Executive Summary
The debate between Traditional procurement and Design & Build has been running for decades.
Traditional procurement is often associated with greater design control and quality. Design & Build is often associated with speed, cost certainty and reduced client risk.
The reality is that many of the most successful projects achieve neither by following a pure procurement route.
Instead, they borrow the strongest elements from different approaches and apply them at the appropriate stage of the project lifecycle.
They use early design development, stakeholder engagement and cost planning to create clarity around scope and performance requirements. They then introduce contractors and suppliers at the point where their expertise can genuinely improve buildability, programme and procurement outcomes.
This article explores how hybrid procurement strategies can help clients achieve better outcomes by combining the strengths of different approaches rather than treating procurement as an either-or decision, using one of our recently delivered projects as an example.
The wrong question
One of the most common questions clients ask at the start of a project is:
“Should we use Traditional procurement or Design & Build?”
It is a perfectly reasonable question.
However, it is often the wrong one.
In practice, procurement is not simply a choice between two opposing camps. It is a strategy for managing information, risk, design development and delivery throughout the lifecycle of a project.
The projects that perform best are often those that focus less on procurement labels and more on identifying what the project needs at each stage.
This is particularly true in the commercial fit-out and refurbishment market, where programme pressures, stakeholder requirements and evolving workplace strategies frequently create competing objectives.
The challenge is not choosing a side.
The challenge is understanding how to combine the strengths of different approaches whilst minimising their weaknesses.
What Traditional procurement gets right
Traditional procurement is sometimes criticised for being slower and less flexible than Design & Build.
There is some truth in this.
However, Traditional procurement does force the project team to undertake several activities that create significant value.
It encourages:
- Brief development and stakeholder engagement
- Design coordination
- Performance specification
- Cost planning and option appraisal
- Early identification of project risks
These activities create clarity.
The project team develops a better understanding of what is being delivered, why it is being delivered and what success looks like.
In many cases, the greatest benefit of Traditional procurement is not the procurement route itself. It is the discipline of thinking through the project before committing to delivery.
Projects that skip this stage often discover later that uncertainty has not been removed.
It has simply been deferred.
What Design & Build gets right
Design & Build is often viewed as the commercial solution to the challenges associated with Traditional procurement.
It introduces delivery expertise earlier in the process and allows contractors to contribute valuable insights around buildability, sequencing, logistics and supply chain strategy.
These are genuine benefits.
Contractors and specialist subcontractors possess knowledge that is difficult to replicate elsewhere.
They understand:
- Market capacity
- Supply chain constraints
- Installation methodologies
- Lead times
- Construction sequencing
Accessing that expertise early can significantly improve project outcomes.
The mistake many teams make is assuming that contractor involvement and design development are mutually exclusive.
They are not.
The most successful projects use contractor expertise to optimise a design, not define it.
The problem with pure approaches
Pure procurement models often struggle because they place too much emphasis on one side of the equation.
A purely Traditional approach can result in lengthy design periods and missed opportunities to engage the supply chain.
A purely Design & Build approach can result in contractors being asked to design around uncertainty rather than focus on delivery.
Neither position is ideal.
Projects need enough information to make informed decisions.
They also need enough flexibility to benefit from market expertise.
This is where hybrid procurement strategies have become increasingly popular.
What a hybrid approach looks like in practice
Many modern fit-out projects already operate in a hybrid environment, even if they are formally procured using a Design & Build contract.
A typical example might involve:
Stage 1
- Workplace strategy development
- Stakeholder engagement
- Test fitting
- Design development
- Cost planning
- Employer’s Requirements
- Contractor selection
At this stage, the objective is to establish sufficient clarity around the project.
The team defines:
- Scope
- Quality expectations
- Performance requirements
- Budget parameters
- Programme objectives
Stage 2
Once a contractor has been appointed, the focus shifts.
The contractor contributes:
- Buildability reviews
- Supply chain engagement
- Package procurement
- Sequencing advice
- Design optimisation
- Risk buyout
Rather than designing around uncertainty, the contractor is helping refine and deliver a clearly defined vision.
The result is often a better balance between control and flexibility.
A practical example
A good example of this approach can be seen on major asset repositioning projects.
On the repositioning of 99 Queen Victoria Street in London, the project involved the refurbishment and repositioning of approximately 122,000 sq. ft. of commercial office accommodation, including a new reception, upgraded plant, structural alterations to create a sky lounge, end-of-trip facilities and Cat A refurbishment works.
Projects of this nature require a balance between design certainty and delivery flexibility.
The design team needed sufficient time to develop the asset strategy, coordinate the design and establish clear quality standards. Equally, contractor and supply chain expertise was required to understand buildability, logistics, programme sequencing and market conditions.
Rather than viewing procurement as a choice between design control and contractor involvement, the project benefitted from both.
The design was developed far enough to establish clear project objectives and performance requirements, whilst contractor engagement provided valuable insight into delivery methodology, procurement strategy and risk management. A reasonable pre-construction period also allowed surveys and investigation work to be undertaken to reduce risk even further.
This allowed decisions to be tested against both design intent and delivery reality before construction commenced.
The result was that the project was delivered on budget while meeting the client’s vision.
In many respects, this is where hybrid procurement strategies create the greatest value.
Why timing matters
The success of a hybrid procurement strategy often comes down to timing.
Bring the contractor into the process too late and valuable market intelligence may be missed.
Bring them in too early and they may spend much of their time trying to compensate for gaps in the brief, design or project definition.
The objective is to create sufficient certainty around what is being delivered before asking the market how best to deliver it.
When that balance is achieved, projects often benefit from both stronger commercial control and better delivery outcomes.
The role of the cost consultant
This is where experienced cost consultants can add significant value.
The role is not simply to produce cost plans or compare tenders.
It is to help the client navigate the transition between design, procurement and delivery.
This includes:
- Testing procurement options
- Developing cost certainty progressively
- Establishing realistic budgets
- Supporting contractor engagement
- Managing commercial risk
- Maintaining alignment between project objectives and delivery strategy
A well-structured procurement strategy can create significant value.
A poorly structured one can introduce risk that remains hidden until construction is underway.
Conclusion
Perhaps the biggest mistake the industry makes is treating procurement as a choice between Traditional and Design & Build.
In reality, the highest-performing projects rarely sit at either extreme.
They combine the clarity, governance and design development associated with Traditional procurement with the market knowledge, buildability expertise and delivery focus that contractors bring to the table.
The objective should not be to choose a side.
It should be to create the right balance between certainty and flexibility, and to bring the right expertise into the project at the right time.
That is often where the best outcomes are found.
How We Can Help
At EthosEQ, we help clients develop procurement strategies that align with their objectives, programme constraints and appetite for risk.
This includes supporting workplace strategy, cost planning, Employer’s Requirements, contractor procurement and commercial governance throughout the project lifecycle.
Our objective is not to promote a particular procurement route. It is to help clients identify the right blend of design development, market engagement and risk management to maximise the likelihood of project success.
Links
Design & Build vs Traditional Procurement Explained
The Psychology of Cost Certainty – EthosEQ
Disclaimer
This article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. Project circumstances vary and professional advice should always be sought for specific situations.
Copyright
© 2026 EthosEQ. All rights reserved.
