Risk Assessments & Method Statements: Site-Specific RAMS That Win Tenders

Public sector buyers worry about three things: safety, disruption and cost. A serious incident on their site does damage on all three fronts. That is why health and safety sits so prominently in quality questions, and why risk assessments and method statements (RAMS) carry more weight than many teams realise when scores are agreed.

RAMS are where you turn policies into a specific plan for that site, with that phasing and those people. When they are clear and tailored, they give evaluators a reason to trust that the work will be delivered safely and without avoidable disruption. This guide explains how to build RAMS that do that, how to align them with tender questions and how we can help you stress test them before submission.

RAMS Explained: What They Are and How Evaluators Read Them

RAMS stands for Risk Assessment and Method Statement. In practice it is usually a pair of documents that work together. The risk assessment identifies hazards, who might be harmed and how serious that harm could be. The method statement then sets out, step by step, how the work will be carried out safely using the controls you have chosen.

UK employers are required by law to assess and manage the risks in their work. Guidance from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) describes a simple process: identify hazards, assess the risks, control the risks, record your findings and review the controls. RAMS take those steps and turn them into a job-specific document that supervisors and operatives can actually use. Good RAMS show that local conditions, hazards, associated risks and control measures have been thought through, not just copied from a generic template.

For higher risk activities, method statements bring together information about hazards and controls in a logical sequence that others can follow, which is exactly what HSE highlights as good practice in construction. That is why strong RAMS usually sit alongside clear method statements in construction, toolbox talks, permits and other health and safety documentation, all telling the same story about how the work will be managed.

On paper, RAMS can look like simple compliance admin. In public tenders they are treated as evidence. Panels use them to test whether you have understood the site-specific hazards, chosen proportionate controls and put competent people in place to deliver them. Bid evaluation guidance under the Procurement Act 2023 stresses that scores must be based on clear, contract-specific evidence against published criteria, not on assumptions. Well-constructed RAMS help evaluators justify higher quality scores on health and safety, resourcing and delivery. Thin, generic RAMS do the opposite.

Why RAMS Affect Quality Scores

Health and safety is not a side issue in public procurement. HSE’s latest key figures show that around 1.9 million working people in Great Britain are suffering from work-related ill health, 680,000 workers sustain an injury each year, 40.1 million working days are lost and the annual cost of workplace injury and new cases of ill health is estimated at £22.9 billion. Those numbers sit behind every quality question on safe delivery, continuity of service and risk management.

Public sector buyers are expected to award contracts that deliver value, protect people and minimise disruption. Official guidance on assessing competitive tenders explains that evaluation should identify the most advantageous tender based on transparent award criteria and robust evidence. RAMS are one of the few places where an evaluator can see how you turn policies and systems into a concrete, site-specific plan.

Your RAMS documentation often addresses several quality criteria at once. It can support answers on:

• Health and safety management and safe systems of work
• Mobilisation, phasing and access arrangements
• Traffic and pedestrian management
• Control of subcontractors and interfaces with others
• Environmental controls and protection of assets

If your written answers talk about a strong safety culture, but the attached RAMS look generic, inconsistent or light on high-risk controls, evaluators will usually mark what they can see in front of them. That keeps scores in the mid-bands. When RAMS are clear, site-specific and aligned with your narrative answers, they make it much easier for panels to award higher marks with confidence.

Site-Specific RAMS Checklist

This checklist is designed to be aligned to typical evaluator expectations. You can use it to stress-test your RAMS documentation before attaching it to a bid. If you cannot honestly say that you meet one of these criteria completely, then an assessor is likely to notice the same gap.

1. Scope and context

• Do the RAMS reflect the actual works, location, access routes and interfaces described in the specification and drawings?

• Have you picked up client or framework rules, including any requirements in relevant construction frameworks?

• Is it clear how the RAMS will be used, for example in inductions, pre-start briefings and toolbox talks?

2. A genuinely site-specific risk picture

• Are the hazards linked to this site and activity, not just a trade template?

• Have you considered building users, neighbours and the public, including vulnerable people?

