On any scheme of meaningful size, the developer or principal contractor faces a procurement choice. Award each specialist package to a separate single-discipline contractor, or award multiple packages to a multi-discipline group that can deliver several disciplines from one supply chain. Both routes are viable. The commercial case for appointing a multi-discipline specialist group has become considerably stronger over the past decade, particularly on housing developments where margin pressure, programme certainty, and quality consistency are all under tighter scrutiny than they were.
The cost of fragmented procurement
Awarding four single-discipline contractors to a single scheme generates four contracts, four sets of accreditation submissions, four insurance audits, four pre-construction information packs, four mobilisation processes, and four sets of operational reporting. None of this is wasted work — it has to happen one way or another — but it is duplicated work.
The duplication shows up most clearly in the cost of management time. A QS spending an extra two days on accreditation review for each contractor is two days per contractor not spent on commercial control. A site manager running induction for four separate contractor teams arriving on different dates is managing the same induction four times. A document controller maintaining four document control systems across four contractors is solving the same problem four times. None of this appears in the tender returns. It appears in the developer’s overhead and in the project’s commercial performance.
Single-source contracting on multiple disciplines
The Globe Group operates across four disciplines — groundworks, scaffolding, roofing, and fall protection — through Globe Civil Engineering, Globe Cambridge, Globe Roofing, and Red Safety Netting. Awarding multiple packages to the group means a single procurement process, a single accreditation review, a single contract negotiation, and a single point of senior contractor accountability. The administrative saving is material. The commercial benefit is greater.
On housing developments specifically, the combination of GCE running groundworks, Globe Cambridge running scaffolding, Globe Roofing closing the building envelope, and Red Safety Netting providing fall protection across the entire build covers a significant proportion of the contracted scope on a typical scheme. Awarding all four to the Globe Group consolidates that scope under one supply chain.
The interface risk argument
Most disputes on housing schemes do not arise within a single package. They arise at the interface between packages. The roofer’s programme depends on the scaffolder’s lift sequence. The scaffolder’s mobilisation depends on the groundworker’s site readiness. The fall protection package depends on coordination with both the scaffold and the roofing programme. When four contractors share these interfaces, the principal contractor manages the interfaces. When one group handles all four packages, the group manages them internally.
The commercial implication is significant. Interface disputes generate change requests, programme delays, and quality compromises. Reducing the number of contractor-to-contractor interfaces on a scheme directly reduces the risk profile that the developer is carrying.
Programme alignment across packages
On a phased housing development, the value of programme alignment between disciplines is hard to overstate. Groundworks completion needs to dovetail with scaffold mobilisation. Scaffold lifts need to align with the roofing fixing schedule. Fall protection needs to track the scaffold programme. When all four are running under the same group, the programme is built once and adjusted in one place. When they are running under four contractors, the programme is built four times and adjusted four times — usually in different directions.
On schemes where the developer is releasing plots for sale on a defined cadence, programme alignment is not an operational nicety. It is a commercial requirement. Multi-discipline groups deliver it more reliably than fragmented procurement does.
Single accountability at senior level
When a problem emerges across packages, the developer or principal contractor needs a single senior point of contact who can resolve it. With four single-discipline contractors, the principal contractor is the resolution point — by default, because no one contractor has authority over the others. With the Globe Group, the resolution sits inside the group. This does not absolve the principal contractor of overall responsibility, but it removes one layer of friction from the dispute resolution process.
When the multi-discipline approach makes sense
The multi-discipline group model does not suit every scheme. On schemes where the developer wants competitive single-discipline tenders for procurement scrutiny, fragmented procurement is the right approach. On schemes where the developer is prioritising programme certainty, interface management, and reduced administrative overhead — particularly on multi-phase housing — the multi-discipline group model has clear commercial advantages.
Talk to the Globe Group
To discuss the Globe Group’s multi-discipline capability for your next scheme, contact us on 01223 890727 or email enquiries@theglobegroup.co.uk.
