RIBA Competitions

Guidance for Clients

2020
Hallé St Peter’s Concept Image

“The Hallé Concerts Society

commissioned RIBA Competitions
to organise a design competition
to appoint an architect and design
team to extend our rehearsal and
recording venue, Hallé St Peter’s. The
competition was a great success
attracting significant interest from a
high quality field from across Europe.

As the first building the Hallé had

ever commissioned there were a
number of challenges involved in
the project, not least the relationship
between the new building and the
existing Grade II listed former church.
The RIBA Competitions team were
incredibly supportive throughout the
process, providing valuable assistance
in the development of a strong
competition brief and helpful guidance
during the shortlisting and interview
stages. The competition enabled us
to appoint a top class design team
led by Stephenson Studio and we are
delighted with their work and very
proud of The Oglesby Centre, the fine
building they have delivered for us.”

Martin Glynn
Hallé Venues Director
Hallé Concerts Society
Foreword

Architectural design competitions have a long and The document outlines the practical elements involved Guidance for Clients
illustrious history. The Houses of Parliament, the Paris in managing a competition and explains how the process
Opera and the RIBA’s London HQ in Portland Place, can work alongside UK Public Procurement Regulations.
Foreword 3
were all winners in their time. More recent competition It is illustrated throughout with examples of buildings and
projects went on to become RIBA Stirling Prize winners – structures all of which have originated through an RIBA Introduction 5
Hastings Pier in 2017 and Goldsmith Street in 2019. competition process. Is a competition right for your project? 6
The advantages of a competition 9
The RIBA has supported the principle of architectural If a competition isn’t right for your project, the RIBA can
Types of competition 10
competitions since 1871 and is the only Institute in the produce a shortlist of RIBA-accredited practices for you,
UK to have studied the competition system in depth. It is or you can search using the new Find an Architect service Achieving the desired outcome 16
the UK’s most widely recognised provider of competition on architecture.com. Both services are free. Public Procurement routes 22
services with the expertise and experience to support the Featured Competition Halley VI 26
process from initial idea through to project commission. Further guidance on best practice procurement is set out
RIBA Competitions 28
Some of the most celebrated design talents have in the RIBA’s reference guide *‘Ten Principles for Procuring
been discovered through the competition system, Better Outcomes’ which is available on architecture.com. RIBA Competition Architect Advisers 29
which, depending on the competition format, can offer Competition Conditions 30
unparalleled opportunities for unknown young practices Alan Vallance Featured Competition Kingston University 32
to compete on equal terms with established firms. RIBA Chief Executive
Contact us 34

This document aims to provide guidance to clients Credits 36

who are thinking about holding a competition and
offers support and advice to ensure that best practice
principles are followed.

*Ten Principles for Procuring Better Outcomes

www.architecture.com/-/media/gathercontent/ten-principles-for-procuring-better-outcomes/additional-documents/tenprinciplesforprocuringbetteroutcomes2016versionpdf.pdf

3
Great Place: Lakes and Dales, Horton in Ribblesdale Moorfields Eye Hospital Taylor Wimpey Project 2020
concept image concept image

Clore Studio

Birmingham Centenary Square

“When redeveloping Centenary Square (one

of Birmingham’s most iconic public squares),
we needed a design that would stand out on
the international stage. We were delighted
when the RIBA design competition attracted
185 entries from 32 different countries.
Prescot Market Place
Working with RIBA Competitions, we had
access to designers throughout the world.
The professional support and advice given,
as we set up the website and managed the
BBC The Listening Project
competition, was invaluable. The completed
Square stands as a testament to all involved.
Birmingham has a Square that they are
proud of. ”

