How to Write a Method Statement That Passes Principal Contractor Review

The principal contractor (PC) reviewing your submission is not reading it cover to cover. They have between two and ten subcontractor packages to sign off before Monday morning, and a documented duty under CDM 2015 reg. 13(4) to be satisfied that the work has been planned safely before it begins. They scan. If the document does not give them what they need in the first 90 seconds, it goes back.

This guide is the reverse-engineered version of what those reviewers — site managers, project managers, SHEQ advisors — actually look for. Follow the structure, avoid the twelve rejection patterns, and your submission lands in the "approved" pile on the first pass. For background on the combined document PCs expect, see what a RAMS document is and our step-by-step on how to write a RAMS.

How a PC actually reviews submissions

A typical first-pass review takes 5–10 minutes per package and follows roughly this order:

1. Is the scope on this document the scope I awarded? Mismatch = reject.
2. Are the competencies listed? Names and tickets. Missing = reject.
3. Do the hazards match what I expected for this work? If a roofing method has no fall-from-height hazard listed, it's generic. Reject.
4. Do the method steps actually describe how the work is done, or are they a list of platitudes ("work safely", "wear PPE")?
5. Are the high-risk items covered? Permits, isolations, lifting plans, exclusion zones, emergencies.
6. Is the sign-on sheet present and the brief planned?

Everything else is a tie-breaker. Optimise the document for these six questions and acceptance rates above 90% on first submission are realistic.

The eight-section structure that passes

1. Header block

Job reference matching the PC's order, site address, principal contractor name, contract dates, your company name, document version, author, reviewer, sign-off date. PCs use the version number to track resubmissions — never reissue without bumping it.

2. Scope

One paragraph that the PC can read in 15 seconds and recognise as the work they awarded. Include quantities ("install 47 m of 110 mm soil stack", not just "install soil stack"), the floors or zones in scope, and explicit exclusions ("does not include below-ground drainage — by others").

3. Resources

• Personnel and named competencies (CSCS, CCNSG, SMSTS, NEBOSH, trade tickets)
• Plant and access equipment with most recent LOLER/PUWER inspection dates
• Materials with COSHH safety data sheet references
• PPE specific to the task — not a generic list

4. Hazard summary

Table of significant hazards with reference numbers. Each hazard gets a rating before controls and after controls. Site-specific phrasing — "fall through fragile rooflight on 1990s warehouse roof, span 6 m" beats "fall from height".

5. Sequence of work

Numbered steps, each one short. Every step references the hazards it controls in brackets, e.g. "3. Erect MEWP exclusion zone using barriers and signage at 4 m radius (H2, H6, H11)." This is the cross-reference that PCs scan for.

6. High-risk specifics

Permits-to-work and who issues them. Isolation procedures (locked-off, tagged). Lifting plan reference if LOLER applies. Confined-space rescue arrangements. Hot-work fire-watch duration after burn-off. These often live in appendices on the PC's standard template — never assume the PC will infer them.

7. Emergency arrangements

Site-specific. Where is the muster point for this site? Who is the appointed first aider for this visit? What is the nearest A&E and the route? A generic "in the event of an emergency, evacuate" is a rejection pattern.

8. Briefing & sign-on

Blank sign-on sheet attached, with named supervisor responsible for delivering the brief before work starts. Some PCs require the signed sheet returned within 24 hours of works commencing.

Annotated example — install of a vertical riser

Real task: install a 110 mm vertical soil stack in a 4-storey commercial fit-out, occupied lower floors, programme allows two days.

Extract — sequence of work, with PC reviewer comments in italics

1. Pre-start: collect signed permit-to-work from PC site office. Confirm PC-issued isolation of adjacent live drainage. PC reviewer: ticks the permit and isolation expectation; signals you've read the PC's procedures.
2. Erect mobile tower scaffold to TG20:21 compliance certificate; tag and sign before use. Tower inspected by PASMA-trained operative every shift (H1, H4). Names a standard. Names a competency. Names an inspection regime. Passes.
3. Establish exclusion zone on floors below at 2 m radius from riser cut-out using Heras + signage. Brief floor occupants via PC reception (H5, H9 — falling tools, falling debris). Public protection covered, lines of communication clear.
4. Cut riser openings between floors using core drill; respirator FFP3 and goggles for operative cutting (H6 — silica dust). Water suppression on drill. Silica is the hazard a PC will absolutely check for. Naming FFP3 and water suppression closes the loop.
5. Hoist pipe sections using gin-wheel; never carried up tower ladders. Maximum section weight 18 kg, within MEWP and gin-wheel SWL (H1, H10). Names manual-handling and lifting controls; specifies SWL compliance.
6. Solvent-weld joints below face level only. If any joint must be made above face level, change method to mechanical compression. COSHH SDS for solvent cement attached (H7). Restricts the riskiest variant of the method and gives a fallback. PCs love this.
7. On completion: remove waste in lidded skips; sweep stair cores; submit signed sign-on sheet to PC; request joint inspection before sign-off. Closes the loop. The reviewer can see how acceptance happens.

Why the example passes

• Every step describes a physical action, not a principle.
• Every step references the hazards it controls.
• Where the method has a riskier variant (above-face-level solvent weld), an explicit alternative is named.
• Standards (TG20:21), competencies (PASMA), and PPE specifications (FFP3) are named with enough precision that the PC could spot-check on site.

Top 12 rejection patterns

1. Generic hazards from a template — no site-specific detail.
2. No cross-reference between method steps and hazards.
3. Missing competencies or no ticket numbers.
4. Out-of-date PUWER / LOLER inspection records.
5. No COSHH safety data sheets for named substances.
6. Vague PPE — "appropriate PPE" instead of "FFP3, cut-5 gloves, impact goggles".
7. No permit-to-work named where one is obviously required (hot works, confined space, excavation, electrical).
8. Emergency arrangements copied from another site.
9. No sign-on sheet attached.
10. Method written in passive voice — reviewer cannot tell who is doing what.
11. Document version not incremented after a previous rejection.
12. Scope mismatch with the PC's order or pre-construction information.

Pre-submission checklist

• Header includes PC name, job ref, version, author, reviewer, date.
• Scope paragraph matches the awarded works package.
• Every named person has a competency and ticket number.
• Every plant item has a current statutory inspection date.
• Hazard table has site-specific wording, not template wording.
• Every method step references the hazard numbers it controls.
• Permits, isolations, lifting plans and exclusion zones are named.
• Emergency arrangements name this site's muster point and first aider.
• Sign-on sheet is attached and the briefing supervisor is named.

Riskora produces a document that satisfies all nine of these items by default, because the data model enforces them. The hazard → method cross-reference is automatic, version numbers increment on each export, and the sign-on sheet is generated as the final page.

FAQs

How long should a method statement be?

Long enough to describe the work, short enough to read in 10 minutes. For a typical sub-package: 6–12 pages including the hazard table and sign-on sheet. Anything over 25 pages signals padding or scope creep.

Do I need a separate method statement for every visit?

For repeated identical works (a five-week roofing programme on the same building) one method statement covers the whole programme. When site conditions change materially — different elevation, new trades adjacent, weather window — issue a revision.

What if the PC uses their own template?

Use it. Their reviewers know where to look on their own template. Cutting and pasting your content into their structure is faster than arguing.

Can the same method statement cover multiple subcontractors?

No. Each contractor produces their own. Interfaces between contractors belong in the PC's construction phase plan, not in your method statement.

Related reading

• What a UK method statement must include
• Principal contractor RAMS rejection reasons — top 10
• RAMS vs method statement: the actual difference
• Template library · Trade-specific RAMS guides