The Building Safety Act is redefining how we design, procure and deliver projects. Design & Build has long been the preferred procurement model, due to its speed, efficiency and single-point responsibility. But under the new regulatory environment, many of the assumptions that have underpinned the model for decades are now being challenged.
To explore what this means for the future of procurement, Paddock Johnson recently hosted a panel of architects, contractors, legal professionals, consultants and clients for a roundtable discussion on the impact of the Building Safety Act and whether Design & Build can adapt to meet the industry's changing needs.
The discussion included representatives from Paddock Johnson, Torus, Great Places Housing Group, Wilkinson Cowan, Bridgestone, Mosscare St Vincent, Cowburn Watson Box, and Bexley Beaumont. While opinions differed on some issues, there was broad agreement on one point: the Building Safety Act is not simply changing regulations, it is changing behaviours.
TO "DESIGN THEN BUILD"?
Perhaps the most widely shared view around the table was that Design & Build is becoming increasingly dependent on greater design certainty before construction begins.
For years, projects have moved forward with design development continuing throughout the construction process. Gateway 2 requirements for HRB projects are now forcing teams to finalise detailed design prior to GW2 approval, eliminating opportunities for significant design change once construction is underway or risk delays whilst formal change control processes are adhered to.
Whilst the situation for non HRB’s allows greater flexibility, the days of entering into a D&B contract based on planning drawings are long behind us. Contractors are no longer willing or able to carry that level of risk.
Ben Dawson of Wilkinson Cowan Partnership explained:
"The projects we work on now are much more complex than they were 20 years ago. They are bigger, more technically challenging, often with significant constraints and abnormals. In order to fully understand and quantify this, you've got to invest more at an earlier stage, and not all clients appreciate that."
The implication is clear. If projects require more certainty before construction starts, then greater investment in design is needed upfront.
For Earle Brady of Bexley Beaumont, the emerging model feels more familiar than revolutionary.
"The move towards a 'design then build' approach feels less like a revolution and more like a return to traditional procurement principles. The difference is that the Building Safety Act is now enforcing a level of design maturity, accountability and certainty that the industry has often struggled to maintain."
This sentiment resonated with many participants. Rather than signalling the end of Design & Build, the Building Safety Act may simply be steering the industry back towards a procurement approach where design is substantially complete and co-ordinated before breaking ground.
RESPONSIBILITY CAN NO LONGER BE PASSED DOWN THE CHAIN
A recurring theme throughout the discussion was accountability. One of the most significant shifts introduced by the Building Safety Act is the clear allocation of responsibility to duty holders. Participants agreed that the days of passing responsibility through complex contractual arrangements are rapidly disappearing.
Rebecca Jones of Cowburn Watson Box summarised:
“Design and build can create the illusion of responsibility being shifted or removed”
Historically, Design & Build procurement has been characterised by the transfer of obligations and the delegation of risk, often resulting in blurred lines of accountability and fragmented decision-making. Parties have frequently operated within contractual silos, concentrating on their own scope of responsibility rather than the performance of the project as a whole.
The Building Safety Act represents a significant shift away from this model. It establishes a framework in which competence, transparency and accountability are paramount, requiring clearly identified duty holders to take ownership of compliance throughout a project's lifecycle. The Principal Designer must ensure that design work satisfies applicable regulatory requirements, the Principal Contractor must deliver the works in accordance with that design, and the client must ensure that competent duty holders are appointed and effective governance arrangements are in place to oversee the fulfilment of those responsibilities
In design and build this raises particular questions in relation to the Principal Designer role.
Victoria Millward from Paddock Johnson raised concerns around contractual responsibility forcing an arrangement which is at odds with the intention of the Act.
"In Design & Build procurement, the contractor carries legal responsibility for the design, which explains why many believe the Principal Designer role should naturally sit with the contractor. Yet the question remains: how many contractors possess the skills, capability and organisational competence required to discharge that duty effectively? The inability to delegate the role has led to the emergence of 'Principal Designer Advisors', created to support contractors in meeting their obligations. While understandable, does this represent a genuine strengthening of competence, or an unintended workaround that risks diluting the clear lines of accountability the Building Safety Act was designed to establish?"
This issue is further complicated when you consider the level of design now being undertaken before a client enters into contract on a design and build project. Who is the Principal Designer during this element of design whether in a PCSA or not, it is unlikely the contractor would take on the role prior to entering into contract.
FIXED COST IS NO LONGER ENOUGH
For many years, the attraction of Design & Build has been cost certainty. However, the group questioned whether the emphasis should now be shifting towards risk certainty.
David Hardman of Bridgestone suggested that the conversation needs to evolve:
“Fixed cost alone isn't enough. What clients increasingly need is fixed risk – a clearer understanding of where responsibility sits, how risk is managed and who is accountable throughout the lifecycle of the project”
This reflects a growing concern across the industry. The Building Safety Act has significantly increased liability exposure, expanded legal obligations and introduced greater scrutiny of decision-making throughout the project lifecycle.
Risk can no longer be treated as something that is simply transferred through contract clauses. Instead, it must be understood, managed and priced appropriately from the outset.
David Hardman also then highlighted the implications of Gateway approvals on project flexibility:
"Contractors need to understand that you can't keep revisiting elements of any part of the building design anymore once it's through Gateway 2."