Jim Wilson
Project Delivery Manager
Birmingham City Council
Birmingham Centenary Square
Introduction
We all know good design is valuable, bringing immediate and
lasting benefits, whether improving people’s lives, raising profile
or generating income. But good design can become truly great
when the aims and aspirations of client and architect are well
communicated, clearly understood and mutually aligned.
A positive client-architect relationship is critical in fulfilling
the potential of any project and the use of architectural
design competitions can be an excellent way to begin.
This competition guidance for clients sits alongside
complementary guidance for entrants – because excellent
and innovative design should serve both clients and bring
fair opportunity for designers. Establishing a balanced and
beneficial relationship between the two parties from the
outset is key to every successful project.
This guidance is for clients looking to
select an architect, design team or a
design solution by using a competitive
selection process and sets out the key
elements for a successful outcome.
The first part describes the different
selection processes available and the
relative merits of each, to help clients
decide whether, in the first instance, a
competition is right for their project and,
if it is, which type of competition is most
likely to help them meet their objectives.
The second part describes the process
of running a good competition following
best practice guidelines.
5
 Is a competition right
for your project?
Not all projects are suitable for a competition, for example
where a client already has a team with whom they have
a trusted, established working relationship. Alternatively
if the client wants to start a long-term relationship with
an architect but doesn’t yet have fixed ideas about their
requirements, they might be best advised to conduct their
own shortlisting/interview by utilising either the RIBA’s
Find an Architect or the Client Referral service.
The RIBA offers a range of support to clients looking
to appoint an architect:
6
• If you are considering a competition, the
RIBA Competitions team can advise whether
it is the right route for you. If you decide
to go ahead, the expert team will manage
the process for you. Mentoring advice from
experienced clients is available on request.
• Alternatively, the Find an Architect service on
architecture.com is free to use and will create
a shortlist of practices for you based on your
project brief.
• The RIBA Client Referrals team can also
tailor a shortlist of practices for you.
What are the different types
of competition?
In the right circumstances, competitions can produce
projects of exceptional imagination and vitality. The word
‘competition’ can be interpreted in a number of ways:
• When design is the key factor to the decision making,
the competition is known as a ‘design competition’.
• When a competition is held to find the right designer
or design team it is known as a competitive interview.
• Many competitions are a combination of the two,
described as a two-stage invited competition with an
open (or by invitation) application at the first phase
and a design requirement in the second.
• Open Ideas competitions (single stage or over two
stages), are where concept designs are submitted
and the winner and runners up receive prize money.
The first and most important decision to make is which
is the most suitable route for your requirements. The
advantages of the classic ‘design competition’ are the
involvement of the widest possible range of talents and
the encouragement of innovation.
The advantage of a competitive interview or invited
design, where meeting the team is an important element,
is that it allows some creative dialogue between architect
and client during the process.
Competitions can be suitable for a whole range of
projects in the public and private sectors such as:
• urban planning and masterplanning
• new buildings and engineering structures
• redevelopment and refurbishment works
• landscape and public realm schemes
For publicly funded projects, if the value of the project
or subsequent commission is likely to exceed specified
thresholds, competitions must be organised to comply
with public procurement legislation. Whether or not
competitions are subject to public procurement legislation
there is still a need for a fair, properly scrutinised, well-
managed process.
Why run a design
competition?
The appointment of a design professional is the single
most important task when undertaking a project in the
built environment. Finding a suitable designer, even for
a small private project, is a priority from an early stage.
Commissioning a designer for a project is all about
making choices. In projects where an architect or design
team is to be selected by competition, the key priority is
to decide on the most appropriate selection process.
A competition based on evaluating the relative merits of
several designers can give a client the best opportunity
to make an informed selection.
A competition can be a highly successful procurement
model by prioritising good design and bringing the
highest quality of thinking to a project. Competitions
have a reputation for generating the best range of
design options to choose from at a fraction of the
total construction cost of a scheme.
A competition can be used to select an architect,
a multi-disciplinary design team, or a developer/
construction consortium.
7
New Scotland Yard

“The decision to conduct an

architectural design competition
for the new Metropolitan Police HQ
was influenced by the challenges
posed by a refurbishment, turn-key
project in the public sector. The
professional advice and support
from the RIBA Competitions
team was especially receptive
to the particular aspects of
programme, finance, governance
and procurement for this scheme
in compiling the Competition Brief.
The quality and volume of interest
shown far exceeded expectations
and has resulted in a building
which meets all our requirements.”

Roger Harding
Director Real Estate Development
Metropolitan Police Service
The advantages of a well-run
design competition
A competition requires a significant commitment from
the client of both time and money.
Among the key conditions for a successful RIBA
competition are:
• rigorous, fair and transparent process
• composition of a professional and skilled
Evaluation Panel
• an expert Competition Architect Adviser
• a clear and informative design brief
• appropriate payment of honoraria or prize money
• feedback to competitors
A well-run competition will have a project brief in place
that is sufficiently clear to generate appropriate designs
so a decision can be made.
In a project where the client seeks to commission the
winning designer/team, the client should be prepared to
pay an honorarium which is a reasonable reflection of the
cost of providing a competition entry. They should also
have an intention to work with the winning practice.
Where there is no subsequent commission a client
should be prepared to pay prize money to the finalists.
A well-run competition can help prioritise good design
from the outset. It can be a highly successful
procurement model, to:
Drive innovation, stimulate creativity
and generate a range of new ideas
Design professionals competing against one another is
one of the principal advantages of a competition over
other procurement routes.
Deliver more choice
Competitions offer the unique opportunity of
simultaneously exploring a range of approaches
in response to the same brief, allowing a client to
compare entrants’ creativity, understanding of the
project requirements and problem-solving abilities.
Find the right team for the job
When consultants from different disciplines work
together on a submission it has the added benefit of
forging strong design-team collaboration.
Attract new talent
Competitions bring design talent to the attention of
the client. This could include up and coming designers
as well as more established practices not known for
working in a particular sector.
Achieve high quality design
An investment upfront to achieve high quality design
can be more cost effective when considering the life
cycle costs of a project. A competition demonstrates a
commitment to high quality design whether publicly or
privately funded. They can also drive neighbourhood, city
or regional improvements in both civic environments
and public spaces.
Engage with the community
and key stakeholders
A physical or digital exhibition of competition entries can
be an excellent way of involving the local community or
key stakeholders and gathering feedback.
Raise awareness
Competitions can generate significant publicity, raising
the profile of the client and the project. They provide
a useful promotional platform to help fire the public
imagination, often attracting significant media interest.
Deliver value
A well-run competition is an efficient, auditable and
transparent selection process. The benefits of a
successful competition can far outweigh the initial
investment and deliver real value for money.
9
 Types of
competition

The different competition types available are: Procurement

If you are required to comply with the UK
• Competitive Interviews Public Procurement Regulations, you should
• Open Design and Open Ideas Competitions ensure that your preferred competition
route dovetails with one of the prescribed
• Invited Design and Private Invited Design Competitions procurement processes on page 22*. The
procurement rules apply to contracting
authorities when procuring services through
supply and works contracts which are
above the published thresholds. If you are
unsure as to whether the rules apply you
should seek further advice.

