Risk Assessments · Mandatory · Pre-Construction

Task-Specific Risk Assessment

A Task-Specific Risk Assessment evaluates the hazards and control measures for a particular activity or work operation on site. It supplements the generic site risk assessment by addressing risks unique to the task, workforce, equipment, and location. Workers must be briefed on the assessment before commencing the activity.

Last reviewed: 29 March 2026 — This guide reflects UK law as of this date. MHSWR 1999 remains current with no amendments enacted as of 29 March 2026. Next scheduled review: 29 March 2027.

Legal basis	MHSWR 1999 Regulation 3(1) — every employer must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of risks to employees and others
Recording duty	MHSWR 1999 Reg 3(6) — must be recorded in writing where employer has 5 or more employees. In construction, universally required.
Who produces it	The contractor or subcontractor responsible for the activity — not the Principal Contractor on behalf of others
When	Before the activity starts — the PC must review and accept it before granting permission to proceed
Relationship to generic site RA	Builds on the generic site RA (Guide B1) — addresses activity-specific hazards that the generic RA does not cover
Relationship to method statement	Typically combined with a method statement in a RAMS pack — see Section 2 for the distinction
Enforcing authority	Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

1. What Is a Task-Specific Risk Assessment?

A Task-Specific Risk Assessment is a documented assessment of the hazards associated with a specific construction activity — not the site in general, but the particular task being carried out: bricklaying at height, first fix plumbing, concrete pours, electrical installation, groundworks.

Every employer has a duty under MHSWR 1999 Regulation 3 to assess risks to their workers and to others. On a multi-contractor construction site, this means every subcontractor must produce their own task-specific risk assessment for their scope of work — not just the Principal Contractor. The PC's generic site risk assessment covers site-wide baseline conditions. It does not and cannot cover the specific risks of each trade's activities. Those are the responsibility of the employer carrying out that activity.

The duty cascade — who must produce what

Client ensures CPP is in place. Principal Contractor produces the generic site RA and reviews/accepts all subcontractor RAMS before works start. Each subcontractor produces a task-specific RA for their scope. At each level, the employer producing the work is responsible for assessing its risks — the PC cannot assess risks on behalf of a subcontractor whose methods, materials, and equipment they did not specify.

2. Risk Assessment vs Method Statement — The Distinction

In construction, ‘RAMS’ (Risk Assessment and Method Statement) is the standard term for the combined document most subcontractors produce. The two components serve different purposes and answer different questions. Both are required for significant activities.

	Task-Specific Risk Assessment	Method Statement
What it answers	‘What could go wrong and how bad could it be?’	‘How will the work be carried out safely, step by step?’
Primary purpose	Identify hazards, assess risk, select and record controls	Describe the sequence of work, the method, equipment, supervision, and emergency response
Risk rating	Includes likelihood x severity matrix producing a risk rating before and after controls	Does not include risk ratings — references the RA for risk context
Written by	The employer responsible for the activity — typically the subcontractor	The employer responsible for the activity — same author as the RA
When produced	Before the activity starts — must be reviewed and accepted by the PC	Before the activity starts — typically produced alongside the RA as a RAMS pack
Legal basis	MHSWR 1999 Reg 3 — mandatory	MHSWR 1999 Reg 5 (arrangements) — mandatory for significant activities; good practice to record in writing regardless
Can they be combined?	Yes — a RAMS document typically combines both in a single pack. The RA section identifies hazards and controls; the method statement section describes the safe sequence of work.	Yes — combined RAMS packs are standard industry practice.

RAMS as a single combined document

Most contractors combine the risk assessment and method statement into a single RAMS document. This is acceptable and common practice. The combined document should clearly distinguish between the RA section (hazards, risk ratings, controls) and the method statement section (sequence of work, equipment, supervision, emergency response). Where the two are merged without clear structure, the PC reviewing them cannot efficiently verify that both components are present and adequate.

