When is a RIBA Stage 4 pack, not a RIBA Stage 4 pack?

Now we all know that this question resonates. There has been a systematic decline in the level of information prepared, produced and issued at the end of RIBA 4 over the years. What should be a comprehensive, coordinated package has often morphed into something far less dependable.

Some may say that the increased take up of Design and Build has resulted in a 'Design and Dump' mentality, where details aren't necessary and it's for someone else to work out. Others may say that programme pressures and unrealistic expectations has resulted in a trimming of information being delivered because the design time simply isn't there. Then there will be the few that blame fees and a race to the bottom. But, ultimately, the result is the same - incomplete or ambiguous design information.

But as Quantity Surveyors, we care about this detail. If we do not have it and/or we are not able to understand the design intent (when we know the scheme), how is a Contractor meant to - and then offer a fixed price for same!?

Equally, when a Contractor advises that they want, say, an 8 week mobilisation period "to finish Stage 4 Design" there has to be questions asked of the incumbent design team - What has the Client paid for? Was there a discount offered for 'not quite finished RIBA 4'?

Perhaps a wider question is to be asked - If a scheme was to be procured Traditionally, would the design information be the same? Would there be more, specific, detailing for items? Would more specification items be stated rather than left as 'Contractors Choice'? Whilst I accept that some detailing is standard fare, there are no doubt others that would be provided that are currently considered to be 'Construction Issue'.

And to bring it full circle - Would the introduction of Quantified pricing documents (Bill of Quantities or otherwise) result in an increased level of information being produced? Would it iron out some of those niggles that lead Contractors to add additional 'Design Development' contingency? Would it change the risk profile? Would an extra four weeks in design save two weeks on site?

Is it time to re-focus on the RIBA Stage 4 outputs and look for better clarity, smarter risk allocation, and higher-quality project outcomes through more considered and informed pricing by Contractors?