The key procurement routes which are

most suitable for use within the design
competition process are identified after
each competition type.

*As defined in The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR2015) and The Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016. The current thresholds can be viewed at:
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/484497/PPN_1815_New_Thresholds_2016.pdf

10
Competitive Interviews
Competitive Interviews are predominantly
used to select a designer or team at the
very early stages of a project. They can
be the preferred choice where the client
needs help in defining the project and the
details need developing in conjunction
with the right design team.
Competitive Interviews generally have an
open expression of interest phase with
designers submitting examples of previous
work and relevant experience in response
to a briefing document and/or a
Selection Questionnaire.
RIBA Competitions can advise on the different competition types and the merits
of each depending on whether the client wishes to select a designer +/- scheme
Shortlisted designers are then invited to
outline their initial thoughts, understanding
of the project requirements and possible
approach at interview, before a winner
is selected.
This process enables the client and the
designer to evolve the design solution
together. It is particularly useful in projects
of a complex and sensitive nature and can
also ensure that the working relationship
is right. It can have a shorter time frame
than other competition processes and can
be more cost effective as detailed design
proposals aren’t required.
Procurement Route
This process can fit within the restricted procedure
(PCR2015) if required.
Key Characteristics
• Shortlist selected on basis of track record and
relevant experience.
• Can have a shorter timeframe than a full competition
as significant design work isn’t required.
• An equal payment is made to shortlisted teams to
cover time and expenses to attend the interview.
11
 Open Design and Open Ideas Competitions
Open Design and Open Ideas Competitions
allow a client to receive a wide variety of
design solutions in response to a project
brief, with the potential to generate fresh,
exciting and innovative designs.
They involve an anonymous initial design
phase, from which a winner can be selected
(single phase). Alternatively there could be
a second phase where anonymity is lifted
and shortlisted teams are invited to develop
their design approaches and/or present
them at interview.
The Open Design format should ideally lead
to the winning team being commissioned
for a project, with the Client selecting a
concept design and the team to deliver it.
Clients may require designers with more
limited experience to team-up with another
practice to ensure delivery of the project.
12
Procurement Route
(if applicable – see page 22)
The only procurement route which works successfully
with the open design competition process is the Design
Contest (PCR2015) however anonymity should
be maintained throughout the process.
The Open Ideas format does not carry any commitment
beyond the competition stage. This might be the
preferred route if the client wishes to encourage blue
sky thinking and they are not planning to appoint the
winning designer.
This process is not generally suitable for projects
subject to procurement.
Key Characteristics
• Shortlist selected on the basis of design response
rather than track record and can be a good way to
unearth fresh talent and designers not necessarily
known for working in a particular sector.
• Can attract extensive trade, regional, national and
international publicity.
• Can generate a significant number of entries –
for example, previous RIBA Competitions have
attracted anything between 30 and 250 entries.
• Prize money is awarded to authors of the best design
ideas, or equal honoraria payments made to each
shortlisted team. The client should expect to pay an
honorarium which is a reasonable reflection of the
work requested.
• Typically a 6–8 week design period at both phases
of the process is sufficient and likely to be more
cost effective. If clients require a longer design time
period then they should expect to pay a higher level
of honorarium.
 *Typical Open Competition Process

PHASE ONE PHASE TWO

WEEK 1 WEEK 10
Development and submission of design proposals
Competition brief and supporting information available
in response to brief/feedback

WEEK 3–4 WEEK 16

Opportunity to raise questions on the competition brief,
Public consultation/Exhibition
clarification response issued to all registered entrants [OPTIONAL]

WEEK 6–8 WEEK 18

Submission and evaluation of anonymous design proposals Evaluation and presentations to Panel

WEEK 9 WEEK 9 WEEK 20

Selection of shortlist,
Prize winner(s) identified anonymity lifted and shortlisted Winner identified
teams invited to Phase Two
SINGLE PHASE ONLY

*Typical open competition process outlined – to be further developed and tailored

in consultation with the client subject to requirements/procurement

13
 Invited Design Competitions
Invited Design Competitions generally
involve an open expression of interest
and application phase, where entrants
are required to demonstrate track record
and experience of delivering relevant or
similar projects in response to a briefing
document/selection questionnaire.
From the initial applications a shortlist of
practices are invited to prepare design
proposals in response to a project brief.
This ensures those who are invited to
take part in the design phase have the
experience, expertise and track record to
deliver the project. This type of competition
commonly concludes with a clarification
interview with the evaluation panel
before the selection of the winner.
14
Procurement Route
The restricted procedure, competitive procedure with
negotiation and competitive dialogue (PCR2015) can
all fit with this type of competition route.
Private Invited Design Competitions
Alternatively, some clients may consider a Private
Invited Design Competition where a set number
of designers are approached directly to participate
in the process.
Unless drawn down from an existing Framework
Agreement, this type of competition is not
generally appropriate for projects subject to
public procurement regulations.
Key Characteristics
• Shortlist selected on the basis of track record and
relevant experience with no design work required
at the initial phase.
• Provides reassurance in terms of an entrant's
experience in delivering projects, particularly
where the project requires specialist knowledge.
• Equal honoraria payments are made to each
shortlisted entrant, at a level which reflects the
amount of work required.
• Typically a 6–8 week design period at the design
phase of the process is sufficient and likely to
be more cost effective. If clients require a longer
design time period then they should expect to pay
a higher level of honorarium.
 *Typical Invited Design Competition Process