3. Risk Rating — The Matrix Method

The risk matrix is the standard tool for translating qualitative judgements about hazards into a numerical risk rating. It is not mandated by regulation — MHSWR only requires the assessment to be ‘suitable and sufficient’ — but it is the universally accepted approach and what HSE inspectors and Principal Contractors expect to see. The matrix scores risk as Likelihood x Severity.

Likelihood / Severity	1 Negligible	2 Minor	3 Moderate	4 Major	5 Catastrophic
5 Almost Certain	5 MEDIUM	10 HIGH	15 HIGH	20 CRITICAL	25 CRITICAL
4 Likely	4 LOW	8 MEDIUM	12 HIGH	16 CRITICAL	20 CRITICAL
3 Possible	3 LOW	6 MEDIUM	9 MEDIUM	12 HIGH	15 HIGH
2 Unlikely	2 LOW	4 LOW	6 MEDIUM	8 MEDIUM	10 HIGH
1 Rare	1 LOW	2 LOW	3 LOW	4 LOW	5 MEDIUM

How to use the matrix:

Initial risk rating— rate the likelihood and severity of harm before any controls are applied. This establishes the baseline and demonstrates the assessment was actually carried out, not assumed.
Residual risk rating— rate again after controls are applied. The residual rating must be Low or at most Medium for work to proceed. A residual High or Critical rating means controls are insufficient.
Be honest— a risk assessment that rates every hazard as ‘Low’ before controls is not credible and will not survive scrutiny. A fall from scaffold without edge protection is a High risk. Record it that way.
Proportionality— the depth of the assessment should match the risk level. A High initial risk requires more detailed controls and justification than a Low one.

The residual risk after controls must be Low or Medium

A task-specific risk assessment that applies controls but still shows a High or Critical residual risk rating has not found adequate controls. Either additional controls must be identified, the method must be changed to eliminate or reduce the hazard, or the activity must not proceed. A document with a High residual risk and no further action recorded is not a compliant assessment — it is evidence that the risk was identified and not controlled.

4. What the Document Must Contain

MHSWR 1999 does not prescribe a specific format, but the following fields are required or strongly recommended for a document that meets the ‘suitable and sufficient’ standard, satisfies the PC's review requirements, and would withstand HSE scrutiny.

Field	Detail	Status
Project / site reference	Site name, address, project reference number, and name of the Principal Contractor	Essential
Document reference / version	Unique document reference and version number to track revisions	Essential
Activity / task title	Clear, specific description of the activity covered — e.g. ‘First fix electrical installation — Block A Ground Floor’, not just ‘electrical works’	Essential
Assessment author	Name, role, and relevant competence/qualification of the person who carried out the assessment	Essential
Date of assessment	Date the assessment was completed — not the date of the activity	Essential
Review date / trigger	When the assessment will be reviewed — specific date or trigger events (scope change, near miss, method change)	Essential
Hazard description	Each identified hazard described clearly — specific enough to be meaningful, not generic	Essential
Who is at risk	Categories of persons who could be harmed: own workers, other trades on site, visitors, public	Essential
Risk rating — initial (before controls)	Likelihood and severity ratings producing a risk score before controls are applied — demonstrates the assessment was carried out	Strongly recommended
Control measures	Specific, actionable controls for each hazard following the hierarchy of control. Not ‘wear PPE’ without specifying type, standard, and conditions.	Essential
Risk rating — residual (after controls)	Risk score after controls are applied — demonstrates controls reduce risk to ALARP	Strongly recommended
Responsible person	Who is responsible for implementing and monitoring each control	Recommended
Worker sign-off	Signature of workers who have read, understood, and agreed to work in accordance with the assessment — standard industry practice	Strongly recommended
PC review / approval	Record that the PC has reviewed and accepted the assessment before work starts	Strongly recommended

5. When Must a Task-Specific RA Be Produced?

A task-specific risk assessment must be produced before every significant construction activity — not just high-risk ones. ‘Significant’ means any activity where a hazard could cause harm. In practice on a construction site, this covers the vast majority of work. The following table covers the key triggers for producing or reviewing an assessment.

