How BSA is Reshaping Procurement

By Jay Woolway, MCIOB, Associate, Partner for and on behalf of Baily
Garner LLP.

The impact of Building Safety Act (BSA) is reshaping the UK construction industry. For industry professionals, the Act’s Gateways, particularly Gateway 2, are familiar mechanisms to ensure safety is embedded throughout a building’s lifecycle. However, a significant, likely intended consequence of the BSA is its role in shifting procurement away from single-stage Design and Build (D&B) contracts toward multi-stage models. This shift, while challenging, has the potential to improve construction quality. This article explores these dynamics, focusing on the benefits for quality, cost considerations, and the path to greater efficiency.

How the Building Safety Act Changes the Procurement Process

The BSA’s Gateway 2, a mandatory checkpoint for higher-risk buildings (HRBs) requires duty holders to submit a Building Control Approval Application to the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) before construction can start. This application must include detailed design documentation (equivalent to RIBA Stage 4), a Construction Control Plan, and evidence of compliance with safety standards, such as fire safety, structural integrity, and resident evacuation strategies. The Act also mandates a “golden thread” of information – a digital, auditable record of safety-critical decisions, ensuring traceability throughout the project lifecycle.

This requirement fundamentally disrupts the single-stage D&B model, where design and construction are procured as a single package, often with the contractor completing the design post-award (typically from RIBA Stage 2 or 3). Single-stage D&B prioritises speed but often leads to rushed designs, limited client oversight, and an increased risk of non-compliance. Gateway 2’s demand for a fully detailed design before construction begins makes single-stage D&B impractical, as the BSR’s approval process requires a level of design maturity that aligns more closely with a two-stage procurement model. In this model, design is completed and validated prior to construction, encouraging early collaboration between clients, designers, and contractors. While the BSA does not explicitly prohibit single-stage D&B, its requirements are naturally steering the industry toward multi-stage procurement, such as two-stage tendering or construction management, in which safety and quality take precedence.

Aligning RIBA Stages with Gateways: Benefits and Reduced Confusion

One area where the BSA could further benefit the industry is through a formal alignment of the RIBA Plan of Work stages with the Gateway framework. The RIBA Plan of Work, a widely adopted framework, outlines eight stages of a project, from Stage 0 (Strategic Definition) to Stage 7 (Use). Currently, Gateway 2 aligns broadly with RIBA Stage 4 (Technical Design), as it requires a fully detailed design for BSR approval. However, the lack of explicit alignment between the two frameworks can create confusion for duty holders, particularly around the level of detail required at each Gateway and how it maps to RIBA deliverables.

A harmonised approach would provide clarity and consistency:

Gateway 1 (planning stage) aligns with RIBA Stage 2 (Concept Design)

Gateway 2 with RIBA Stage 4

Gateway 3 (completion) with RIBA Stage 6 (Handover)

This alignment would help duty holders understand exactly what is expected at each stage, reducing the risk of rework or rejected submissions. For example, if Gateway 2 explicitly required RIBA Stage 4 deliverables, such as detailed specifications for fire-stopping or structural connections, designers could tailor their outputs accordingly, avoiding delays caused by insufficient documentation. This clarity would also streamline collaboration between disciplines, as architects, engineers, and contractors could work to a unified timeline, ensuring that safety critical decisions are made at the right stage. Ultimately, aligning the RIBA stages with the Gateways would reduce confusion, improve efficiency, and reinforce the Act’s focus on quality by ensuring safety is integrated into every phase of the design process.

Challenges Faced by Contractors: Delays and Cost Implications

The shift away from single-stage D&B introduces challenges for contractors, particularly around delays and cost implications. Gateway 2 approvals are currently taking over 40 weeks, with the BSR often requesting additional information on elements like fire strategies, compartmentation details, or material certifications. These extended timelines can significantly impact project programmes, especially for contractors accustomed to the faster pace of single-stage D&B. Holding costs, such as site setup, equipment rental, and labour retention, can escalate during these delays, while clients may face increased financing costs or penalties for late delivery, this is significant when linked to funding mechanisms like Homes England.

The cost implications of moving to a multi-stage procurement model are also notable. In single-stage D&B, contractors often absorb design development costs as part of the overall contract, providing cost certainty to clients. However, the BSA’s requirement for a fully detailed design at Gateway 2 shifts more design responsibility to the pre-construction phase, often requiring clients to fund a separate design team to reach RIBA Stage 4 before tendering. This will increase upfront costs for clients, as they must invest in detailed design, specialist consultants (e.g., fire engineers), and digital tools to maintain the golden thread. For contractors, the need to provide input during the design phase, without the certainty of winning the construction contract, can also lead to unrecoverable tendering costs, particularly in a competitive market.

How the Act Aims to Enhance Construction Quality

Despite these challenges, the BSA’s shift away from single-stage D&B is enhancing construction quality. By requiring a fully detailed design at Gateway 2, the Act ensures that safety-critical elements, such as cladding systems, fire-resistant glazing, and structural connections, are thoroughly planned and approved before construction begins. This reduces the risk of costly rework, a frequent issue in single-stage D&B projects where design development often overlaps with construction, leading to errors and variations.

The Act also encourages early engagement of contractors and specialists, allowing for buildability input during the design phase. For example, a contractor might recommend a more robust fire-stopping system or suggest alternative fixings for a cladding panel, improving both safety and durability. The golden thread requirement further enhances quality by ensuring traceability, with digital records of material specifications and installation methods facilitating better quality control and defect identification.

Benefits of the New Approach and Streamlining Approvals

The shift to multi-stage procurement delivers clear benefits for quality. It reduces the risk of non-compliance by embedding safety checks at Gateway 2, ensures smoother construction progress by resolving design issues pre-construction, and drives higher standards across the industry. The current 40-week+ approval timeline, while challenging, also presents an opportunity. The BSR’s feedback for additional information, often requesting more detail on fire strategies, design details or structural calculations, can serve as a foundation for a best practice guide. By analysing common reasons for delays, the BSR could develop standardised templates or checklists for Gateway 2 submissions, clarifying expectations and reducing approval times. For instance, a best practice guide might specify the level of detail required for a fire strategy, such as evacuation routes or smoke control systems, enabling duty holders to submit complete applications the first time. This would not only streamline the process but also reduce costs associated with delays, benefiting both clients and contractors.

The Building Safety Act is driving a natural shift away from single-stage D&B, promoting multi-stage procurement models that prioritise safety and quality. Aligning the RIBA Plan of Work with the Gateways would reduce confusion and enhance efficiency, while the current 40+ week approval timeline at Gateway 2 highlights the need for best practices to streamline submissions. Despite cost implications, the Act’s focus on detailed design, early collaboration, and digital traceability should delivering safer, higher quality buildings. For industry professionals, embracing this shift is an opportunity to set new standards, ensuring that the lessons of Grenfell lead to a more robust and reliable construction sector.