PHASE ONE PHASE TWO

WEEK 1 WEEK 8
Design brief and/or associated tender
Competition brief and supporting information available
documentation issued to shortlist

WEEK 2–3 WEEK 9

Opportunity to raise questions on the briefing document
Site visit and briefing session
Clarification response issued to all registered entrants [OPTIONAL]

WEEK 5 WEEK 10–11

Submission of Expression of Interests Opportunity to raise questions on the brief
and/or Selection Questionnaires Clarification response issued to shortlist

WEEK 6–7 WEEK 14

Submission of design proposals
Evaluation and selection of shortlist
and/or tender returns

WEEK 15–16
Public consultation
[OPTIONAL]

WEEK 17
Evaluation and presentations to panel
at clarification interview

WEEK 18
Winner identified
*Typical invited design competition process outlined – to be further developed and tailored
in consultation with the client subject to requirements/procurement

15
 Achieving the
desired outcome

A client should not underestimate the resources required to
manage and administer a well-executed competition. You
will need to commit significant upfront time and money for a
successful, value-adding competition outcome. However, the
benefit of this is far outweighed by the potential cost of not
selecting the right design approach or team from the outset.
The fundamentals of a good competition are a brief with a
clear vision, an evaluation panel comprising relevant expert
design professionals, and a strong client commitment. This
should be planned carefully, and consideration given to
appointing specialist competition managers.
The RIBA’s best practice principles are as follows:
• The appointment of an RIBA Competition
Architect Adviser
• Size and selection of a suitable Evaluation Panel
• Development of a good brief
• Appropriate timeframe for the competition
• Payment of honoraria to reflect work undertaken
• Copyright protection for the architect
• Feedback to entrants

Well-run competitions can provide better choices for clients

and more opportunities to architects and designers producing
an outcome that is better than anticipated. On the other hand,
poorly conceived or badly managed competitions may result
in wasted effort for a client and competing teams, and an
undeliverable project.

16
Key Elements
Whichever type of competition
process is selected, a number
of key elements will determine
whether the outcome will be
successful for both the client
and entrant.
Define the project
Before starting to prepare the competition brief it is
important to define the project with a strategic planning
document which sets out the parameters within which
the project will be delivered and can include:
Who are you?
It is useful to define the background and context to the
project, to develop a view of your vision particularly
where there may be several routes to achieve your
desired outcome. Entrants will need to understand who
the client is and what motivates them.
What do you want to achieve?
Before launching a competition it is essential to establish
the overall viability of the project and identify potential
funding streams. This might involve commissioning a
feasibility study. A clear statement about the project and
the desired outcome is vital. What is the size and scope
of the project? Develop a vision for the project which can
be distilled into a brief for entrants.
Where is the site and what are the constraints?
What information is available for the project in terms of
location and size, current conditions, existing buildings,
planning conditions, external constraints?
When do you want to do it?
What timescales apply to the project, what statutory
processes are involved, what reports and surveys need to
be undertaken before the competition can go ahead and
how long will they take?
How is the project to be delivered?
Is money available to fund the project, or does funding
still need to be obtained? What contractual arrangements
will be necessary to complete the project?
17
 Develop a good brief
The success of a competition is largely influenced by the
quality of the brief as it will have a critical bearing on the
entrants’ response. The brief should be well presented,
unambiguous and as informative as possible, clearly
setting out the requirements but enabling the entrant
freedom of design interpretation.
It is important that you spend time getting this right
and the key points are:
Be clear about what you want
Define the purpose of the competition, provide
background, introduce yourself ‘the client’ and articulate
your vision, aspirations and priorities for the project.
Provide the right level of information
Competitions are about ideas and approaches,
typical information should include:
• Functional and technical requirements
• Site information
(photographs, maps, plans, relevant surveys)
• Aesthetic considerations
• Planning guidance and site constraints
• Environmental standards
• Web links to other sources of information
Ultimately the level of detail required in a project
brief depends on the competition format, the project
complexity, and how much design work is required.
18
Client Commitment
Set a realistic timeframe
Clients should be mindful of the time and commitment
required by entrants and ensure that time periods are not
unduly onerous.
Set aside a budget for the competition
Initially there will be a budget required for the competition
itself, to cover any competition management, specialist/
technical input and honoraria or prize money.
As a general guide an indicative competition budget
could be between 0.2% – 2% of the overall project value
for projects ranging between £3m to £50m. This will
vary depending on the required scope such as the type
of competition process, time-frame, publicity, design
requirements and the appropriate level of honoraria.
Further guidance and a tailored proposal including
a competition budget can be provided by the RIBA
Competitions team on request.
Set a realistic budget for the project
It is important to set a realistic or outline budget
that matches your project aspirations. Entrants will
base their design submissions or fee proposals on
this budget. There should be a robust link between
total area, specification and budget to give a cost per
square metre that is consistent with the anticipated
specification. Clients should seek professional advice
from an external cost consultant where appropriate.
In competitions that lead to a design commission,
clients should be clear about their level of commitment
post competition. For example this may only extend
to the end of RIBA Stage 3 (Developed Design), either
due to the construction procurement route being
followed, or further progression of the project being
subject to successful funding, planning applications
and other statutory consents.
Professional input Making the brief accessible RIBA 2030 Climate
A competition managed by RIBA Competitions would Open Competitions commonly have a dedicated Challenge Targets
always involve an impartial RIBA Competition Architect website to host the briefing material which often
Adviser. The Adviser role is of key importance as they includes site photos and plans, together with any
help prepare tailored briefing material and provide other useful information. A website also helps create The RIBA strongly recommends that
an independent opinion when evaluating submitted an identity for the project. It is a great way to promote its architectural competitions should
material. the competition to an international audience, provide incorporate the RIBA 2030 Climate
a central place for the documentation and raise the
Challenge targets*. The RIBA has
The Adviser is typically an experienced architect profile of the project in general.
and former competition winner or judge who has an developed targets for operational
appreciation of the time and effort invested by entrants energy use, embodied carbon and
and will help to achieve the best possible outcome for water use reduction. These take into
the competition.
account the latest recommendations
Architect Advisers are required to meet prescribed from the Green Construction Board
criteria prior to being added to the RIBA’s list of and have been validated through
Architect Advisers. consultation with UK professional
bodies and with the Committee on
Climate Change. The targets are
progressive yet realistic, and a vital
first step to ensure the construction
industry has delivered the significant
reductions necessary by 2030 in
order to have a realistic prospect of
achieving net zero carbon for the
whole UK building stock by 2050.

