RAMS review · CDM 2015 · UK
Consistent RAMS review, across every project.
Every RAMS is screened against 1,994 questions across 140 sections, from scaffolding and confined space to offshore installations and rail possession. The engine selects the sections your job draws on. Your advisor reads every finding and signs their name to the outcome.
The assurance gap
You can't see which reviews got the time they needed.
An advisor covering four sites, on their fortieth pack of the month, opens a sixty page RAMS at four o'clock on a Friday. Works start on Monday. They will skim section nine.
That is not negligence. It is arithmetic. Now multiply it across a dozen advisors and a national portfolio. Every review is signed. Every one looks the same on the report. Nobody in the business can tell you which of them were read properly and which were read at four o'clock on a Friday.
SafePass247 screens every pack to the same standard, whatever day it is. Your advisor still decides and still signs. They are not doing the reading cold, and the record shows it.
Scope of review
Compliance with the law is the baseline. Your project is the test.
A method statement can be entirely lawful and still be wrong for the job in hand. Every RAMS is therefore assessed against the statutory position and against the documents that govern your site.
01
UK construction legislation
CDM 2015, the Work at Height Regulations, LOLER, PUWER, COSHH and the wider statutory framework.
02
Approved Codes of Practice
The Approved Codes carry special legal status. They are the standard a court will hold you to.
03
HSE guidance
Published guidance covering the trades, activities and hazards found on a construction site.
04 · Yours
Your CPP and company standards
Loaded once, on the account. Every RAMS is then assessed against the documents that actually govern your project, not against general good practice.
The fourth is the one that matters. A generic check will confirm a RAMS is lawful. It will not tell you the contractor's PPE requirements fall short of what your site actually asks for.
The process
Screen. Review. Sign.
Three stages. Only the first is automated.
Stage one · Screen
The whole pack is read
The contractor submits their pack, whether that is one document or ten. SafePass247 works through it question by question, recording each finding against the document and the page it was found on.
Stage two · Review
Your advisor decides
Findings are considered individually. Confirmed, annotated, or overturned. There is no facility to clear a review in a single action, by design. A review nobody has read is not a review.
Stage three · Sign
A named person signs
Name, role, company and date, captured at the point of signature and never recalculated afterwards. A consolidated list of what must be addressed, and where, is produced for the contractor.
Sign-on, from the phone in their pocket.
The RAMS is written for the people doing the work, and most of them never read it. It is briefed at seven in the morning, on a wet Monday, and signed on a clipboard.
We are building an operative app so the RAMS a person is working to can be read on their own phone, and signed on to there. Their sign-on lands in the same record as the advisor's, against the same revision, on the same job.
Not yet available. It will be listed here when it is.
The whole pack
A RAMS is rarely one document.
Up to ten documents that all have to agree with each other. A master statement, the COSHH sheets, a lifting plan, the permits, the rescue plans. SafePass247 reads the pack as one thing, so a gap in the master can be closed by a document three files away, and a contradiction between them is found rather than missed.
Across the pack
Ten documents, read together
Not ten separate reviews stapled into one. A single review, drawing on every document in the submission.
Scoped to the work
The sections your job draws on
1,994 questions in the library. The screening works out which sections a RAMS engages, and asks those.
Side by side
The screening, and your verdict
What the machine found and what the reviewer decided sit next to each other, all the way through. Where they differ, that difference is the record of professional judgement.
found66Yes63In part14No20N/A
assessment64Yes63In part16No20N/A
Core review sections, always assessed
Activity triggered sections
Look at the two rows of counts. The screening found sixty six Yes answers. The reviewer signed off sixty four, and turned two of them into a No. Those two are the job. The screening reads the document. The advisor knows the site, the contractor, and what was said at the pre-start, and none of that is written down anywhere. That is what a competent person brings, and it is why one sits in the middle of this.
A section, as it is delivered
This is what a review actually looks like.
Not a summary. Not a score. Four questions from a single section of one review, exactly as the reviewer worked through them and as the contractor receives them.
Screening Yes 📍 Method Statement, p.1
All four are here on the front page: the title 'Risk Assessment & Method Statement', reference BRF-RAMS-084, Rev 01, and prepared by the H&S Manager at Barrowfield Construction Services. That's the full set covered.
Screening In part
The pack is dated July 2026, but that's the document date. There's no proposed start and finish date for the works themselves. A reviewer needs to know when the job actually runs.
