How the Building Safety Act May Bring an End to Design and Build Procurement

The Building Safety Act, introduced in the wake of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, aims to overhaul safety standards within the construction industry. While much of the attention has focused on improving building safety and ensuring accountability, the ripple effects of this legislation are being felt across all aspects of the construction process.

One of the areas most likely to experience fundamental change is design and build procurement, a model that has dominated UK construction for years.

In my view, the Building Safety Act may well bring an end to this procurement method as we know it.

Design and Build: A Quick Overview

Design and build procurement has long been popular due to its simplicity, allowing clients to commission a single contractor to both design and build a project. It is seen as a cost-effective and time-efficient way to deliver large-scale developments because it consolidates responsibility for design, construction, and coordination. Contractors also often take on the risk associated with the project, appealing to developers looking to limit their own liabilities.

However, while this procurement method offers apparent benefits, it also introduces complexities around accountability, safety standards, and quality control. Under design and build, contractors frequently rely on value engineering to cut costs, which can lead to compromises in the quality of materials, adherence to safety protocols, and compliance with regulatory standards. This has been a point of contention, particularly in light of safety concerns raised by incidents like Grenfell.

 The Impact of the Building Safety Act

The Building Safety Act introduces a series of stringent measures that directly challenge some of the cornerstones of the design and build approach. A key element of the Act is the emphasis on accountability across all stages of the construction process. Under the new legislation, those involved in the design, construction, and maintenance of buildings will be held to a higher standard of care, with potential criminal liability for breaches. This creates a tension between the requirements of the Building Safety Act and the blurred lines of responsibility inherent in design and build procurement.

 Key Areas of Impact:

 1. Accountability and Liability: Under design and build, contractors often assume responsibility for both the design and construction phases. However, the Building Safety Act requires clear accountability at each stage, from architects to building contractors to building owners. This shift places greater pressure on separating the roles of designers and builders, making it harder for contractors to maintain oversight over the entire process. The Act’s focus on accountability means that contractors may no longer be willing to take on the level of risk associated with design and build projects, leading to a decline in its use.

 2. Competence and Compliance:

The Act mandates that key duty holders—including designers and contractors—demonstrate competence, ensuring that safety-critical decisions are made by qualified professionals. The need for competence, coupled with the “Golden Thread” of building information (a digital record of the design, construction, and changes throughout a building’s lifecycle), increases the administrative burden. Contractors in design and build schemes may struggle to maintain the level of documentation and safety oversight required, particularly where cost-saving measures may have previously taken precedence over detailed safety planning.

 3. Role of the Principal Designer:

The Act also introduces the role of the Principal Designer, who is accountable for safety during the pre-construction phase. In design and build, this role is often assumed by the contractor, who may not have the necessary expertise to meet the rigorous safety standards outlined in the Act.

As the law shifts responsibility back to design specialists, it becomes increasingly difficult for contractors to act as both designer and builder, making a move toward more traditional procurement models more likely.

The Case for a Shift Back to Traditional Procurement

The traditional procurement model, in which a client hires separate entities for design and construction, may see a resurgence as a result of the Building Safety Act. In this model, designers take full responsibility for the project’s design, ensuring that safety and compliance are baked into every stage of planning. Builders, on the other hand, are solely focused on executing the approved designs, with clear demarcation between roles and responsibilities. This separation of duties aligns more naturally with the Act’s emphasis on accountability and specialist competence.

Value Engineering vs. Safety

Another reason why design and build procurement may falter under the new legislation is its reliance on value engineering. In design and build, contractors often adjust the design to meet budgetary constraints, which can sometimes result in shortcuts that compromise safety. The Building Safety Act imposes tighter regulatory scrutiny, particularly on high-rise residential buildings, and the risks associated with cutting corners are no longer tenable. This will likely push developers away from design and build toward models where safety takes priority over cost-cutting, which is better suited to traditional procurement methods.

Final Thoughts

The Building Safety Act is forcing the industry to rethink how construction projects are planned, executed, and maintained. Design and build procurement, while efficient, is increasingly at odds with the legislative emphasis on transparency, accountability, and safety.

As developers, contractors, and clients adapt to the new regulatory landscape, it is possible that we will witness a return to more traditional procurement methods, where safety and compliance are prioritized from the outset.

In an industry under greater scrutiny than ever before, the days of design and build procurement may well be numbered.

The Building Safety Act has set a new standard for how buildings must be designed, constructed, and managed—and as a result, it may mark the end of an era for the design and build model.