*Please refer to the RIBA 2030 Climate Challenge paper for further information
https://www.architecture.com/-/media/files/Climate-action/RIBA-2030-Climate-Challenge.pdf

19
Manchester Civil Justice Centre
Stirling Prize Shortlist 2007
Bishop Edward King Chapel
RIBA Stirling Prize Shortlist 2013
Stirling Prize
The RIBA Stirling Prize is presented to RIBA
Chartered Architects and International
Fellows for buildings in the UK which
have made the greatest contribution to
the evolution of architecture over the
previous year.
A number of RIBA Competition projects
have gone on to receive regional and
national RIBA awards and to be shortlisted
for the Stirling Prize, with two of them
becoming overall winners.
National Assembly for Wales
RIBA Stirling Prize Shortlist 2006
Kentish Town Health Centre Goldsmith Street
Stirling Prize Shortlist 2009 Stirling Prize Winner 2019
The Hepworth Wakefield
Stirling Prize Shortlist 2012

Olympic Velodrome
Stirling Prize Shortlist 2011

Library of Birmingham
Stirling Prize Shortlist 2014

The Whitworth
Stirling Prize Shortlist 2015

Hastings Pier
Stirling Prize Winner 2017
 Public Procurement
routes
If your project is subject to public procurement
legislation then you must ensure you select the
appropriate procurement route to correlate with
your preferred competition process.
To follow is a brief outline of the most commonly
used procurement options and their relative
advantages and disadvantages. All of these routes
can dovetail within the competition process,
however due to its restrictive nature the Open
Procedure would not be recommended.
22
1. The Competitive Procedures
Competitive Procedure with Negotiation
and Competitive Dialogue
The Competitive Procedures can only be used for complex projects.
Better reserved for contracts where the client knows the desired
outcome but is unsure as to the best technical and financial
approach to meet their needs or where design and innovative
solutions are required.
Similar to the Restricted Procedure, designers are initially required to
complete a Selection Questionnaire (SQ). The shortlisted designers
submit their initial tenders and then enter into a structured dialogue
(Competitive Dialogue) or structured negotiation (Competitive
Procedure with Negotiation). The client can reduce the number of
solutions at each stage by applying the published award criteria.
Advantage
 Enables the client to engage with different designers
to come up with the optimum approach to meeting
the project outcomes.
Point to note
Ũ May be more time-consuming and resource intensive
than any of the other procedures (requires a lot of
upfront planning).
2. Design Contest 3. Open Procedure

In an open Design Contest, designers submit their design
solutions in response to the client’s brief. The designs are
assessed anonymously by an evaluation panel and in
accordance with the published criteria.
It is possible to add restrictions to a Design Contest,
where designers initially submit details of their relevant
experience and only those that satisfy the client
requirements are invited to submit design solutions
for assessment by the evaluation panel.
Prizes or payments can be awarded to the winner(s) of
the Design Contest. The winner(s) will not necessarily
Advantages
 Allows the client to choose from a wide range
of designs, increasing the chances of receiving
an innovative design solution.
 Gives unknown designers an opportunity to
win the competition.
 Enables the client to receive design solutions
even if it might not yet be certain that the
project will go ahead.
 Allows the client to negotiate the contract
terms with the winning designer(s).
A one stage process to award a contract to a designer
to develop a design for a project.
Open to all applicants who satisfy minimum standards.
Used for standardised or commoditised construction
outcome – not typically appropriate/recommended
for procuring architectural services.
Advantage
Relatively simple process.


be awarded a contract for the project.

Following a Design Contest, the client may negotiate
and award a service contract to a winner to deliver the
project with the works contractor. If there is more than
one winner, all winners must be invited to negotiate. The
client must make its intention clear in the Contract Notice,
if they wish to retain the right to award a negotiated
contract to the Design Contest winner.
Points to note Points to note
Ũ In an open Design Contest, the client may be The client may be inundated with responses.
Ũ
inundated with responses from the market,
Ũ No negotiation or discussion of the contract
all of which must be evaluated.
requirements or terms and conditions are permitted.
Ũ No scope to interview.
Ũ Anonymity is upheld throughout so the client
will not know the winner’s identity until selected.
Ũ One-third of the Evaluation panel members must
hold an equivalent qualification (e.g. architect) to
that being evaluated by the Design Contest.

