Construction at a Crossroads: What Singapore Can Learn from the UK’s Experience with NEC

The construction industries in the United Kingdom and Singapore are at different stages in their adoption of collaborative procurement. Yet both face many of the same challenges: economic uncertainty, increasing project complexity, tighter margins and the need to deliver better value while reducing disputes. The UK has more than three decades of experience using the NEC suite of contracts. Singapore has only recently begun introducing NEC across parts of its public sector.

This presents an opportunity to compare two jurisdictions. It also raises a broader question about whether collaborative contracting genuinely changes industry behaviour. In periods of economic pressure, projects may still revert to a more adversarial claims culture. More importantly, if collaboration is to become the norm rather than the exception, the industry must invest in the capability required to make it succeed.

Global economic uncertainty has undoubtedly affected the UK construction industry in recent years. It remains unclear when wider economic conditions will stabilise. Domestic pressures have compounded these challenges. Major infrastructure programmes remain subject to changing government priorities. Meanwhile, the full implications of building safety legislation are only beginning to emerge. Insolvencies have increased and construction growth has slowed.

These pressures are not unique to the UK. Governments around the world face the same challenge: delivering increasingly complex infrastructure projects while improving productivity, controlling costs and reducing disputes. Singapore’s recent adoption of NEC reflects this wider search for procurement models that can deliver better project outcomes.

Two paths remain

One response to periods of uncertainty is familiar. Employers seek to transfer greater commercial risk and reduce costs, while contractors look to preserve increasingly narrow margins. Commercial positions harden, contractual notices multiply and disputes become more frequent. It is a cycle that has characterised many previous economic downturns.

More than 30 years have passed since Sir Michael Latham’s 1994 report identified the adversarial culture embedded within the UK construction industry. Andrew Wolstenholme’s Never Waste a Good Crisis revisited many of the same themes in 2009. It concluded that, although progress had been made since Sir John Egan’s Rethinking Construction, genuine collaboration remained a work in progress.

The message from these reports has remained remarkably consistent: better projects depend as much upon behaviours, relationships and leadership as they do upon contractual provisions.

Reasons for cautious optimism

There have undoubtedly been positive developments. Sustainability, whole-life value and net zero have become central to procurement strategies. This would have been difficult to imagine 15 years ago. NEC has evolved alongside these priorities. It encourages proactive project management, transparent communication and early identification of risk rather than retrospective management of claims.

The industry’s increasing focus on dispute avoidance is equally encouraging. The work of the Conflict Avoidance Coalition and the growing use of dispute boards demonstrate a recognition that disputes should be prevented wherever possible rather than accepted as an inevitable consequence of project delivery.

Collaborative contracting has also matured. NEC has become firmly established across many of the UK’s major infrastructure projects. The JCT suite has increasingly embraced similar principles. The 2024 edition introduced an express obligation requiring parties to act collaboratively. The publication of a target cost contract in 2025 reflects a broader shift towards aligning commercial objectives rather than simply transferring risk.

Singapore’s opportunity

Singapore’s recent adoption of NEC demonstrates that these principles are now influencing procurement beyond the UK. Public sector agencies, including LTA, JTC, and HDB have begun introducing NEC on selected projects. This forms part of a broader initiative to encourage collaboration, improve risk management and deliver better project outcomes.

The comparison between the two jurisdictions is instructive. The UK has demonstrated that NEC provides an effective contractual framework for collaborative project delivery. Equally, it has demonstrated that the contract itself is not enough. NEC projects administered using traditional adversarial behaviours frequently experience the same disputes encountered under conventional contracts.

Where parties genuinely embrace early intervention, transparent communication and proactive risk management, however, the benefits become much more apparent. Perhaps the most important lesson from the UK’s experience is that collaborative contracting is ultimately about people rather than contracts.

Investing in capability

The comparison between the UK and Singapore extends beyond the choice of contract itself. It highlights the importance of investing in the capability required to administer collaborative contracts effectively.

