Over the past year the South Australian Chapter has been actively advocating on an issue that continues to concern many members: requests by some local governments for design concept sketches or preliminary design work as part of tender submissions.
While the specific instances may change, the underlying issue is not new. Throughout 2025 the SA Chapter raised concerns about procurement processes that request “free design services”, noting that architectural design expertise is a core professional service requiring significant time, skill and intellectual investment.
More recently, we have again encountered examples of this practice in local government procurement processes, including tenders requesting concept plans, sketches or preliminary design thinking before an architect has been formally engaged. These requests raise a number of professional, ethical and procurement concerns, which the Institute has formally outlined in correspondence with the relevant council and the Local Government Association (LGA).
Why This Matters
At first glance, asking for concept sketches may seem like a practical way for a client to assess design capability. However, the Institute’s long-standing position is clear: architectural procurement should focus on capability, methodology and experience, not speculative design work.
Best-practice procurement processes typically involve a two-stage selection process, beginning with an Expression of Interest (EOI) followed by a Request for Tender (RFT). Under this approach, the RFT stage assesses a team’s understanding of the project, methodology and fee proposal, but should not request specific design proposals.
Good architecture also begins with a clear and collaboratively developed project brief. This process typically involves consultation with the client and stakeholders, site and context analysis, and alignment of budget, regulatory and community considerations. Requesting design concepts before this process has occurred risks producing solutions that are not properly informed by the project’s true objectives.
There are several reasons why speculative design requests are problematic.
Professional services should not be provided without appointment.
Architectural design is not a commodity. Even early-stage sketches require analysis, interpretation of the brief and creative development. When design concepts are requested from multiple tenderers without remuneration, it effectively asks practices to provide professional services for free.
Intellectual property and moral rights risks.
Concept designs represent original creative work. When multiple submissions are received, questions inevitably arise about how those ideas may influence the eventual project, even if the architect who produced them is not appointed.
Poor procurement outcomes.
Selection based on speculative design often favours whoever has the resources to produce the most polished concept rather than the team best placed to deliver the project. This can disadvantage smaller practices and distort fair competition.
Financial pressure on practices.
For many architectural practices, responding to tenders already represents a significant investment of time and resources. Adding unpaid design work further increases the burden and can discourage participation altogether.
Competitions, Procurement and Speculative Work
It is also important to distinguish between legitimate procurement models and speculative design requests.
A capability-based procurement process evaluates architects on their experience, approach, team capability and understanding of the project brief. This is the most common and recommended approach for public projects.
A design competition, by contrast, can be a valuable tool when it is properly structured, transparent and remunerated. In these circumstances, participating teams are typically paid for their design work, and the competition framework clearly defines intellectual property and evaluation processes.
Requests for unpaid design concepts within a standard tender submission sit outside both of these models. They effectively require architectural services to be provided without appointment and without appropriate recognition of the professional work involved.
Our Engagement with Local Government
The Institute recognises that many councils are under significant pressure to demonstrate value for money and to manage public procurement responsibly. Our advocacy on this issue is therefore focused on constructive engagement and education, not criticism.
Recent correspondence with local governments and the LGA has outlined the Institute’s procurement guidance, the professional and legal risks associated with speculative design requests, and alternative procurement approaches that support fair competition and good design outcomes.
Encouragingly, many councils are open to discussion once the implications are understood.
Supporting the Profession
This issue ultimately goes to the heart of how architectural services are valued.
Architecture combines technical expertise, regulatory knowledge, creative thinking and public responsibility. Asking architects to demonstrate that expertise through unpaid design work risks undermining the very qualities that lead to good architecture in the first place.
While individual practices ultimately make their own commercial decisions about whether to participate in such tenders, the Institute’s role is to advocate for procurement processes that are fair, transparent and aligned with best practice.
If members encounter tender processes that request speculative design work, we encourage you to notify the SA Chapter. These examples help inform our advocacy and enable us to engage directly with the relevant organisations.
Together, we can continue to promote procurement practices that respect professional expertise and ultimately deliver better built outcomes for our communities.