Trigger	Why	Timing
New activity not covered by generic site RA	Any construction task that introduces hazards beyond the baseline site hazards — effectively every significant trade activity	Before work starts
Change in scope, method or location	If the activity changes — different floor level, different materials, different sequence, different plant — the existing assessment must be reviewed and updated or a new one produced	Before restarting
New subcontractor on site	Every subcontractor must produce their own task-specific RA for their scope before starting work. The PC must review and accept it.	Before access to site
After a near miss or incident	If a near miss or accident occurs during an activity, the RA for that activity must be reviewed immediately to determine whether it adequately identified the risk and whether controls need strengthening	Immediately
Regular review for long-running activities	Activities running over extended periods should be reviewed at intervals — typically weekly on complex sites — even without a specific trigger event	Periodically

6. Common Mistakes

Producing a generic RAMS template with only the logo changed

The most widespread failure. A downloaded template that describes activities not present on your site, references plant you are not using, or specifies controls that cannot physically be applied to your work location is not a task-specific risk assessment. HSE inspectors and PC H&S managers can identify generic templates immediately. Beyond the compliance failure, a template that does not reflect reality provides no protection to the workers following it.

Not referencing the specific site conditions from the PCIP or generic site RA

Task-specific RAMS must be consistent with the Pre-Construction Information Pack and the PC’s generic site risk assessment. If the PCIP identifies contaminated ground, existing services, or asbestos, those site-specific factors must be reflected in any RAMS for affected activities. A RAMS produced without reviewing site information will miss hazards that the site investigation has already identified.

Submitting RAMS after work has already started

The PC must review and accept task-specific RAMS before the activity begins — not simultaneously, and not after. ‘We’ll send it over today, can we start this morning?’ is not compliant. The PC needs time to review the document adequately, and the contractor’s workers must have been briefed on its contents before starting. Procurement processes should require RAMS submission as a condition of appointment, weeks before the start date.

Rating all hazards as Low risk before controls

Initial risk ratings that show everything as Low before controls are applied suggest the assessment was completed to satisfy a requirement rather than to genuinely assess risk. A competent reviewer will immediately question an assessment where manual handling of heavy materials is rated Low initial risk, or where working at height without controls is Low. Rate honestly — the purpose of the initial rating is to show why controls are necessary.

Not getting workers to read and sign the RAMS before starting

Worker sign-off demonstrates that workers have read, understood, and agreed to work in accordance with the assessment. Without it, there is no evidence workers knew what the controls were before starting. A RAMS that workers have never seen is operationally useless. Where workers cannot read the document (language barriers, literacy), a verbal briefing with confirmation record is required.

Failing to update RAMS when the scope, method or site changes

A task-specific RA produced at the start of a subcontract is valid only for the activities, methods, and site conditions it describes. If the scope changes, if the method changes, if new plant is introduced, or if the working location changes significantly, the existing RAMS must be reviewed and updated. Re-use of a previous project’s RAMS without any adaptation is a particularly common and particularly poor practice.

7. A Real-World Example

A plastering subcontractor was appointed on a school refurbishment project in the East Midlands. Their RAMS were submitted on the day of starting — the document was a four-page generic template referencing ‘construction site activities’ with no mention of the specific hazards on this project: a listed building with suspected lead paint, working in occupied school areas with children present at times, and access restrictions requiring work from scissor lifts rather than traditional hop-ups. The PC's H&S manager spotted the template issue during a site audit on day two. The RAMS had been accepted at induction without adequate review. The scissor lift was in use but no IPAF certification had been verified, no reference to lead paint controls appeared anywhere in the document, and no specific measures for working in proximity to children were included. Work was stopped immediately. The PC issued a non-conformance. The subcontractor produced a revised, site-specific RAMS over two days — but work had already begun without adequate controls. Lead paint had been disturbed. An occupational hygienist was required to assess exposure. The delay cost the subcontractor their programme and damaged their relationship with the PC permanently.