• Have you included environmental and asset protection risks where they matter on this contract?

• Is there a clear line of sight from hazard, to risk, to control, rather than a long list of standard precautions dropped into a table?

3. Clear structure and readable detail

A RAMS document that works for both site teams and evaluators will usually cover:

• A plain-English project and task description

• Roles and responsibilities, including who is in charge and the planned level of supervision

• Sequence of works from mobilisation to demobilisation, with key checks and hold points

• Risk assessment tables that link likelihood, consequence and control measures to the method steps

• Plant, equipment and inspection arrangements

• Permits, isolations and lock-out tag-out where relevant

• Emergency arrangements and incident reporting

• How RAMS will be briefed, monitored and reviewed as conditions change

If someone who has never seen the site can follow this and understand how you will deliver safely, your evaluator probably can as well.

4. Evidence that speaks to the scorecard

As you review each section, ask whether your RAMS clearly show:

• Understanding of the highest risks on this contract

• Proportionate, practical controls that can be visualised on site

• Competence, training and a realistic supervision model

• Monitoring, escalation and learning from incidents and near misses

• Alignment with your programme, resources and quality answers

Used regularly, this checklist turns RAMS from a recycled template into a focused explanation of how you will control risk on that specific project, in a way that lines up with how panels are asked to score.

Common RAMS Weaknesses That Drag Scores Down

Even when work is well managed on site, the same flaws appear in RAMS that come across a public evaluator’s desk. Most are avoidable.

Generic, copy-and-paste content
Documents that could apply to any site or client are an immediate warning sign. If there is no reference to the actual building, asset or neighbours, and the hazards bear little relation to the scope, evaluators will assume limited understanding of contract-specific risk. That usually caps scores in the middle range.

Conflicts with method statements and answers
RAMS that describe one level of supervision while a written method statement promises another, or that list different plant, operatives or working hours, erode confidence quickly. It suggests the RAMS is not the document that will really be used on site and makes it harder for assessors to justify strong marks.

Thin controls for high-consequence risks
For work at height, lifting operations, confined spaces, temporary works or asbestos, panels expect more than brief generic controls. Vague statements like “use harnesses” or “competent person to supervise” with no explanation of anchor points, inspection or qualifications will pull scores down, especially when HSE statistics show that falls from height and similar incidents remain leading causes of fatal injuries.

Little detail on competence, supervision and monitoring
Many RAMS list policies, accreditations and training in general terms but say very little about who will be on site each day, how they will be briefed and how compliance will be checked. Assessors want to see roles, qualifications, briefings, inspections and incident reporting described in practical terms, not just claimed at a high level.

Hard-to-read documents
Panels often review RAMS on screen, to tight timescales. Dense blocks of text, heavy jargon, cluttered tables and dated references all make it harder to identify strengths. A clear structure, short paragraphs, sensible tables and current terminology make it easier to brief your teams and easier for evaluators to award marks.

No sign of learning or review
Finally, many RAMS read like one-off exercises. There is no indication of how learning from previous jobs, incidents or near misses feeds back into the way risk is managed now. A short explanation of how RAMS are reviewed and improved over time can help demonstrate a more mature approach, which supports higher quality scores and better performance across your tenders, contracts and frameworks.

Turning RAMS into Stronger Tender Responses

A solid RAMS pack is one of the best starting points for high scoring written answers in a tender. The pack already holds the detail evaluators want to see. The risk assessment shows you understand the key hazards and controls. The method statement inside the RAMS shows how the work will be carried out, step by step, with the right people, equipment and checks in place. Your job at tender stage is to turn that into clear, contract-focused wording in the response boxes.

Instead of opening a blank document every time you see “Describe your methodology” or “Provide a method statement for…”, start by tightening the RAMS pack. Make sure it:

• Reflects the actual site, phasing and interfaces in the specification
• Links hazards and controls directly to the way the work will be sequenced
• Describes who will be on site, how they will be briefed and how compliance will be monitored

Once that is in place, you can lift and reshape the content into narrative method statement answers. For a question on mobilisation, for example, you might use the early stages of the RAMS method statement. For a question on traffic management or resident liaison, you can pull out the relevant hazards, controls and responsibilities from the risk assessment tables and explain how they work in practice on that contract.

