not met | Critical | 7.00 | 7.29 |
| 9 | Not met | Critical | 6.00 | 6.25 |
| 10 | Not met | Major | 3.00 | 3.12 |
| 11 | Met | None | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | Not met | Major | 1.80 | 1.87 |
| 13 | Partially met | Minor | 0.38 | 0.39 |
| 14 | Not met | Critical | 4.00 | 4.17 |
| 15 | Not met | Critical | 4.00 | 4.17 |
| 16 | Not met | Major | 1.80 | 1.87 |
| 17 | Partially met | Major | 0.90 | 0.94 |
| 18 | Partially met | Minor | 0.50 | 0.52 |
| 19 | Not met | Major | 2.40 | 2.50 |
| 20 | Does not apply |
Applicable weight 96. Deductions 47.2. Score before caps 50.9. Five criteria not met at critical severity (6, 8, 9, 14, 15), so the cap applies: 49. Serious gaps.
The two scope criteria
Criteria 3 and 18 both concern scope and deliberately test different things. Criterion 3 sits in Part 2 and asks what every criterion in that part asks: is the section present, specific and adequate. Criterion 18 sits in Part 3 and does what every criterion in that part does: compares the submission with the requirement. The failures are different and so are the remedies. A vague scope means rewrite the method statement; a mismatched scope means this is the wrong RAMS for the activity. Up to v1.0.0 the two were worded so similarly that a scope mismatch was double-counted in practice; v1.1.0 corrected the wording rather than merging the criteria, so no ids, weights or scores changed.
Changelog
| Version | Date | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1.2.0 | 21 August 2026 | External review changes: corrected the 0 to 49 band description (a score below 50 can arise from accumulated major findings with no critical failure); renamed the 70 to 89 band from Minor gaps to Gaps to close and stated that band names describe the document, not individual findings; redefined minor severity as not materially affecting safe execution on its own; stated cap = 100 when no cap condition applies; reworded criteria 1 (safety-significant steps), 5 (competence evidence where applicable) and 15 (requirements addressed in method and controls); corrected the steel-frame example description from three to five critical failures. No ids, weights, factors, caps or band thresholds changed. |
| 1.1.0 | 9 August 2026 | Reworded criteria 3 and 18 so the scope test each performs is distinct. No criterion ids, weights, verdict or severity factors, caps or bands changed; every score recorded under 1.0.0 remains comparable. |
| 1.0.0 | 30 July 2026 | First published standard. The review score is derived from criterion verdicts rather than asked of the reviewer. |
Criticism and adoption
If a weight, a test or a duty reference is wrong, tell us. Changes that alter the meaning of a stored score (renumbering, reweighting, new criteria) are published as a new major version with the old one kept readable. Clarifications are minor versions. Contributors are credited in the changelog.