Why RAMS Get Rejected by Principal Contractors (and How to Fix It)

You submit your RAMS. The PC sends it back. "Not site-specific enough." "Hazards incomplete." "Doesn't align with the CPP." Sound familiar?

Rejected RAMS cause delays, create friction with main contractors, and eat into your programme. The fix is almost always the same: the document was written generically rather than for the specific site and scope.

Here are the five most common reasons principal contractors reject method statements and risk assessments — and what to do instead.

1. The method statement could apply to any project

The most common rejection. The document reads like a generic template — no project name, no site address, no client details, no reference to site-specific conditions. The PC's health and safety manager can tell immediately whether a RAMS was written for their project or pulled from a drawer.

Principal contractors have a duty under CDM 2015 to ensure that their pre-construction information is reflected in subcontractor RAMS. If your document does not reference the site address, the site rules, the emergency assembly point, or the specific hazards present on that site — it will come back.

2. Hazards are generic or incomplete

Risk assessments list hazards like "working at height — risk of fall — use PPE." This misses the point of a risk assessment. The hazard must be specific to the task. The controls must be specific to the site. And the residual risk rating must make sense.

Common hazards that get missed:

• Adjacent live services (gas, electric, water) — requires CAT scan, permit to dig, excavation supervisor sign-off
• Overhead power lines — exclusion zone, goal posts, spotters
• Public interface — hoarding, pedestrian management, banksmen
• Dust and noise — COSHH assessment, noise monitoring, neighbour notifications
• Manual handling — TILE assessment (Task, Individual, Load, Environment) for specific lifts
• Confined spaces — where applicable (even if not classified as a confined space entry)

3. The emergency procedures are not site-specific

Every RAMS must include emergency procedures. But "in the event of an emergency, evacuate to the assembly point and call 999" is not adequate for a working construction site.

PCs expect to see:

• The site address (for emergency services)
• The nearest hospital with A&E (and travel time/route)
• The named first aider on the project
• The location of the first aid kit and fire extinguishers
• The evacuation route specific to the area of works
• The assembly point location
• Contact numbers: site manager, PC HS manager, emergency services

4. It does not align with the Construction Phase Plan

The CPP is the main contractor's overarching health and safety document for the project. Your RAMS should reference it — and should not contradict it.

If the CPP specifies a particular colour of PPE, a certain permit-to-work format, or specific site induction requirements — your RAMS should reflect that. If it does not, the HS manager has to manually reconcile two documents, and it will come back with comments.

5. The signatures are wrong

RAMS need to be signed by a competent person — typically a supervisor, site manager, or director of the subcontractor. They must be dated. If the project has multiple operatives, each operative should sign to confirm they have read, understood, and agreed to work within the method statement.

Common issues:

• RAMS signed by the estimator or office administrator rather than a site supervisor
• Operatives not named and not signed
• Undated signatures
• Revision history not shown (if the RAMS was updated after initial submission)