The PlanOps RAMS Review Standard

Version 1.2.1. 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 legal or project basis each one supports, 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 managing a duty or requirement, not proof that the duty has been discharged.

The statutory references in this edition are mainly for construction work in Great Britain. References to Building Regulations Part 2A apply to building work in England. Different legislation applies in Northern Ireland.

How to use it on paper

The whole standard fits on two sides of A4: download the two-page checklist (PDF), print it, and put it next to the submission.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 "evidence basis" column is a guide to why the criterion matters. It may name a direct legal duty, recognised guidance or good practice, or a project or contract requirement. It should not be read as saying the law requires that exact RAMS heading or wording. 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)

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?

Part 3: Does it answer the requirement you issued? (22 points)

Each criterion compares the submission against the requirement for this activity.

Part 4: Does it meet your own rules? (4 points)

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.

Severity factors.

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 applies

Because no deduction can exceed its own weight, the score is inside 0 to 100 by construction.

Caps. Applied after the arithmetic, lowest cap wins.

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 applicable criterion at critical severity.

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.

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. No organisation requirements were issued, so criterion 20 does not apply. 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 7121-1 and BS 7121-5, requiring a lifting permit and referencing the crane foundation temporary works, adjacent to an occupied office building with a noise restriction.

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

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.