The Hidden Cost of Design-Led Value Engineering: Why ‘Saving’ Early Can Cost You Later

“You get what you pay for” is a familiar phrase in construction, yet the industry continues to chase short-term savings at the expense of long-term value. This article explores how design-led value engineering (VE) can safeguard a project’s integrity if done correctly, and why involving your structural engineer throughout is key to true efficiency.

1. Value Engineering: A Tool, Not a Shortcut

In its purest form, value engineering is about maximising performance while reducing waste. Done well, it delivers better outcomes with fewer resources. Done poorly, it erodes the core purpose of engineering design; safe, durable, efficient structures.

Too often, VE is mistaken for simple cost-cutting. Post-tender exercises may involve the contractor, quantity surveyor, and architect reviewing a structural solution with the goal of reducing upfront spend, but without proper engineering input, this becomes a risk rather than a refinement.

2. The Pitfalls of Post-Design ‘Savings’

When cost-driven decisions are made late in the process, they tend to be reactive. Examples we frequently encounter:

• Slab thickness reduced without rechecking vibration or deflection performance.

• Structural frames reprofiled or simplified to save steel tonnage, at the expense of lateral stability or column positioning.

• Connection detail complexity ignored, often leading to fabrication delays, un-necessary spiralling costs and coordination issues with façade elements or MEP services.

These changes often ignore the broader impact on buildability, safety, or compliance—and result in rework, delay, or compromised performance.

3. The Real Cost of Fixing the Wrong Problem

When design alterations are made without holistic reassessment, they often trigger a domino effect of unintended consequences such as:

• Coordination issues in clash-detection models,

• Structural members requiring redesign to meet stiffness or load path criteria.

• Increased site queries, RFIs, and programme drift due to late redesign or incomplete drawings.

These knock-on effects result in real financial costs: fees for rework, delays in procurement, or even contractual disputes. Ironically, these costs are almost always greater than the initial “saving”. Below are some practical examples based on real project experiences.

3.1 Substituting Cellular Beams Without Coordination

In one commercial project, cellular beams were removed from the design in favour of standard UB sections to reduce procurement costs. However, the decision was made after the mechanical and electrical layout had been finalised and key decisions made.

Without openings for service integration, the M&E team had to reroute key ducts and pipework, which required increasing the ceiling void depth. This encroached into the usable office space below. Bespoke notch details were then required to be designed by the SE to alleviate some of the problems caused, adding further cost and complexity to the project.

The initial cost savings were quickly outweighed by the cost of M&E redesign, addiotnal SE works, reduced headroom, and the loss of functional space.

3.2 Approving Architectural Designs Without Structural Input

A distinctive façade scheme was approved and sent to fabrication before the structural engineer had been engaged to review its viability. Once appointed, the engineer found the geometry inefficient and the anchorage details difficult to rationalise.

The result was excessive steel support requirements and significant material wastage. Worse still, a more buildable solution, visually similar, could have been achieved with lower embodied carbon and simpler installation, had the structural team been consulted earlier.

3.3 Restricting the Engineer's Scope Too Severely

In another case, the building structural engineer’s appointment excluded detailed connection design responsibilities, with only envelope forces provided. The intention was to reduce design time and shift responsibility to the fabricator.

However, without well defined design forces, tie requirements, or combination scenarios, Shepherd Gilmour, working on behalf of the steelwork fabricator, had little choice but to design each connection for the envelope forced provided. This resulted in oversized connections, increased fabrication cost, and delays in approval due to unforeseen clashes with architectural or MEP elements. Every effort was made to request greater communication from the building designer to mitigate this, but it was met with refusal due to the ill thought out value engineering exercise early on in their appointment.

Had the structural designer been permitted to define those parameters from the outset, the connections could have been optimised in both size and cost, saving time, materials, and coordination effort. At Shepherd Gilmour, we strongly advocate for appropriate appointment to ensure a well coordinated design is achieved which results in client & user satisfaction.

These examples illustrate a recurring theme: that early-stage decisions made in isolation, or based on cost alone, often generate complexity downstream. By ensuring structural input remains embedded through key stages, these problems can be avoided, and better overall value can be achieved.

4. Shepherd Gilmour’s Approach: Holistic, Design-Led VE

At Shepherd Gilmour, we believe value is best engineered when the full design team, including structural engineers, are part of the conversation from day one. Our approach is:

• Performance-first: we consider deflection, vibration, long-term durability and buildability as essential to any cost discussion.

• Digitally enabled: using Revit and IFC models, we can test alternatives and visualise coordination issues before they hit site.

• Process driven: our ISO 9001-certified QA process ensures design continuity across VE stages, avoiding fragmented decisions.

We’re not here to over-engineer. We’re here to engineer intelligently and to add tangible project value.

5. Smarter VE: What Clients Can Do

To get the most from value engineering while maintaining quality, we recommend:

• Hold VE workshops early, with all key designers involved.

• Challenge assumptions collaboratively, using data, and not just price lists as your guide.

• Avoid ‘VE by spreadsheet’; cost alone is not the measure of success.

Clients who view their engineers as strategic partners, rather than service providers, consistently see better outcomes in quality, cost and delivery.

6. Conclusion: Design Smart, Not Cheap

Cutting cost does not always mean cutting corners, but it requires careful judgement and true collaboration. At Shepherd Gilmour, we’re genuinely committed to helping clients achieve lean, buildable designs without compromising on integrity or performance.

If you're planning a development and want to ensure your design evolves efficiently and safely, we’d welcome the opportunity to contribute to a value-focused, not cost-dominated conversation.

📩 Contact us at info@shepherdgilmour.co.uk or reach out to discuss your next project.