July 2 2025

The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS) has warned of grave consequences in a 'race to the bottom' on procurement that risks undermining the safety and design of public buildings.

Singling out local authorities for prioritising cost above all else the architects' body has written an open letter to council leaders, drawing their attention to recent examples of high-risk, low-cost bids being favoured over established guidance on construction quality.

Pointing to the catastrophic failures that such an approach has resulted in the organisation has offered to partner with council's to halt the 'systematic degradation' of Scottish architecture. Urging architects to play their part, members are being asked to tender realistic bids and for clients to boycott low quality tenders.

The RIAS has requested a meeting with representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), to address their concerns which include outdated scoring metrics and the acceptance of 'abnormally low bids' and a reliance on generic tender documentation.

RIAS chief executive Tamsie Thompson said: "To have a chance of winning work our members are being encouraged to strip back design work to sub-economic levels, where safety and sustainability are inevitably compromised. This is fuelling a long-hours-culture where young architects on account of overtime may not be paid the living wage. This is a toxic situation actively fuelled by narrow public procurement choices.

“40% quality against 60% price sends a signal to the market that safety, resilience and sustainability is secondary."

To turn the situation around the RIAS is seeking a commitment to flip scoring priorities in favour of quality over price with a 70:30 ratio as standard or the 80:20 figure favoured by the Scottish Government. The five-point plan also calls for referencing higher professional standards, training procurement teams and broadening procurement strategies to include long-term outcomes for communities and businesses.

This follows a safety scare at Scottish schools which utilised RAAC panels in their construction, as well as surveys identifying thousands of high-rise buildings across the country which make use of flammable cladding.  

17 Comments

#1 Posted by Sir Ano on 2 Jul 2025 at 13:04 PM

From someone who works in public sector the above warning does not reflect my experience in anyway. The statement feels 10 years late.

#2 Posted by The Heart of Saturday Night on 2 Jul 2025 at 18:07 PM

60:40 seems generous these days.

We pitched for one recently that had a 70:30 cost-quality ratio. And there will still be folk who buy the job regardless.

#3 Posted by freddo the joke telling frog on 2 Jul 2025 at 22:05 PM

tweaking cost/quality ratios from to 60/40 to 30/60 (or even 20/80) may sound like a step in the right direction but who in the Local Authority (or Scottish Government) is qualified to recognize 'quality' - they have no boxes to tick for invention / innovation or creative thinking. Problems with RAAC and Flammable Cladding result from flawed procurement not design concepts or initial fee bids. RIAS / COSLA clients should undertake a cost benefit analysis of other parts of the construction industry.

#4 Posted by Neil C on 3 Jul 2025 at 08:05 AM

Well, root out the RIAS members who work on this basis. Many who accept these race to the bottom conditions you quote are your members.
"To have a chance of winning work our members are being encouraged to strip back design work to sub-economic levels, where safety and sustainability are inevitably compromised".

#5 Posted by CADMonkey on 3 Jul 2025 at 18:24 PM

It is an obligation of Professional Indemnity Insurance cover to resource projects adequately.
So a route to sort this out would be for the insurance industry to audit the architectural firms who submit the lowest fee bids.
If they cant demonstrate they are resourcing projects adequately then they could be blacklisted for PI cover. If they can then there is no problem.
Or is that too sensible?

#6 Posted by Really Irrelevant Amateurs in Scotland on 3 Jul 2025 at 19:48 PM

Given that the RIAS don't follow best practice when running their own procurement exercises, it's a bit rich for them to be lecturing other organisations in how to do it! The most recent example had an impossibly high list of deliverables for an impossibly low fee.

Why are the RIAS now suddenly "raising the alarm" about this given they too are part of the problem?

#7 Posted by Robert Menzies on 3 Jul 2025 at 23:14 PM

RAAC had a known lifespan of thirty years max so I never specified it. It gave good insulation but crumbled when wet.
And flammable cladding was specified by many architects who didn’t check its suitability for use at a height. I spent a week hunting for a fire resistant panel in 2003 but could not find one other than a specialist industrial panel for oil rigs. Had to limit it to a minerally insulated core. Have always studiously avoided specifying any panel using petro chemicals. So why were other architects not doing the same thing? The RIBA witness at the Grenfell Inquiry blamed it on architectural schools spending too much time on design at the expense of technical competence.
I’m also unclear how quality over cost produces safer buildings. The parliament building cost in excess of £14,000 a sq.m yet the architect thought it was a good idea to but poles in front of the windows of MSPs offices thus preventing rescue in the event of fire.
In 1998 - the year the design competition was announced - two students died in a
basement fire because bars on the windows prevented escape. Yet the architects failed to register this when designing the MSP building. Yet the building wins awards for ‘design’ ???