23
 4. Restricted Procedure

A two-stage procedure to award a contract to a designer

to develop a design for the project.

Designers are initially required to complete a standard

Selection Questionnaire (SQ) which requires designers
to set out their relevant experience amongst other
selection criteria.

Shortlisted entrants are then required to respond to an

Invitation to Tender (ITT) issued by the client, setting
out their approach to developing a design.

Advantage
 The process can be used to procure both a designer
and works contractor under one competitive process.

Points to note
Ũ Limited scope to interview (clarifications only).
Ũ Cannot enter into negotiations with any of the designers.

24
Saw Swee Hock Student Centre
London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)
Shortlisted RIBA Stirling Prize 2014

“Involving RIBA Competitions

allowed us to reach a larger pool
of architects within the UK and
internationally. The process allows
a wider spectrum of practices
to put themselves forward for
consideration where they may not
have otherwise had the opportunity.
The LSE are committed to the
design competition process and
it will be the cornerstone of future
major developments.”
Kenneth Kinsella
Director of Capital Development, Estates Division
LSE

25
 Featured Competition
Halley VI Research Station
Designed by Hugh Broughton Architects with Aecom
Halley Research Station is an internationally important
platform for global earth, atmospheric and space weather
observation in a climate sensitive zone. Built on a floating
ice shelf in the Weddell Sea, Halley VI is the world’s
first relocatable research facility. This award-winning
and innovative research station provides scientists with
state-of-the-art laboratories and living accommodation,
enabling them to study pressing global problems from
climate change and sea-level rise to space weather and
the ozone hole – first discovered at Halley in 1985.
Halley Research Station is designed to provide UK
polar researchers and their collaborators with access
to state-of-the-art facilities for studying a wide range
of disciplines, particularly in the field of atmospheric
sciences, space weather and glaciology.
26
The competition, launched by BAS and RIBA in June In 2015 monitoring revealed that the research
2004, attracted 86 Expressions of Interest. Six of those station was sitting downstream of a crack that could
were selected to submit concept ideas and, in October eventually cut the station off from the rest of the ice
2004, three were commissioned by BAS to develop shelf and as a result the station was relocated to a
their concepts. The aim of the competition was to bring new, safer site in 2016/17.
innovation and creativity to the challenge of building
a scientific research station on a floating ice shelf.
Linda Capper, MBE, MCIPR
Halley VI became operational in 2012 and is made up Head of Communications
of a series of eight interlinked pods, built on skis the British Antarctic Survey (BAS)
pods can be towed across the ice by specialist heavy
vehicles. Being able to move the research station is vital
as its site on the Brunt Ice Shelf is constantly moving
towards the Weddell Sea.
More information can be found at:
www.bas.ac.uk/polar-operations/sites-and-facilities/facility/halley/ 27
 RIBA Competitions
RIBA Competitions has extensive
experience of delivering high
profile competitions and provides
a comprehensive management
service to clients.
The team runs competitions
to the very highest standards
of governance, meeting UK
Procurement Regulations, and
following best practice guidelines
developed over the past 50 years.
28
The team can provide advice on the most
appropriate type of competition, help develop
the brief and support you throughout the
process. They can help you consider carefully
what is needed to enable you to choose
the right team and/or design. This might
just be an approach, attitude to key issues,
methodology and some conceptual sketches
rather than a more detailed design proposal
as this is not always appropriate so early in
the project evolution.
A dedicated Competitions Manager would
be assigned to manage your competition,
supported by other colleagues as required.
The RIBA Competitions brand is recognised
as an indication of fairness and an assurance
of best practice procedures. The team have a
wealth of knowledge, expertise and advice to
help guide clients through the process.
The services provided by RIBA Competitions include:
• Scoping of the project and client requirements.
• Strategic advice on the most appropriate
competition type for the project.
• Assistance with developing the competition brief
in conjunction with the client and the Competition
Architect Adviser.
• Management and advice throughout.
• Full day to day administration.
• Use of secure custom-built Digital Submission Portal.
• Communications and Media Strategy
including international reach.
• Website and Brand Identity Design.
• Digital Gallery of Entries.
• Stakeholder Consultation and Public Exhibitions
to engage with a wider audience.
• Comprehensive audit trail throughout the stages.
• Feedback to entrants.
RIBA Competition
Architect Advisers
An integral part of an RIBA managed competition is the involvement
of an independent and impartial RIBA Competition Architect Adviser
who is a senior chartered member of the RIBA.
A tailored shortlist of RIBA Competition Architect Advisers will be
provided by RIBA Competitions. The client will then select their
preferred choice and the RIBA will make the necessary introductions
and appoint the Adviser on behalf of the client. The Adviser will
predominantly be there to help clients prepare the competition brief,
evaluate the entries and offer advice throughout.
The RIBA Competition Architect Adviser will be highly skilled with an
appreciation of a wide spectrum of possible approaches to the project.
Typically, they will be a senior partner, principal or
founding director who is:
• recognised within the profession and highly
regarded by their peers.
• of sufficient profile and gravitas to encourage
fellow professionals to make a submission
and attract a good response.
• knowledgeable about the competition system.
• able to interpret and frame competition briefs.
• experienced in design critique, assessing
design excellence.
• and has extensive knowledge and an
appreciation of different architectural styles.
Following the competition, some clients retain
their RIBA Competition Architect Adviser as
a critical friend or design champion, who can
subsequently provide periodic advice about the
development of the scheme against the original
design intent and project aspirations.
29
 Competition
Conditions
It is important to set out clear
information and conditions to
ensure transparency and
fairness for entrants.
In addition to a comprehensive
brief, the conditions will
outline the structure, rules
and programme and as a
minimum should include
the following information.
30
Eligibility criteria
The design disciplines that can enter, whether this
