BESA calls time on disinterested third in UK construction competence drive

BESA sets out disinterested third challenge

The Building Engineering Services Association (BESA) has called for a disinterested third of UK construction professionals to be driven out of the industry if they will not raise their standards, following its annual conference in London.

BESA Chief Executive David Frise told delegates at The Brewery, London, that one third of people in construction and related disciplines already work to high professional, legal and technical standards.

He said a further third want to reach that level and need support to do so.

The final third, he argued, are “simply not interested” in improving quality, safety or sustainability.

Frise linked this split directly to the need for better control over competence and compliance across project teams.

David Frise, Chief Executive at BESA, said: “Just doing enough is not good enough.”

BESA used the conference to launch its Member Pledge initiative, which asks member firms to place competence and compliance at the centre of their operations and supply chains.

The association said the pledge is designed to give clients clearer assurance because BESA members must pass a technical audit.

BESA reported that it expelled 14 members earlier in 2025 for failing to meet its required standard.

Frise described that decision as proof that membership is tied to measurable competence.

David Frise, Chief Executive at BESA, added: “Membership needs to stand for something.”

Member Pledge links competence, membership and supply chains

BESA said the Member Pledge is intended to create a commercial incentive for clients to choose audited firms over those without such checks.

The association explained that firms signing the pledge commit to evidence their competence and to expect the same from their subcontractors and suppliers.

It argued that this approach can help address inconsistent quality and compliance through multi-layered supply chains.

BESA said its stance is also a response to persistent procurement and payment practices that place pressure on specialist contractors.

Speakers noted that competence efforts will struggle if contractors cannot secure work on sustainable terms.

They also highlighted the risk that firms willing to cut corners on quality will underbid more compliant competitors.

Procurement practices under fire from contractors

Procurement frameworks and contract terms were described as a central threat to the future of many specialist firms.

Remi Suzan, Managing Director of Gratte Brothers Group, said: “Procurement is killing our industry.”

He warned that many projects do not allow contractors to work at an acceptable profit margin.

Suzan stated that risk is often pushed unfairly down the supply chain.

He said clients are not “bad people” but will rarely remove risk from contracts voluntarily.

Remi Suzan, Managing Director of Gratte Brothers Group, explained: “If there are cost constraints then the contractor is bound to get aggressive and start looking for mistakes in the specification so they can charge for variations.”

Suzan pointed to recent insolvencies at ISG and HE Simm “among others” as examples of what can happen when margins and risk sharing become unsustainable.

He also reported that the quality of tender information has been deteriorating, making accurate pricing harder.

Lilly Gallafent, Director at Cast Consultancy, acknowledged that consultants contribute to this picture because they advise clients on what levels of contractual risk to accept.

Gallafent observed that many clients focus on short-term commercial wins during contract negotiations.

Lilly Gallafent, Director at Cast Consultancy, said: “Change needs to start with clients…and we need to persuade them that even if they feel they have ‘won’ now [in a contract negotiation] they won’t feel that in a few years’ time [when all the problems become apparent].”

She added that better procurement models already exist but are not widely used.

Gallafent reported that her firm tries to allocate risk more evenly by analysing it in more detail, but this depends on client agreement.

Public sector pressures and Building Safety Act duties

Noble Francis from the Construction Products Association told the conference that public sector procurement faces similar pressures.

He said civil servants can struggle to obtain Treasury approval if they plan to specify solutions that exceed allocated budgets, even when they are seeking better long-term value and quality.

Noble Francis, Economics Director at the Construction Products Association, said: “The government has lots of theory and value matrices about how to improve procurement, but this rarely reflects reality…and the industry knows how it works so there will always be companies bidding work at the lower level.”

Speakers set this against the wider building safety agenda.

Gallafent said more clients are now considering the competence of their supply chains because of heightened awareness of legal responsibilities under the Building Safety Act.

Francis added that the Act makes clear that legal risk cannot be passed down contracts.

He said the legislation is changing incentives by placing formal responsibilities on clients.

Neil Hope-Collins from the Office of the Building Safety Regulator highlighted that clients are legally responsible for ensuring safety-related work is properly resourced.

He also said contractors are legally required to confirm that their clients understand their duties under the Act before work starts.

Neil Hope-Collins, from the Office of the Building Safety Regulator, said: “Otherwise, you are breaking the law.”

Competence of clients, late payment and retentions

Jon Vanstone, Chair of the Industry Competence Committee, said the competence of clients is a priority for the Building Safety Regulator.

He reported that guidance aimed specifically at clients will be published later in 2025.

Vanstone also acknowledged that building services and mechanical, electrical and plumbing firms can struggle to identify who the legal client is on complex projects.

The conference linked these issues to the government’s ongoing consultation on late payment and retentions.

Industry body Build UK said the current safety regime could change commercial performance and payment behaviour.

Build UK Chief Executive Suzannah Nichol described current arrangements for performance and payment as unstable.

She argued that the safety framework is “a massive game changer for performance and late payment”.

Suzannah Nichol, Chief Executive at Build UK, said: “We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to do something about [late payment and retentions].”

Nichol criticised retentions as a mechanism that removes cash flow from supply chains.

Suzannah Nichol, Chief Executive at Build UK, added: “This is not a system that works [but just] takes cash flow out of the supply chain.”

She questioned why companies remain in a supply chain if the client does not trust them enough to avoid retentions.

Nichol urged building engineering contractors to use the new safety framework when discussing cost and risk with clients.

She said clients should understand what they receive if they focus only on lower prices.

Nichol also linked the role of trade associations to this conversation.

She said clients should be using members of trade bodies, provided that membership criteria reflect measurable competence.

She pointed to the BESA Member Pledge as an example of how associations can set out what their membership represents for buyers.

How competence and procurement debates affect safety-focused roles

The issues raised at the BESA conference could affect building services engineers, mechanical and electrical engineers, fire engineering consultants and system installers who rely on stable, competence-based procurement routes.

For these groups, the Member Pledge and BESA’s decision to expel 14 firms show how membership criteria can be used to demonstrate audited competence to clients.

Contractors and fire-protection specialists working under the Building Safety Act may need to document how they test that clients understand their legal duties before accepting work.

Facility managers and project clients in high-risk buildings can be directly affected by the clarification that legal responsibility for safety cannot be passed down the supply chain.

Procurement officers in both private and public sectors may have to balance budget constraints against the need to appoint competent, audited firms that can meet safety obligations over the life of a project.

Discussions on late payment and retentions are also relevant for specialist contractors delivering fire safety systems, where cash flow and risk transfer can influence their ability to maintain standards.