Treat the RAMS pack as a control document for the whole bid. Doing so will help to keep answers aligned across your tender documentation. In turn, this makes it much easier for panels to trust your offer. It also reshapes how you think about RAMS: rather than being seen as an appendix, it becomes a useful tool in your overall bid management process.

Get Independent RAMS Support Before Submission

When you live with a project, it is hard to read your own RAMS with an evaluator’s eye. You see the site, the client and the constraints behind the words. A scoring panel sees only the document. An independent review puts a fresh pair of eyes between your project team and the buyer, so gaps are found before, not after, the feedback report arrives.

At Thornton & Lowe, we start by looking at your RAMS in context. We read the specification, your draft quality responses and any existing method statements, then check whether the RAMS support or undermine the story you are telling. We focus first on the areas that most often decide scores: site specificity, control of the highest risks, realistic resourcing and supervision, and how monitoring and learning are built in rather than bolted on.

In practice, an evaluator-style review will highlight where your RAMS:

• Do not fully reflect the hazards, interfaces or constraints in the tender documents
• Undermine quality answers by using different assumptions about people, machinery or sequencing
• Are too generic, especially on frameworks and high-profile assets
• Could explain competence, supervision and incident response more clearly

We then help you close the gaps. That might mean editing a single RAMS pack for a must-win project, or strengthening your standard so it is quicker to tailor and more likely to score well across future opportunities. Support can sit within focused construction bid writing support or full bid services, and we can back this up with practical training that can help strengthen your bid writing skills so project and H&S leads feed stronger RAMS content into every submission.

RAMS and Public Sector Tenders: FAQs

Do we really need site-specific RAMS for every tender?
You can start from a standard template, but submitting it unchanged will usually limit scores. Panels expect hazards, controls and sequencing to match the contract and site they are assessing, so even light tailoring makes a noticeable difference.

How long should a RAMS document be?
There is no ideal page count. A high-risk, multi-phase project will need more detail than a short, low-risk task, but padding documents with generic content does not help. Aim for a length that lets you cover real hazards and controls clearly, without repetition, using headings, tables and short paragraphs so an assessor can find key information quickly.

Who should write RAMS inside the business?
The best results usually come from a joint effort. The project lead shapes the content, because they understand the site and the works. A health and safety specialist checks the risk assessment and controls. A bid or quality lead then reads the RAMS against the tender questions, to make sure the document supports, rather than contradicts, the wider submission.

What is the difference between RAMS and method statements in tenders?
RAMS usually combine a risk assessment with a method statement. In tenders you will often see separate narrative questions on methodology or approach alongside a request to upload RAMS. The narrative answer tells the story in full sentences, often across the whole contract. The RAMS document provides task-level evidence. When both are aligned, it is much easier for evaluators to award higher marks.

How often should we review RAMS on a framework or long-term contract?
Treat RAMS as live documents. Review them when a new site is added, the scope or sequence changes, working hours shift, new information emerges about services or neighbours, or there is a significant incident or near miss. Many organisations build RAMS review into their regular supervision or audit cycle, so learning on one project feeds into the next call-off.

Stress-Test Your RAMS

You do not need to rebuild every RAMS template to see a step up in scores. The quickest gain is to pick your next live opportunity, pull out the RAMS you would normally submit and work through the checklist in this guide as a team. Tighten the task description, sharpen controls for the highest risks and make sure roles, supervision and briefings are explicit. Then check that the RAMS and your method statements tell the same story.

If you want external input, we can help you build this into how you bid. Thornton & Lowe can run an evaluator-style review of your RAMS for a specific opportunity, or help you develop stronger standards that are faster to tailor for future work. To talk through your upcoming tenders and the level of support that would make the biggest difference, use our contact page, email hello@thorntonandlowe.com or call 01204 238046.