Iain McIlwee, CEO, Finishes and Interiors Sector, discusses the recent Construction Quality Industry Collective (CQIC) report which finds CDPs are often misused to shift risk, harming design quality. It calls for earlier involvement, clearer responsibility, and a move away from lowest-price procurement to improve outcomes.
I was interested to read this week the latest Construction Quality Industry Collective (CQIC) report on Improving the Use of Contractor Design Portions. There were no surprises. The report paints a clear picture of an industry wrestling with ambiguity, late decisions, and misplaced risk. Drawing on responses from across Scotland’s construction sector, it concludes that Contractor Design Portions (CDPs) are too often used in ways that undermine both design quality and compliance. It does, however, add vital data and calls for cultural and procedural change when it comes to design in construction.
At the heart of the report is a simple message: CDPs should only be used where genuine specialist design input is needed, not as a mechanism for shifting commercial or programme risk down the supply chain. Using CDPs to plug gaps left by incomplete early design leads to confusion, misalignment, and, ultimately, poorer-quality buildings. The report sets down the mechanisms of late delegation and ill-defined responsibilities that routinely place contractors in impossible positions, often long after key design assumptions are fixed.
CQIC emphasises the need for early identification of any portion of work that may require specialist design, ideally during the appointment of the design team and certainly before the end of RIBA Stage 3. Personally, I would advocate before Stage 3 begins; what we constantly see is that specialists are introduced late, design clarity suffers, coordination issues multiply, and the likelihood of costly or unsafe late-stage redesign increases.
Clarity of responsibility is another recurring theme. The report highlights the need for detailed Design Responsibility Matrices that map out, in unambiguous terms, who produces what, when, and to what level of detail. For FIS members, this is familiar territory: the lack of a properly structured responsibility framework remains one of the most significant challenges in the delivery of fit-out and interiors work. Too often, interiors specialists inherit unclear or contradictory expectations, with performance requirements and safety-critical interfaces loosely defined or scattered across disparate documents. The CQIC’s call for a disciplined, universally adopted responsibility matrix aligns directly with FIS’s own guidance and risk management approach.
Ultimately, the report makes it clear that CDP design must progress alongside the wider project design, not after it. The report is explicit that CDP work should be completed before Stage 5 and fully integrated into regulatory submissions. In practice, this means the days of “design development during construction” must finally be put behind us. The CQIC also stresses the importance of competence checks and comprehensive tender information. Specialists cannot deliver robust designs if they are invited to price from incomplete or inconsistent tender packs. How can you responsibly procure or bid for work if there is no clear chain of custody, responsibility is confused, and information is missing? How can anyone genuinely verify competence in this muddle, where duties are not clear?
Underlying all of this is an acknowledgment of the systemic failures that sit above project-level decisions. Survey respondents identified lowest-price procurement, unsuitable procurement routes, restricted design fees, and entrenched behaviours as the biggest obstacles to change. This reflects another long-running FIS concern: that lowest-price procurement and unrealistic deliverables push skilled contractors into risk-laden bids, leading to a race to the bottom that harms quality across the entire supply chain. Without adequate time, fees, and early information, even the best-intentioned teams will struggle to deliver the coordinated, compliant designs that modern buildings require. The CQIC report reinforces that more realistic fee structures, better programme planning, and a shift away from adversarial procurement are essential to improving outcomes.
Taken together, the CQIC recommendations offer a roadmap for a more coherent, transparent and quality-focused approach to Contractor Design Portions, one based on early clarity, competent design development, structured responsibility and genuine collaboration. For FIS and its members, the report serves not only as validation of long-standing concerns but as a welcome opportunity to build momentum for wider industry reform. If embraced, it has the potential to transform the culture of design coordination, reduce the risks that currently fall disproportionately on specialist contractors, and ultimately deliver safer, higher-quality buildings.
The full report can be downloaded here
