SDESmith Design Engineering

Procurement and fees

Why MEP design fees fall as a percentage when project value rises

A flat percentage fee is either too high on large projects or unsustainable on small ones. What actually drives the sliding scale.

Author
James Reed
Published
29 July 2026

Key points

  • MEP design fees are conventionally expressed as a percentage of MEP construction value, and that percentage falls as value rises.
  • The reason is that design effort does not scale linearly with construction value — doubling the floor area of a similar building does not double the number of decisions to be made.
  • A fee percentage is a proxy for effort, not a measure of it, which is why a percentage quoted without reference to scope, stages and specification level is not comparable between consultants.
  • The stage split matters as much as the percentage: technical design typically accounts for over half the total design fee, and early stages for around a third.
  • The fastest way to make two fee proposals comparable is to compare deliverables and RIBA stages rather than percentages.

The sliding scale

MEP design fees are usually quoted as a percentage of the mechanical, electrical and public health construction value, and that percentage falls as value rises. On a small installation the figure might be around five per cent for full design; on a multi-million pound one it can be closer to two.

Why effort does not scale with value

The number of engineering decisions in a building is a function of its complexity, not its size. Doubling the floor area of a warehouse adds very little to the design effort. Doubling the floor area of a laboratory adds a great deal.

A percentage fee handles this crudely but adequately at the population level: larger projects are, on average, less design-intensive per pound of construction value. It is a proxy, and it is a reasonable one, but it is not a measurement.

What makes fee proposals incomparable

Because the percentage is a proxy, two proposals quoting different percentages may be quoting entirely different work. The variables that matter more than the headline rate:

  • RIBA stages included. Stages 1 to 3 are around a third of the total, technical design at Stage 4 over half, with the balance across construction and handover. A proposal covering Stages 2 to 4 is not comparable to one covering 0 to 7.
  • Specification level. A performance specification carries considerably less drawing effort than a fully detailed one.
  • BIM delivery. Modelling to a defined level of information need is an addition, and a substantial one.
  • What is excluded. Utility applications, warrant submissions, site attendance frequency and commissioning witnessing are all commonly excluded and commonly assumed to be included.

The practical advice

Compare deliverables and stages, not percentages. Ask what is excluded before asking what the rate is. A proposal that lists what it does not cover is usually the one that has been thought about.

RELATED

Where this comes up in practice

Services

Author

James Reed

Project Director