Across major construction and infrastructure projects, design issues are one of the most consistent, costly, and avoidable causes of project distress. When you work in delivery and disputes you see that that many of the largest claims, most entrenched conflicts, and most costly delays stem not from physical works, but from design: how it was procured, how it was interpreted, how it evolved, and how its development was (or wasn’t) governed.

Design development is an inherent part of any project and what matters is how it is managed. Poorly governed design change has a compounding effect: it fuels delay, drives rework, destabilises commercial forecasts, strains relationships, and creates an environment ripe for disputes. Conversely, well structured design processes, clear responsibilities, and disciplined documentation can neutralise risk before it spreads.

This article draws on patterns repeatedly seen in distressed projects and disputes, explains why design risk grows at both procurement and delivery phases, and offers practical steps that you can take to prevent design from becoming one of your most expensive problems.

Design issues commonly manifest into disputes

Design related disputes rarely emerge from a single error. They grow from small issues that compound, discoverability gaps, misaligned expectations, and unclear responsibilities. A few examples illustrate how design risk can escalate:

Informal instructions disrupting design control 

On one D&C project, a contractor co located with the design team routinely issued verbal directions to change designs or re prioritise work. The designers, trying to keep momentum, acted on these requests without written instructions or approvals. Over time, this created a chain of problems: variations were difficult to substantiate, internal disruption caused key design milestones to slip, and time pressure contributed to errors. These issues ultimately turned into delay and defect allegations against the designer, despite the root cause being the contractor’s informal approach to directing design.

Major design change without recognising time or cost consequences

On another project delivered under a build only contract, the principal introduced significant late stage design changes that materially increased both the cost and duration of the works. Despite this, the principal sought to minimise its financial exposure, insisting much of the revised scope fell within provisional sum allowances and requiring the contractor to repeatedly retender packages to “find cheaper alternatives.” The principal also resisted awarding extensions of time, even though the revised design made the original completion dates unachievable. This combination created an unworkable delivery environment and ultimately led to substantial disputes.

Multiple designers with no clear coordination responsibility

In a third case, a principal engaged an architect, an engineer, and a project manager under three separate Conditions for Consultancy Services (CCCS). When internal moisture issues emerged shortly after completion, it became clear the architect and engineer had not coordinated how their respective designs interacted. Each blamed the other and both pointed to the project manager, arguing it was responsible for coordination. With no designated lead designer and unclear division of responsibility, the dispute quickly escalated, requiring significant remedial works and lengthy proceedings about who was at fault.

Misalignment regarding the standard & quality of design drawings

In a fourth case, a principal and contractor found themselves with misaligned expectations regarding the standard and level of detail required in the principal-supplied design drawings. The contractor alleged that the ‘for construction’ drawings were entirely defective and failed to meet the level or detail and coordination required. What followed was a prolonged and complex dispute involving highly technical evidence on design standards, detailing, 3D modelling and RFI causation analysis. The dispute absorbed a significant amount of project time, added substantial administrative burden, detracted from delivery and resulted in a complete relationship breakdown. 

Where design risk grows: Procurement stage causes

Many design-related disputes are baked into the project before delivery begins. Procurement decisions made under time pressure or optimism bias can create structural vulnerabilities. One recurring issue is awarding contracts on the basis of incomplete design, with the expectation that it “can be developed later.” While this is common, it only works if the contract clearly defines what constitutes design development versus design change and assigns responsibility accordingly. Too often, the procurement documentation, tender assumptions, and contract schedules do not align, leaving gaps that later become contested.

Another problem arises from unclear scopes of design responsibility. Even where design documentation exists, many RFPs and contracts fail to define the boundaries between disciplines, what the contractor is expected to verify, and how buildability or subcontractor design interfaces will interact. Without a responsibility matrix or a lead designer with genuine authority, confusion is almost guaranteed.

Ambitious programmes are also a common procurement stage contributor to design risk. If the design timeline is unrealistically compressed, or if procurement and delivery phases overlap prematurely, design development occurs in parallel with construction activities. The inevitable consequence is rework, RFIs that strain workflows, and misalignment between design intent and construction sequencing.

Procurement decisions that minimise upfront design effort may look attractive commercially, but they can multiply cost and risk later.

Where design risk grows: Delivery stage causes

Even where procurement is managed well, delivery presents its own pitfalls. Design development must be actively governed.

Process failures are a major contributor. Projects that commence without a functioning design governance structure: no agreed approval pathways, no clear meeting cadence, no documented design change process, and no responsibility matrix that reflects reality can face real problems. RFIs may be handled informally, decisions made verbally, and design queries left unresolved. When construction progresses on the basis of assumptions rather than confirmed design intent, disputes are not far behind.

Human behaviour compounds these issues. Designers often want to be helpful, and project managers often want to maintain momentum; both instincts can lead to undocumented design changes. Contractors under programme pressure may attempt to accelerate by instructing designers informally. Disciplines can operate in silos, addressing their own problems without considering how changes cascade across architecture, structure, services, and sequencing. And when a design issue carries commercial implications, some parties retreat into positional behaviour, using design interpretation as a tactical lever.

The commercial consequences

The obvious consequences of unmanaged design development are well known: delay, rework, redesign, increased consultancy fees, increased administrative burden, and general cost blowouts. But the less obvious consequences can be equally damaging.

One is the erosion of trust. When design issues repeatedly surface late or are discovered on site, parties begin to doubt each other’s competence or intentions. Communications become defensive, and escalation pathways become politicised.

Another is the emergence of broad, aggregated claims – often presented as delay, disruption, or global claims – where design issues are woven into a wider narrative about project failure. These claims are time consuming and expensive to assess, and they shift attention away from actual delivery issues.

Poor design governance also increases defect risk. When design development is rushed or poorly coordinated, latent issues may not manifest until after completion, turning an operational asset into a dispute.

At a strategic level, ongoing design volatility undermines the ability of project governance to make clear decisions. Board level confidence suffers, budgets blow out, and pressure increases on the project team in unhelpful ways.

How to do better

Avoiding design-related disputes requires deliberate action at both procurement and delivery stages.
At procurement, clarity is important. Contracts must define design responsibility comprehensively, not only who does what, but what level of detail is required and how design development will be governed. This includes setting realistic design programmes, aligning tender assumptions with contract schedules, and ensuring any provisional sums or contractor-led design obligations are matched with transparent approval pathways. Where design is incomplete, parties must be honest about what that means for risk.

During delivery, design governance should be treated as a core project function, not an administrative task. This includes a clear design leadership structure, a responsibility matrix that is actively used, and a design change process that requires decisions to be documented, logged, and communicated across disciplines. Regular coordination sessions should align design across architecture, engineering, and services, with unresolved issues tracked and escalated early.

Documentation discipline is essential. Design decision logs, RFI registers, drawing revision trails, and change registers help distinguish normal development from genuine change and reduce the scope for dispute.

Finally, project culture really does matters. Teams must feel comfortable escalating design issues early, acknowledging ambiguity, and challenging assumptions. When design uncertainty is treated as a normal part of delivery and not as a failure, issues can be addressed long before they crystallise into claims.

Conclusion

Design-related disputes are not anomalies. Many of the major disputes I have encountered have their origins in design: how it was procured, managed, interpreted, or changed. That said, design risk is a manageable area of project delivery. With deliberate governance, realistic procurement settings, and disciplined documentation, organisations can reduce avoidable cost, delay, and conflict.

Read more from the Inside Construction Delivery series