The Grenfell Inquiry demonstrated that failures rarely arise solely from a lack of competence within individual disciplines. They also emerge where the boundaries between professional appointments are poorly defined or insufficiently coordinated.
 

Whilst the RIBA Plan of Work provides a common framework for design teams to use to map out project delivery, the equivalent scopes of service for architects, structural engineers and building services engineers are not always consistently aligned. Consequently, some of the greatest project risks arise where responsibility between consultant appointments and sub-contractor design responsibilities are assumed rather than explicitly allocated and do not enable the design team to deliver a spatially coordinated scheme at the relevant point in the programme.

Architects, structural engineers and building services engineers each work within well-established professional expectations which are applicable to the individual disciplines. Yet projects rarely fall neatly within the confines of a single appointment. Instead, failures occur where design decisions, contractual obligations and procurement responsibilities intersect, creating uncertainty over ownership and accountability.

Building services engineering illustrates this challenge particularly clearly. Two consultants may both describe their appointment as delivering Stage 4 Technical Design, while producing significantly different levels of information. One may provide design intent and performance requirements; another may deliver a far more comprehensive package, incorporating coordinated technical information suitable for procurement and construction. In response, the industry has adopted informal descriptors such as Stage 4A, 4B and 4C to distinguish differing levels of design maturity. However, these terms do not form part of the formal RIBA Plan of Work, may not align with the scope of service of the other appointed consultants and are applied inconsistently across projects.

The challenge becomes even more apparent where specialist contractor design forms part of the delivery strategy. Systems such as fire stopping, sprinklers, smoke control, building controls and lifts and other specialist installations are routinely developed by specialist contractors following the appointment of the main contractor. The critical issue is therefore not simply who designs the system, but how the transition from consultant design intent to specialist design is managed; who coordinates and reviews that work; and what evidence demonstrates that the completed design achieves the required performance, safety and regulatory outcomes.  In the event the project is a Higher Risk Building (HRB) the issue becomes mission critical as being able to demonstrate the compliance of the design is key to making a successful Gateway 2 & 3 application to the Building Safety Regulator (BSR).

A more robust approach to standardised scoping would recognise that every professional appointment forms part of an integrated system of responsibility. Rather than defining activities alone, appointments should clearly specify expected outcomes, deliverables, interfaces between disciplines, levels of design maturity, points at which responsibility transfers, and the evidence required to demonstrate compliance. Commonality of language throughout the guidance is beneficial for multi-discipline design alignment. BSRIA BG 6 provides a valuable model through its emphasis on deliverables, responsibility allocation and project-specific pro formas. Extending these principles consistently across all design disciplines would significantly improve clarity and accountability throughout the project lifecycle. However, as BG 6 is guidance rather than a mandatory standard, its recommendations can be interpreted, applied selectively or omitted altogether. This can result in inconsistent approaches to defining design responsibilities and deliverables between projects.

A stronger approach would be to evolve standard scopes of service from flexible guidance into a more robust, consistently applied framework that establishes clear minimum requirements for design responsibilities, interfaces and deliverables, particularly where life-safety systems are concerned. Incorporating standardised competency and compliance checks within these scopes would further support a shift away from a culture of procedural box-ticking towards one of demonstrable competence, rigorous accountability and evidenced compliance.’

The New London Agenda calls upon the built environment industry to strengthen accountability, improve clarity and rebuild public trust, and the standardisation of professional scopes of service represents one practical and immediately achievable step that the industry can make. Accountability requires clearly identified owners for project outcomes. Clarity depends upon defining the information to be produced, by whom and at what stage. Trust is established when decisions, reviews and acceptance can be evidenced throughout the design and construction process. The post-Grenfell construction industry needs to address recognise appointments, scopes of service and design responsibility matrices are not matters of administrative efficiency; they are fundamental requirements for competent, accountable and collaborative project delivery that will reduce project risks all round.