FIS research has identified growing concern among major fit-out contractors about the quality and maturity of the design information they receive. The main issues are:
- Inconsistent stage descriptions. Packages described as “Stage 3”, “Stage 3+” or “Stage 4” vary widely in how far the design has actually been developed.
- No means of testing upstream design. Contractors have little opportunity to test the design they inherit before they are asked to price it, and then rely on it.
- Confusion at novation. When design passes to the contractor, it is often unclear which decisions have been made, which remain open and who is responsible for closing them.
- A shortfall in coordination. Principal Designers are often providing less coordination than contractors anticipate.
- Unplanned design transfer. Package designers are increasingly expected to resolve decisions that should have been settled earlier. They are frequently asked to do so without the corresponding fee, programme, information or insurance cover.
All of these are made worse by the speed of fit-out delivery, which research by the University of Reading has identified as a defining characteristic of the sector. Compressed programmes leave little time to resolve design before responsibility moves on.
The next phase of FIS work responds to these concerns in two parts.
- A consistent test of design maturity
The FIS Fit-out Design Framework has been developed to work alongside the RIBA Plan of Work. It does not attempt to replace, but to build on the Plan. RIBA stages mark progress through a project. The Framework adds a Checkpoint at the close of each stage, which tests what has been decided, evidenced and accepted, and by whom.
Each design element is at the checkpoint declared Confirmed, Nominal or Unresolved. This gives contractors a clear basis for distinguishing what they are being asked to price from what they are being asked to design. It also gives them a defined point at which to test inherited design. At novation, the principle is simple: the designer changes, but the design does not. Any gaps that are inherited remain open until they are defined, priced and accepted.
Stage 4 is divided into two Checkpoints:
Ready to Price: the information is sufficient to tender without transferring hidden design to the specialist.
Technically Complete: the system is proven, fully defined and ready for procurement and ultimately construction.
- Flexible internal wall systems as the first application
Partitions, linings and ceilings sit at the apex of the problem. They deliver critical fire, acoustic and structural performance, yet are designed late in the programme and inherit every unresolved upstream decision. Only 2% of dryliners report that they always start on site with adequate information to build accurately.
Two documents apply the Framework to this package:
-
- the Flexible Internal Wall Systems Design Code of Practice; and
- the FIS Dry Lining Checklists.
Together they define, at each Checkpoint, what the lead designer, the Principal Designer and the package designer are each expected to provide. This establishes a clear boundary between what the package designer inherits and what it designs. Similar Codes and Checklists will be produced for other relevant packages once the format is established.
Consultation
FIS invites comment from main contractors, specialist contractors, designers, engineers and Principal Designers. In particular, we would welcome views on:
- whether the issues described reflect members’ experience;
- whether the Checkpoints are workable on live programmes; and
- whether members would be willing to pilot the approach on a live or recent tender.
The consultation closes on 12 December 2026
You can view the draft documents here:
- Flexible Internal Wall Systems Design Code of Practice (Draft)
- Drylining Checklist (Draft)
- Fit-out Design Code of Practice (Draft)
To feed in your views or request the documents / register interest in a pilot, please contact jamesparlour@thefis.org