The UK’s experience demonstrates that adopting NEC alone does not guarantee collaborative outcomes. Its success has often depended on the experience, confidence and commercial judgement of those administering it. Singapore appears to have recognised this lesson from the outset. It has placed significant emphasis on education, training and professional development alongside the introduction of NEC. This reflects an appreciation that collaborative procurement requires different behaviours as well as different contractual mechanisms.

That inevitably raises an important question: will the cost of implementing NEC outweigh its benefits?

Collaborative contracting is not cost-free. Organisations must invest in training and develop new contract administration procedures. They must also equip project teams with the knowledge required to administer NEC as intended. Employers, project managers, supervisors, quantity surveyors and contractors all need to understand key mechanisms. These include Early Warnings, Risk Reduction Meetings, programme management and compensation events. For organisations accustomed to traditional procurement models, this represents a significant investment of both time and money.

Against that investment, however, the potential benefits must be weighed. Collaborative contracting may lead to earlier identification of risks, faster commercial decision-making and fewer disputes. It may also reduce transaction costs and improve the predictability of project outcomes. In those circumstances, the return on investment may be considerable. Conversely, where NEC is adopted without the necessary training or cultural change, organisations risk incurring implementation costs without realising the intended benefits.

What does this mean for the Quantity Surveyor?

For quantity surveyors, NEC represents considerably more than learning another standard form of contract. It requires a different approach to commercial management.

Traditionally, quantity surveyors have focused on measurement, valuation, contract administration and the assessment of claims once issues have arisen. Under NEC, the emphasis shifts towards proactive commercial management. Quantity surveyors become involved much earlier in the project lifecycle. They contribute to the assessment of compensation events and advise on commercial implications as risks emerge. They also participate in collaborative decision-making and help resolve issues before they become disputes.

This evolution requires new competencies. Technical expertise in measurement and valuation remains fundamental. It must now be complemented by programme awareness, commercial judgement, communication skills and an understanding of collaborative risk management. The role increasingly becomes one of trusted commercial adviser rather than simply contract administrator.

For the profession, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Those who embrace these broader responsibilities are likely to become increasingly valuable as procurement continues to evolve towards collaborative delivery models.

Looking ahead

The UK continues to face significant challenges. Building safety legislation has introduced new commercial pressures. Employers increasingly seek to transfer compliance risks to contractors. Questions concerning liability remain uncertain. They are likely to generate further adjudication and litigation before judicial guidance provides greater clarity.

At the same time, the Competition and Markets Authority’s 2026 review of the road and rail sectors identified persistent concerns regarding fragmented funding, commercial capability and procurement practices that continue to inhibit better project delivery.

Whether the current economic climate becomes another missed opportunity or a catalyst for lasting change depends on the choices made by governments, clients, contractors and professional advisers. The industry can continue investing in collaborative procurement, capability development and dispute avoidance. Alternatively, it can return to a claims-driven culture shaped by short-term commercial pressures.

More than 40 years of industry reports have consistently reached the same conclusion: adversarial contracting imposes significant costs on every participant in the construction process. Collaborative contracting is not a cure for every challenge facing the industry. However, it provides a more constructive framework for managing those challenges.

The real test is not whether collaborative contracting eliminates every dispute. Rather, it is whether it delivers more successful projects through earlier risk identification, better communication, greater cost and programme certainty, stronger commercial relationships and fewer formal disputes than the adversarial practices it seeks to replace.

Perhaps the greatest cost of NEC is not the investment in training itself, but the willingness to change long-established behaviours. Equally, its greatest benefit may not simply be fewer disputes, but the development of construction professionals capable of preventing those disputes from arising in the first place.

The UK’s experience demonstrates both the strengths and the limitations of collaborative contracting. Singapore now has the opportunity to build upon those lessons. Collaborative procurement must be supported by capable organisations, well-trained practitioners and a genuine commitment to the behaviours that NEC is designed to promote. If these conditions are met, it has the potential not merely to change the contracts used to deliver projects, but to transform the culture of project delivery itself.