Who Owns Design? Procurement as the Hidden Battle for Control

Ask any architect why they got into the profession, and you’ll hear variations of the same answer: "I wanted to design beautiful spaces." What you won’t hear is: "I wanted to spend my days wrestling with procurement models."

And yet, buried inside the mechanics of procurement is one of the biggest threats to design integrity. It’s not the only battle architects face, but it’s one they’re surprisingly ill-prepared for. Because long before concrete is poured or steel is erected, the design can be quietly dismantled, without anyone ever touching the drawings.

The Invisible Hand Behind the Drawings

Most people think of design control as something obvious. If you're the architect, you control the design. Simple. The client gives you a brief, you draw the building, and then everyone else executes your vision.

Except it rarely works like that.

Procurement is where power gets allocated. Who hires whom. Who reports to whom. Who signs off on what. It’s the fine print that decides whether your design intent survives contact with the real world or gets slowly eroded by competing interests.

The hard truth? Many architects hand over control during procurement without even realising it. And once it’s gone, clawing it back is almost impossible.

The Slow Death of Design Intent

Design erosion rarely happens as a dramatic event. It’s not some meeting where a contractor storms in and rips up your drawings. Instead, it’s incremental. A bracket changed here. A joint simplified there. Materials downgraded because “the supplier can't guarantee delivery in time.” On paper, the design still looks recognisable. But step by step, the details that made it special start to disappear.

The danger is that much of this erosion happens with plausible technical justifications. Subcontractors suggest changes citing “buildability.” Suppliers propose “more economical alternatives” that meet performance standards but not the design intent. By the time these changes accumulate, you are left with a watered-down version that no longer carries the aesthetic, functional, or experiential qualities you fought for.

The worst part? Everyone can claim they followed the contract. The contractor can argue compliance. The project manager can point to timelines being met. Even the client may be satisfied, until they see the finished building and realise something feels off.

Design intent is rarely protected by intent alone. It requires structural safeguards in procurement, specifications, and contract administration. Otherwise, it dies quietly under the weight of competing interests.

Procurement Control Models: The Silent Shifts in Power

Let’s break this down. Different procurement models shift leverage in very different ways:

• Design-Bid-Build (DBB): The architect maintains strong design control upfront. The contractor is brought in after design completion, so major decisions are largely locked in. But DBB is rigid. Any late-stage changes are expensive and painful.

  
  

• Design-Build (DB): The contractor gains control earlier. They own both design and delivery. This accelerates schedules but shifts design decision-making into their domain. Unless the client is militant about protecting design quality, compromises creep in.

  
  

• Management Contracting (MC) and Construction Management (CM): The client retains more control and flexibility. But these models demand sophisticated oversight. If the client or project manager is weak, specialist trades can exploit gaps and still chip away at design intent.

  
  

• Integrated Project Delivery (IPD): In theory, design intent is protected by shared incentives. In practice, IPD demands an unusually high-trust environment. Without genuine collaboration, even this model can drift.

The key point? Procurement is a power structure. If you don't pay attention to it, someone else will.

The Contractor’s Incentive: "Good Enough"

Contractors are not your enemy. But they do not share your primary incentive. Their business model is built on delivering the contract scope at the lowest possible cost while managing their risk exposure. If they can substitute a cheaper material that technically meets the spec, they have every reason to do so.

This doesn’t make them unethical. It makes them rational players responding to commercial pressures. They have subcontractors to manage, fluctuating material costs, supply chain risks, labour issues, and margin pressures. Every pound saved increases their profit buffer.

The contractor's version of success is different from the architect’s. For you, success means that the building fully reflects your design vision. For them, success means hitting the contractual obligations, avoiding change orders, and delivering the project profitably.

The "good enough" threshold is often driven by what the contract allows rather than what design excellence demands. If the contract is loose, ambiguous, or open to interpretation, expect "good enough" to become the dominant standard.

Architects need to stop assuming that everyone shares their definition of quality. They don’t. And procurement structures usually privilege the contractor’s definition.

Why Architects Are Bad at Playing This Game

Architects are trained as designers, not as contract negotiators or procurement strategists. The entire culture of architectural education focuses on design excellence, conceptual thinking, and client presentation. Procurement is treated as a downstream administrative task handled by others.

This is a dangerous blind spot.

Procurement is where authority is defined. If you’re not involved, you’re implicitly accepting that others will make decisions that affect your design.

There’s also a misplaced belief among architects that "good design speaks for itself." It doesn’t. Contracts speak for your design once procurement begins. Without explicit contractual protections, your intent is vulnerable.