Site-specific RAMS that referenced the PCIP, verified the IPAF certification, and addressed the specific hazards of this project would have taken a competent person half a day to produce. The consequences of not producing them properly took weeks to resolve.

8. Related Documents

Document	Relationship
Generic Site Risk Assessment (B1)	The generic site RA establishes site-wide baseline conditions and controls. Every task-specific RA must be consistent with it — controls must not conflict with site-wide arrangements, and site-specific hazards identified in the generic RA must be incorporated.
Method Statement (Generic) (B3)	The method statement accompanies the task-specific RA in a RAMS pack, describing how the work will be carried out safely step by step. The RA identifies what the risks are; the method statement describes how the work will be managed to control them.
Construction Phase Plan	The CPP must reference the arrangements for reviewing and approving RAMS. Task-specific RAMS are the evidence that the CPP’s H&S management arrangements are being implemented by each subcontractor.
Pre-Construction Information Pack	The PCIP provides site-specific information — ground conditions, services, hazardous materials, adjacent structures — that must feed into task-specific RAMS. Any RAMS produced without reviewing the PCIP is likely to miss site-specific hazards already identified.
Worker Consultation Record	Workers must be consulted on RAMS before they are finalised — not just shown them after. A pre-task briefing where workers review the RA and can raise concerns satisfies both the MHSWR worker consultation requirement and CDM 2015 Regulation 14. Record the briefing.
Contractor Appointment Letter	The appointment letter should require the subcontractor to produce task-specific RAMS and submit them to the PC for review before starting. Without this contractual obligation, enforcement relies on goodwill.

9. Frequently Asked Questions

Does every task need its own risk assessment, or can one document cover multiple activities?▾

A single document can cover multiple related activities within a subcontractor’s scope provided it genuinely addresses the specific hazards of each activity. A plastering subcontractor might produce one RAMS covering background preparation, scratch coat, finish coat, and making good — because these are sequential activities with largely overlapping hazards. But they could not cover plastering and structural demolition in the same document — the hazards and controls are fundamentally different.

Who reviews and approves task-specific RAMS — the PC or the client?▾

The Principal Contractor reviews and accepts task-specific RAMS from subcontractors as part of their CDM 2015 Regulation 13 duty to coordinate health and safety. The client does not typically review individual subcontractor RAMS — that is the PC’s responsibility. On design-and-build projects where the PC is also the main contractor, they review RAMS from all subcontractors.

Can a subcontractor use RAMS from a previous project on the same type of work?▾

Previous RAMS can be used as a starting template but must be reviewed and updated for the specific site conditions, method, plant, and people involved in the current project. A RAMS that references a different site address, different equipment, or different working conditions is not a task-specific assessment for the current project. The time saving from re-using a previous document is only legitimate if the site-specific sections are genuinely updated.

What if the PC’s generic site RA already covers a hazard that also appears in the subcontractor’s RAMS — is that duplication?▾

Some overlap is expected and correct. The generic site RA establishes site-wide controls (e.g. hard hat and hi-vis mandatory on site). The subcontractor’s RAMS for working at height will also reference falls protection — but at a more specific level for their particular activity and location. The duplication is not a problem; the two documents must be consistent. Inconsistency — where the subcontractor’s RAMS contradict the PC’s site rules — is a serious compliance issue.

Does a self-employed sole trader need to produce a task-specific risk assessment?▾

Yes — MHSWR 1999 Regulation 3(2) applies to ‘every relevant self-employed person.’ A self-employed electrician, plumber, or groundworker must assess risks to their own health and safety and to others. In practice, the self-employed person’s RAMS may be less formal than a large subcontractor’s, but the underlying duty is the same. On most commercial sites, the PC will require RAMS from all contractors regardless of employment status.

Generate your Task-Specific Risk Assessment on Construction Suite

Construction Suite walks you through every required section with a guided Q&A — built to MHSWR 1999 — and generates a professionally formatted document in minutes.

Get started free