includes students and if it will be open to UK based or
international entrants. If you are running a competition
under public procurement legislation, you must treat all
entrants equally irrespective of where they are located.
Post-competition commitment
A clear statement outlining whether you will commission
the winner or if this is a call for ideas only with no post-
competition commitment. Only commit to what you can
deliver. If the commission is subject to securing funding
or planning permissions make sure this is clear.
Timetable
Ensure the key dates are set prior to launch and where a
competition is subject to public procurement legislation,
minimum mandatory timescales must be adhered to.
Submission requirements
For each phase of the competition, the submission
requirements (design content, reports, fee proposals)
should be clearly explained.
Evaluation criteria
The criteria against which entries will be evaluated
should be identified and it is important to ensure that
they can be appraised. Where appropriate, criteria can
be given relative weightings which should be consistent
with the project aspirations. The evaluation panel should
assess each submission against the published criteria
and not deviate from them. For public procurement
processes, the evaluation criteria must be relevant
to the subject matter of the contract and enable the
client to identify the most economically advantageous
tender objectively (i.e. an appropriate combination of
quality and price criteria). The client must also ensure
that they comply with public procurement principles
of transparency and non-discrimination. All evaluation
criteria must be published and must not include criteria
which could favour entrants from the originating country.
Feedback
It is important that comprehensive notes are taken as
part of the evaluation process, to not only provide a
record of the decision making, but also to be able to
provide feedback to unsuccessful entrants. In a public
procurement process, the client is required to provide
feedback in a form prescribed by procurement legislation.
The client cannot enter into a contract with the successful
entrant for a period of 10 days (standstill period) once
feedback has been provided to all the entrants. This
allows time for unsuccessful entrants to raise any queries
on the decision if necessary.
Evaluation panel
The panel should comprise professionals with relevant
industry or sector experience as well as key decision-
makers from the client body and other stakeholders.
If the panel’s decision will be subject to ratification
– for example by a governing body – this should be
stated. The evaluation panel may require support from
specialist advisers as necessary, such as an external
cost consultant to undertake cost affordability checks
on the design concepts and fee proposals submitted.
Any such commercial appraisal should be considered
separately from the assessment of design quality with
relative weightings set accordingly.
To ensure a robust competition process, panel
members should be asked to declare any conflicts of
interest. A highly regarded and expert evaluation panel
sends a strong signal to entrants that the competition
is well organised and gives confidence in the ability of
the panel to exercise sound judgement.
Honoraria or Prize Money
In design competitions it is accepted practice that
clients should make a contribution towards the cost
incurred by the shortlisted teams in preparing their
design work and commissioning other consultants.
The amount of honoraria or prize money should reflect
the work required and the costs incurred and should
be stated at the launch of the competition. Further
guidance on how to set appropriate honoraria levels
can be provided.
Copyright
In competitions there should be a commitment to
protect copyright, which should be in accordance
with the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988. Presentation material may however be used for
promotional purposes associated with the competition.
31
 Featured Competition
New Town House Building, Kingston University
Designed by Grafton Architects
RIBA Competitions managed an International Invited
design competition on behalf of Kingston University for
a major new building project at the University’s Penrhyn
Road Campus in Kingston-upon-Thames.
The intention was for the New Town House Building to
reinforce Kingston University’s vision to be internationally
recognised for its creative approach to education, with
practical outcomes that benefit people and communities.
Grafton Architects – whose Founders have subsequently
gone on to be awarded the RIBA Royal Gold Medal –
were selected from a shortlist of 5 practices to design the
new landmark building. The practice took the audience
of staff, students and local community organisations on
a journey from their initial concepts, through refinements
made during the design and planning processes and on
to the final designs for the building.
The new six-storey building provides students and staff
with a world-class learning and teaching environment.
The realised winning design features a three-floor
academic library, archive, dance studios and a studio
theatre. A grand open staircase weaves through the
building creating connections between the different
spaces. Cafés, external balconies, and a covered
internal courtyard with walkways culminating in a
rooftop garden that offers stunning views across
Kingston, the River Thames.
32
“It was important to us at Kingston to
demonstrate how serious we are about
good design and to secure a world class
architect with the capability to reflect
our ambitions for this significant building.
We wanted a quality building which will
enable us to deliver our aspirations for
educational innovation and community
engagement as well as allowing us to
set the sustainability agenda. The RIBA
Competitions office supported us very
effectively and the process delivered an
excellent design.”
Sean Woulfe
Director of Estates Delivery
Kingston University of London
“Town House is a stunning architectural
achievement – an inspirational building with
a variety of spaces which break down barriers
and encourage creativity, shared learning and
unexpected encounters. At the start of this
project we set out to create a building that
gives us a real presence in the borough and
that reflects the importance of our civic role
within Kingston upon Thames. We wanted an
inviting, welcoming environment that would
allow more opportunities for collaboration
between the University, local residents and
businesses. We hope Town House will act as
a front door and gateway for people to come
and be a part of what we are delivering for
the borough and wider society. I'm delighted
that with Town House, everyone who visits,
studies in and works at Kingston University
now has access to a beautiful and inviting
space in which to learn, socialise and just be.”
Professor Steven Spier
Vice-Chancellor
Kingston University of London
Concept Image
 Contact us

