Procurement strategy on a residential development is rarely the loudest decision a developer makes, but it is often the one that most shapes the live-site experience. The choice between single-source procurement (one supplier for multiple packages) and multi-package tendering (separate contractors for each package) has direct consequences for cost, coordination, programme risk and warranty exposure.
Multi-package tendering is the conventional approach. Each package goes out competitively. The developer selects on price and capability within each package. The packages are then coordinated by the principal contractor or the developer’s own project management team. The advantage is sharper unit pricing on each package. The disadvantage is that the cost of coordinating across packages sits with the developer or the PC.
Single-source procurement consolidates multiple packages with one supplier or supplier group. The unit prices are sometimes marginally higher than the lowest competitive tender on each individual package, but the supplier carries the coordination cost internally. The developer buys an outcome rather than a basket of unit rates.
Whether one approach beats the other depends on the scheme. On a small site with two or three packages of moderate complexity, multi-package tendering usually wins on cost. The coordination overhead is light enough that the savings on unit price outweigh the friction. On a large phased site with five or more packages, the calculus reverses. The cost of internal coordination scales faster than the savings on competitive tendering.
There is also a risk dimension that does not show in the spreadsheet. When packages are tendered separately, programme risk accumulates at the interfaces between them. A scaffold delay affects the roofer. A roofing delay affects the dry-in. A dry-in delay affects everything that follows. Each interface is a potential failure point, and each failure point is one the developer carries because no single supplier owns it.
Single-source procurement transfers that interface risk to the supplier. When the group delivering scaffold also delivers roofing, the scaffold-to-roofing handover is internal and there is one programme to manage rather than two. The developer’s risk position is materially better even if the headline price is marginally higher.
The Globe Group operates the single-source model across its four operational businesses where the developer wants to use it. A developer working with the group can take scaffold, roofing, civils and fall protection as a coordinated package, with one account relationship, one programme conversation, and shared coordination overhead. Or they can take individual packages competitively. Both options are available.
The right choice depends on the developer’s own structure. A developer with strong in-house project management may prefer multi-package tendering and absorb the coordination internally. A developer running thin on project management headcount or working at high volume across multiple sites usually finds single-source more efficient. The decision is operational as much as commercial.
For framework developers running long-term supply relationships, the single-source argument strengthens further. The savings from rebidding individual packages each scheme are typically smaller than the savings from keeping a stable supplier relationship across schemes. Frameworks with single-source group suppliers tend to outperform frameworks built around discrete competitive packages.
For QSs evaluating the two approaches at scheme tender, the question to ask is not just what the unit rates would be on a fully competitive tender. It is what the coordination overhead would be on the developer’s side over the life of the scheme. That cost is usually under-priced in the comparison.
Talk to the Globe Group To discuss single-source vs multi-package procurement strategies on your scheme, contact the Globe Group on 01223 890727 or email enquiries@theglobegroup.co.uk.
