Construction Method Statements

On-site: a "pour concrete as per spec" method statement is insufficient—confirm pre-pour inspections and the approved mix reference, or the first pour will likely be rejected.

🤔

On site, we still get drafts—how do you enforce briefings so crews see the approved revision?

Linking method statements to ITPs and permits is essential - on site we still see crews using drafts. Practical caution: insist on stamped approval before any toolbox talk. How do you enforce that?

On site we always add a banksman step for excavators on slopes — what's your minimum swing-radius clearance for checks?

Include the banksman step in the RAMS and link it to the permit and temporary works for sloped excavations.

Make RAMS activity-specific and include explicit, measurable hold points linked to permits/WIRs. Practical caution: use clear acceptance criteria (compaction %, signed temporary works) so crews can't treat them as suggestions. How do you track sign-offs on site?

For concrete pours in difficult access, do you reissue RAMS when weather changes or use an addendum plus re-briefing?

If waterproofing lap length is changed for a manufacturer’s reinforced joint, on site I insist on test data and a mock‑up before approval. Any quick field verification tips?

🔥🔥🔥 This is a good summary, thank you

@Tatiana Ivanova I insist on a mock-up and 24h water ponding on the reinforced joint; do you require a sample width or multiple locations?

On site, missing ITP links cause hold-ups - would adding an 'inspection dates' field to the searchable table reduce resubmissions?

We often get WIRs rejected because ITP hold points or pre-pour attachments are missing. Practical caution: include the ITP refs and photos.