Article — 8 min read
Why the review matters
A principal contractor who accepts a subcontractor's risk assessment and method statement without reviewing it has not discharged a duty; they have transferred a document. If the submission does not describe the work as it will be carried out, the fact that it was received on time will not help.
The review is also the last practical opportunity to catch a method that will not work on your site — before plant is on order, operatives are booked and the programme depends on it.
The checklist
1. Does it describe this project?
Check the site address, the scope, the programme dates and the plant listed. A submission carrying another site's details has not been written for you.
2. Is the sequence credible?
Read the method statement as a sequence of operations and ask whether it can actually be performed in that order, in that location, with the access described.
3. Are the controls available on site?
Controls that depend on equipment, exclusion zones or permits that will not exist at the time of the works are not controls.
4. Do the risk assessment and the method statement agree?
It is common for the assessment to identify a control that the method statement then contradicts. Read them against each other, not separately.
5. Are the interfaces addressed?
Most incidents on multi-trade sites happen at the boundary between two trades. The submission should say who else will be in the area and how the interface is managed.
6. Is the competence evidenced?
Named operatives, cards, tickets and statutory certificates — checked, not assumed. This is also the point to confirm supervision arrangements.
7. Is the plant and equipment in date?
Thorough examination certificates, PAT records and calibration records where relevant.
8. Are emergency and rescue arrangements specific?
Particularly for work at height, confined spaces and lifting operations, where a generic statement is of no use to anyone.
When a submission fails
Reject it in writing, with specific reasons and a date for resubmission. A verbal comment leaves no record and tends to produce the same document again. Keep the rejection and the resubmission together in the project file: it is the clearest possible evidence that the review was genuine.
Where the shortfall is minor and the works are imminent, an agreed written amendment attached to the original is preferable to waiting for a full reissue — provided the amendment is signed and briefed to the operatives.
Recording the outcome
Every submission should appear on a register showing the date received, the reviewer, the outcome, and the date of approval or rejection. This register is one of the first things a client auditor will ask for and one of the easiest to maintain from the start.
We provide subcontractor RAMS review as a standalone service where an in-house team is at capacity, typically with a two working day turnaround.