RIBA Competitions has delivered some of If you would like to speak to the RIBA Client Services team
about the Client Referrals service or Find an Architect,
the highest profile, most dynamic building
please contact:
projects in the UK through competition, and
has extensive experience of working with a +44 (0)207 307 3700
wide variety of clients. clientservices@riba.org
www.architecture.com

If you would like to discuss a potential competition

with the team, or talk to one of our previous clients
for some initial advice, please contact:

+44 (0)113 203 1490

riba.competitions@riba.org
www.architecture.com/competitions

RIBA Competitions
No.1 Aire Street, Leeds, LS1 4PR
This guide provides general information only and is not intended to be an
exhaustive statement of the law. Although we have taken care over the
information, you should not rely on it as legal advice. We do not accept
Twitter @RIBAComps any liability to anyone who does rely on its content.
instagram /RIBAComps
© Royal Institute of British Architects
2020

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system of any nature, or transmitted, in any form by any
means including photocopying or recording, without the prior permission
of the Royal Institute of British Architects, the copyright owner. Licences
issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency or any other reproduction
rights organisation do not apply. If any unauthorised acts are carried out
in relation to this copyright work, a civil claim for damages may be made
and/or criminal prosecution may result.

34
RIBA 66 Portland Place
The Portland Place site was acquired in 1931
and a recommendation was made that an open
competition should be held for the design of the
new building. The competition was launched soon
after and coincided with other public architectural
competitions for landmark buildings such as
Guildford Cathedral, Norwich Town Hall and
the Stratford Memorial Theatre.
The original competition brief placed no
restrictions on entrants with regards to style
and quickly ignited debate in the architectural
profession. The brief said ‘it should be borne in
mind that the new RIBA building, by reason of its
representative character is likely to be held by the
present and by future generations of architects
and the general public to be an example of the
best work of our time.’ In a statement the RIBA
said ‘The professional critics will have the chance
of their lives and the war between modernist
and traditionalist may be expected to burst into
unequalled fury whatever the result may be.’
There was considerable interest with 284 entries
– 66 of which came from overseas. The entries
were judged on the intelligibility of their plans and
sections, and on the all-important facade designs
to Portland Place and Weymouth Street.
In 1932 Grey Wornum’s design was selected as
the winner; it was generally commended for its
clever use of plan and section and subtle balance
of modernity and classicism. The building was
carefully designed to meet the needs of the
professional institute in the 1930s. As a piece of
architecture, it was a clear statement of its time,
but clearly has relevance to architecture today.
The RIBA headquarters building is an exemplar of
high quality 1930s craftsmanship that straddles
both traditional and classicist tastes and modernist
aspirations. Moreover, the fact that the building was
designed by, selected by, and built for architects
in open competition makes it highly significant
as a physical realisation of the aspirations of the
profession in the early twentieth century.
Today, the building is still recognised as an iconic
piece of British Architecture and remains central
to RIBA activities.
Source: RIBA Conservation Management Plan by
Julian Harrap Architects April 2009
Image: © RIBA Collections
 With thanks to the following architectural practices and projects that originated through the RIBA Competitions process

cover, 20 Goldsmith Street by Mikhail Riches © Tim Crocker 21 The Hepworth Wakefield by David Chipperfield Architects © Iwan Baan
2 Hallé St Peter’s by Stephenson Studio © Daniel Hopkinson Library of Birmingham by Mecanoo © Corporate Communications
4 Great Place: Lakes and Dales by McMullan Studio Olympic Velodrome by Hopkins Architects © Nathaniel Moore
Clore Studio by Hayhurst & Co © Andrew Hendry The Whitworth by MUMA © Alan Williams
Moorfields Eye Hospital by AECOM Hastings Pier by dRMM Architects © Alex de Rijke
Birmingham Centenary Square by Graeme Massie Architects © Fitzgerald Contractors Ltd 25 Saw Swee Hock Student Centre by O’Donnell & Tuomey © Dennis Gilbert/VIEW
Taylor Wimpey Project 2020 by OpenStudio © Taylor Wimpey 26–27 Halley VI British Antarctic Research Station by Hugh Broughton Architects © British Antarctic Survey
Prescot Market Place by Mark Wray Architects © Knowsley Council 32 New Town House Building, Kingston University by Grafton Architects © Ed Reeve
BBC The Listening Project by JaK Studio © Nick Kane / Ian Woolcock this page Windermere Jetty by Carmody Groarke © Christian Richters
8 New Scotland Yard by Allford Hall Monaghan Morris Architects © Timothy Soar
20 Manchester Civil Justice Centre by Denton Corker Marshall © Tim Griffith
Bishop Edward King Chapel by Niall McLaughlin Architects © Niall Mclaughlin
National Assembly for Wales by Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners © DaiPhoto More projects can be viewed at:
Kentish Town Health Centre by Allford Hall Monaghan Morris © Rob Parrish www.architecture.com/competitions