Iain McIlwee, Chief Executive, Finishes and Interiors Sector, shares with us his thoughts on the recent Construction Quality Improvement Collaborative report which finds Contractor Design Portions 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 the recent Construction Quality Improvement Collaborative (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 a survey with 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.

Reports messages
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.

Procurement and industry barriers
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.

In summary
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.

Iain asked two industry leaders, who are also Co-chairs of CQIC, Colin Campbell, Associate Director at Scottish Futures Trust and Iain Kent, Commercial Director at Morgan Sindall Construction, for their thoughts on the report. This is what they had to say.

Colin explained that the CQIC is a campaign which is striving to create a sustainable quality culture, one where quality is at the heart of decision making at all stages of construction projects. It was established in the period just after the Grenfell tragedy and the publication of the report into the Edinburgh Schools issues after the collapse of the wall at Oxgangs Primary School. It was realised that something needed to change if such tragedies and problems were to be prevented from happening again.

He said: “CQIC is supported by both public and private sectors and takes the approach that everyone involved in construction – clients, consultants, designers, contractors and the supply-chain – all have an important part to play in delivering safe, compliant and quality buildings.

“At the heart of the CQIC is a Charter to which all organisations involved in construction are invited to commit. To date 147 organisations from all parts of the sector have committed. “The CQIC seeks to support the sector to adopt best practice and to fulfil the commitments they make in the Charter by providing guidance. One of the key areas identified as having a significant impact on quality and compliance was the way in which CDP was being used.”

He went onto explain that insight into how CDP was being used, and might better be used, was obtained through the survey that was conducted. The 381 responses to the survey came from across the sector and gave valuable insight into how its use might be improved to support the achievement of better quality.

“The Recommendations document provides a route map to how that might be achieved.

“The challenge is in how it can be implemented. For it to be effective it will need all parties to work out how they can include the Recommendations in the delivery of their projects,” said Colin.

Concluding he said: “One of the key mantras of CQIC is that there must be a well-planned, well managed and pro-active approach to quality during all stages of a construction project, including briefing, design, procurement and execution of the construction work. If the Recommendations are adopted and implemented, better outcomes will be achieved for all parties in terms of compliance, quality and, importantly, commercially.”

It was heartening to read Iain McIlwee’s article recognising and supporting many of the Recommendations for improving the use of CDP. Iain refers to many of the challenges currently observed within the industry/sector relating to the inappropriate use of CDP and reflects on the opportunities these Recommendations provide to address them, explained Iain Kent.

Iain Kent said: “Whilst the Recommendations are based upon the industry wide survey undertaken two years ago, there is still considerable trepidation in publishing a series of recommendation’s and waiting for the industry and sector response. “Thus far the response has been generally positive, with recognition that the use of CDP does need to change and that the Recommendations go some way to providing a route map for change. “Much of the discussion following the publication is how will the barriers to change be addressed to enable the Recommendations to be implemented? The starting point for this is behavioural change, where we all take responsibility for implementing the Recommendations and challenging the behaviours of others to do likewise.”

He went on to say: “The CQIC continue to work with other groups engaged in the Scottish Construction Accord’s Transformation Action Plan to address some of the barriers to change and there is a recognition that change needs to happen.” “The CQIC have also been working closely with Scottish Government’s Building Standards Division on the Recommendations as they support and align with the forthcoming Compliance Plan Approach (CPA) to Building Standards. “The implementation of the CPA will require many of the Recommendations to be adopted to meet the requirements of the pro-active and pre-emptive requirements of the CPA. In Scotland elements of construction work cannot start until a Building Warrant is in place for that work and this requires the design to be submitted, including CDP,” commented Iain Kent.

“It will only be through a combination of these approaches that we will deliver an improvement in the use of CDP, however organisations such as the FIS recognising and supporting the need for change certainly helps,” he concluded.

To learn more about Construction Quality Improvement Collaborative visit: https://cqic.org.uk/