Another problem is professional naivety. Architects often approach procurement with collaborative goodwill, assuming that shared project goals will ensure mutual respect for design quality. They confuse positive interpersonal relationships with aligned commercial interests. The contractor’s margin pressures don’t disappear just because everyone gets along.

Suppose architects want to preserve their role as design guardians. In that case, they need to develop contractual literacy, sharpen their understanding of procurement models, and accept that power structures, not just design ideas, shape outcomes.

Three Critical Moments Where Control Is Won or Lost

1. Early Contract Negotiations

By the time contracts are being drafted, many key decisions have already been made. Which procurement model is selected? Who holds design responsibility? What are the obligations around design compliance?

Architects often arrive late to this stage, assuming it’s the client’s job. But this is where the most important protections can be embedded. For example:

• Is there a design guardianship clause?

• Are substitutions subject to architect approval?

• Are mockups mandatory for key design elements?

If you’re absent from these discussions, don’t be surprised when the contract leaves you powerless.

2. Tender Documentation

The quality of your tender package is a direct predictor of how much design erosion you will face. Vague specifications, open-ended performance criteria, or generic “equivalents allowed” language create enormous leeway for contractors.

Tender documents must be ruthlessly specific where design quality is non-negotiable. You must define:

• Exact material specifications

• Detailed performance benchmarks

• Approval processes for substitutions

• Mockup and sample requirements

• Clear responsibilities for design compliance throughout delivery

Any ambiguity will be exploited, not out of malice, but because ambiguity is valuable negotiating space for contractors.

3. Value Engineering (VE) Rounds

Value engineering is often framed as a collaborative effort to “optimise cost without compromising quality.” In reality, it’s usually a process where design ambition is traded for budget savings.

To defend your design, you must come to VE discussions armed:

• With data: cost-benefit comparisons, lifecycle costs, and maintenance implications.

• With hierarchy: know which design elements are non-negotiable and which can flex.

• With alternatives: offer proactive solutions that reduce cost while preserving design intent.

If you simply react defensively, you will lose. VE is a negotiation. Come prepared.

The Client Problem: They Often Don't See It

Clients are not procurement experts. Nor should they be. But too many clients make procurement decisions based on superficial promises:

• “Design-Build will save time.”

• “Single point of responsibility reduces risk.”

• “Early contractor involvement ensures smoother delivery.”

These sound attractive but often hide deeper risks to design quality. Clients generally underestimate how procurement structures influence decision-making authority. They assume the architect will remain the de facto design authority even when the contract says otherwise.

Worse, many clients have limited visibility into the subtle ways design intent can be undermined during procurement and construction. They see drawings that look similar to the original concept but don’t understand how material downgrades or detailing simplifications erode the quality they hoped for.

Architects must proactively educate clients on these risks. They must illustrate how procurement models directly influence design outcomes, using real-world examples if necessary. Otherwise, clients will keep selecting procurement pathways that undermine the very design quality they hired you to deliver.

What Can Architects Do Differently?

Architects will not reclaim control by hoping for better contractors or more sympathetic clients. They need to play the procurement game deliberately. Here’s what that looks like:

1. Own the Procurement Conversation

Don’t wait for the project manager or QS to lead procurement strategy. Take initiative. Present clients with clear comparisons of procurement models, including their impact on design authority.

2. Build Contractual Safeguards

Push for design guardianship clauses where possible. Negotiate clear approval processes for substitutions. Define mockup requirements and staged design sign-offs as contractual obligations, not informal agreements.

3. Collaborate with Contractors — Strategically

Productive collaboration requires mutual respect, but respect is earned by demonstrating that you understand their commercial realities. Work with contractors on buildability but draw clear lines on design integrity. Make it easy for them to respect your design by anticipating buildability challenges in advance.

4. Train Your Team in Procurement Literacy

Don’t leave this knowledge gap to senior partners. Equip junior architects with basic contractual understanding. The sooner they learn how procurement shapes design outcomes, the stronger your firm becomes.

5. Use Case Studies as Client Education Tools

Every time a procurement failure damages design intent, document it. Build a library of short, sharp case studies that illustrate the real costs of poor procurement choices. Use these stories to shape client expectations at the earliest stages.

The Bottom Line: Procurement Is a Design Battle

Most architects still think the battle for design quality happens in the studio. It doesn’t. The real fight happens in procurement rooms, at contract tables, and inside bid documents.

The sooner architects master this hidden battlefield, the fewer "compromised" projects we’ll see.

Design is only as strong as the contract that protects it.