#8 Posted by Bari Reid on 4 Jul 2025 at 10:13 AM

It's funny (or not) to see the first ITT for a design team after this outcry from RIAS has a 60/40 scoring... seems the people putting out these invitations don't hold RIAS in the same regards as they think!

The timing of this seems strange, is it coming time to (re)appoint a CEO at RIAS maybe?

If RIAS think their members are falling foul of the Code of Conduct by submitted bids which don't allow proper resourcing, why are they not simply upholding/enforcing that?

It's a bit rich that an organisation set on promoting design competitions, call out others for devaluing the profession with zero irony.

The relevance of RIAS day to day for Architects in Scotland is absolutely not anywhere close to what the people inside RIAS think it is.

#9 Posted by Neil C on 4 Jul 2025 at 12:23 PM

#8 absolutely. I quit the RIAS for it has absolutely no relevance, nor influence on architecture nor governance. It's a talking shop, that's all.

#10 Posted by Robert Menzies on 4 Jul 2025 at 15:33 PM

I also quit a few years ago after 40 years membership after it was hijacked by the current cabal

#11 Posted by FHM on 4 Jul 2025 at 15:49 PM

#10, did you quit when the "current cabal" started investigating the previous cabal after the sudden resignation of a former secretary?

https://www.urbanrealm.com/news/7115/neil_baxter_stands_down_as_rias_secretary_with_immediate_effect.html

#8, correct. RIAS need to justify the benefits of paying their ever increasing membership fees for day to day Architects. I suspect that is why we see a seemingly constant change in President as no one is able to state the benefit of membership.

#12 Posted by Robert Menzies on 5 Jul 2025 at 10:15 AM

#11, Nothing to do with that. Indeed it came as a surprise as Neil Baxter and I had a couple of conversations about procurement and the time and money wasted bidding when it was clear we we were not going to win because it had already been decided. I just got fed up with the way RIAS Quarterly was heading in terms of ever extreme content. I'm all for reading about radical ideas, but not at the expense of things like fire safety.

#13 Posted by Gandalf the Grey on 6 Jul 2025 at 18:16 PM

I did not like the way in which Neil Baxter, who was an outstanding Secretary, was demonised and forced out of office. But the system never was fair and probably never will be. Who are the judges of quality? The RIAS? The real problem in public procurement is that Tier 1 contractors with political clout are put in charge of the process through D&B procurement and we have seen the results of that repeatedly.

#14 Posted by Bill Cunningham on 7 Jul 2025 at 08:53 AM

"Neil Baxter, who was an outstanding Secretary" is this a joke? You really need to take off those rose coloured glasses and look back objectively at the press reports on what went on financially, the outstanding secretary's "forced" resignation and RIAS cover up. Many, many RIAS members supported the ending on his involvement and still do.

#15 Posted by Mark on 8 Jul 2025 at 20:49 PM

#13 - You've hit the nail on the head. "Tier 1 contractors with political clout are put in charge of the process through D&B procurement". If the RIAS wants to make a difference on procurement, it needs the political clout which the T1 contractors have, but which it seems to lack. As an example, what was the outcome of Willie Watt's procurement reform crusade – is there any evidence it accomplished anything?

#16 Posted by Anthony Fieldhouse on 10 Jul 2025 at 15:07 PM

RIAS need to address the serious malpractice across their own industry before they start accusing other parties for the failures which they have not addressed for years. If I am not mistaken, it was accredited architects who specified materials for Grenfell - shame on you RIAS Get your own house in order before making sweeping statements about procurement which you clearly need educated on!!

#17 Posted by Bob MacPherson on 10 Jul 2025 at 16:50 PM

To suggest that the choice of procurement model is to blame for widespread malpractice in the architectural sector is laughable. Such a one-sided argument seriously undermines the possibility of collaboration and is not how serious professional bodies resolve complex industry challenges.

The altitude from your ivory tower appears to have seriously affected your judgement.

Post your comments