Contractors, consultants and clients alike must now work within a framework where late-stage changes carry much greater consequences.
Collaboration Is No Longer Optional
If accountability was one major theme, collaboration was the other. The Building Safety Act has placed cooperation and coordination at the centre of project delivery. Participants agreed that successful projects increasingly depend upon all parties being involved much earlier than has traditionally been the case.
Simon Halliwell from Paddock Johnson added:
"The drive for cost reduction within Design & Build procurement has, in many cases, resulted in a steady erosion of the architect's role. Where contractors may once have been comfortable commencing works with incomplete design information and resolving issues as they emerged on site, the Building Safety Act has significantly raised the bar. Today, compliance must be capable of being evidenced, decisions must be documented, and duty holders must be prepared to stand behind formal declarations. As a result, the industry is being forced to recognise that reducing design input can ultimately increase risk rather than reduce cost”
This shift is influencing procurement decisions. Increasingly, organisations are prioritising capability, relationships and trust rather than focusing solely on lowest-cost submissions.
The view around the table was that quality, competence and long-term performance must now carry greater weight within procurement decisions.
GETTING QUALITY RIGHT THE FIRST TIME
The discussion also explored how greater scrutiny is influencing quality management. Several participants highlighted the growing importance of independent inspection and continuous quality assurance throughout a project.
Ben Townend of Great Places Housing Group noted:
"We've seen an increase definitely in the importance of the Clerk of Works role. The role gives a degree of satisfaction and continuous eyes on the site and on ensuring quality."
Anna James of Torus agreed, emphasising that quality cannot simply be assessed at completion.
"It's now essential to check quality throughout the life of the project not just waiting until the end."
The consensus was that the Building Safety Act is encouraging a more proactive approach to quality management, helping to reduce defects, rework and long-term building performance issues.
NEW CHALLENGES ON THE HORIZON
While high-rise residential buildings have understandably been the focus of much attention, participants suggested that some of the next challenges may emerge elsewhere.
David Hardman of Bridgestone highlighted what many see as a growing issue:
“Mid-rise developments are now emerging as a challenge. High-rise projects benefit from a more established framework and greater awareness of compliance requirements. However, mid-rise buildings often carry just as much risk to residents as high rise but without the same level of oversight.”
While the Government ultimately decided not to expand the scope of the Higher-Risk Building (HRB) regime, the market has, in many respects, moved ahead of the legislation. Clients responsible for both HRB and non-HRB stock are increasingly adopting HRB processes and standards across their wider portfolios, unwilling to operate dual systems or accept a situation where residents in a six-storey building receive a different level of scrutiny and assurance than those living in a seven-storey building.
Challenges in relation to MMC’s were also highlighted, particularly in relation to off site fully modular solutions. The growing use of fully manufactured off-site modular systems presents an interesting challenge for the Building Safety Act regime. In many cases, clients are effectively procuring a finished product, with little ability to influence the underlying design. Yet this does not relieve them of their statutory responsibilities.
Victoria Millward from Paddock Johnson commented:
“We have seen instances where modular providers have sought to protect intellectual property by restricting access to key design information or requiring non-disclosure agreements before details are shared. At the same time, they have been reluctant to assume the role of Principal Designer. This creates a potentially uncomfortable disconnect: those with the greatest knowledge of the product are not necessarily those carrying formal responsibility for design compliance”
Alongside design and construction challenges, attendees also discussed the importance of long-term maintenance strategies and clear responsibilities after handover.
Stuart Smallman from Mosscare St Vincents pointed out:
"There needs to be a clear distinction between the responsibility for delivering a safe building at handover and the responsibility for maintaining that building over the long term. The design and build team must ensure the building is safe when it is completed, but building owners and operators also have an important role to play in ensuring it remains safe throughout its operational life."
The conversation highlighted that building safety does not end when construction finishes; it extends throughout the lifecycle of the asset.
THE FUTURE OF PROCUREMENT
The roundtable did not conclude that Design & Build is dead. However, there was widespread agreement that the model can no longer operate in the way it has for much of the last three decades.
The Building Safety Act is exposing many of the industry's long-held assumptions: that risk can be contractually transferred, that design can continue to evolve indefinitely during construction, and that responsibility can be delegated further and further down the supply chain. Increasingly, none of those assumptions hold true.
What is emerging in its place is a delivery model founded on earlier decision-making, greater design certainty, clearer accountability and a far higher standard of collaboration between clients, designers and contractors. The organisations that thrive will be those that invest in competence, embrace transparency and recognise that compliance is not a process to be managed at the end of a project, but a responsibility that begins at inception.
The Building Safety Act has not simply changed the rules. It is changing the culture of project delivery.
And perhaps that is the biggest challenge facing Design & Build procurement: not whether it can adapt to new legislation, but whether it can evolve from a model built around the transfer of risk into one built around the ownership of responsibility.
DESIGN. THEN BUILD!
This insight was composed by Paddock Johnson, Contributors to this discussion included:
- Anna James, Torus
- Ben Dawson, Wilkinson Cowan
- Ben Townend, Great Places Housing Group
- Dave Hardman, Bridgestone Construction
- Earle Brady, Bexley Beaumont
- Rebecca Jones, Cowburn Watson Box
- Simon Halliwell, Paddock Johnson
- Stuart Smallman, Mosscare St Vincent
- Victoria Millward, Paddock Johnson