Legislation / ACoP engaged, reviewer to confirm satisfied
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. Reviewer to confirm.
What a Yes would need
The planned start and completion dates for the works are not stated, only the issue date. A reviewer would need these to answer Yes.
Screening Yes 📍 Method Statement, p.1
Client is named as Calderstone Foods Ltd and the Principal Contractor as Barrowfield Construction Services Ltd, and both run consistently through the pack. Clearly set out.
Screening Yes 📍 Method Statement, p.1
The site address is given in full: Calderstone Production Facility, Unit 1, Thornhaugh Industrial Estate. That's a specific site address, not a head office.
This is four questions out of a hundred and forty three. Every one of them read, evidenced, and confirmed by a person, one at a time. That is what a review is supposed to be, and it is what gets lost when the pressure comes on.
Example review. Company names, sites and documents shown throughout are illustrative.
Four o'clock on a Friday.
I have been the advisor sat in a cold cabin in the middle of winter, reviewing RAMS while contractors hassle you for the one thing they want, a sign off. The PMs chasing. The push back. It is relentless.
And by the sixth set you start to judge yourself. You read them again. And again. Notes in a notebook, cross referencing sections and pages, checking back through what you have already checked, and coming to the same conclusion you came to an hour ago.
Nobody says that out loud. Every advisor has done it, and every director has walked into that cabin and seen it. I built this because the honest answer was never to work faster or care less. So I built a tool that assists the advisor with the RAMS. It does the reading. It does not do the deciding, and it never will.
Accounts and access
Every party in the chain holds an account.
Submissions are not emailed attachments. Every party can see the current status of a RAMS, including the contractor who submitted it, so nothing sits unresolved in an inbox.
Internal
H&S Manager
Holds the account. Invites the Leads. Full oversight of every project in the organisation.
Internal
H&S Lead
Runs the projects. Invites advisors and contractors, sets up the projects, and loads the CPP and company standards. Full oversight of the projects they run.
Internal
H&S Advisor
Carries out the review. Considers each finding, applies their own judgement, and signs the outcome.
External
Contractor
Submits their pack. Receives the findings and the actions required.
In development
Subcontractor
One tier below the contractor, who remains accountable for what is submitted. No chain beyond that, by design.
An operative app is also in development, so the people doing the work can read the RAMS they are working to, and sign on to it, from their own phone.
For H&S Directors
You cannot read every RAMS. You can evidence that every one was read.
When an inspector asks how you assured yourself that a method statement was adequate, "we reviewed it" is not an answer. A named competent person, a date, and every finding referenced to a page in a named document is an answer.
Every review carries the name, role and company of the person who signed it, captured at the point of signature. Should they leave the business next year, the record still states who was accountable last week. It cannot be edited after the fact, and it does not rewrite itself when someone changes role.
The output
This is what the contractor receives.
Not an email saying the RAMS was rejected. A record stating the outcome, the person who decided it, the role they hold, the company they work for, and the date they signed. Every finding behind it is set out in full, with the page it was found on.
Named
A person, not a system
The record does not say "reviewed by SafePass247". It names the person who reviewed it, the role they hold, and the company they work for.
Frozen
Fixed at the point of signature
Captured once, never recalculated. If the advisor leaves next year, the record still states who was accountable last week.
Defensible
What an inspector asks for
A named competent person, a date, and findings referenced to a page in a named document. Not "we reviewed it".
5 · Review & approval
Reviewer summary
Reviewer
J. Okonkwo
Role
H&S Advisor
Company
Thorncliffe Group Ltd
Date
12 July 2026
Signature
J. Okonkwo
Note what the declaration says. Not that the software approved it. That a named, competent person read it and takes full responsibility for the outcome. That is the sentence that matters after an incident, when the file is opened.
One last thing
There is no mild in this job.
It goes dark at half three, the cabin is never quite warm, and you are still there with a lifting plan in front of you. Or it is thirty degrees, the door is wedged open for the air, and you are on your fourth pack since lunch.
There is no season where this gets easy. There is just the next one, and the pack after that, and someone at the door wanting a yes.
SafePass247 does not write RAMS and it does not approve them. It reads the pack, points at what is missing, and cites the page it found it on. Then a competent person decides, and puts their name to it.
That is who I built it for.