How London Occupiers Can Structurally De-Risk £20m–£200m Capital Programmes
- 1 day ago
- 5 min read
Written by Neil Streets, Founder and Managing Director
Neil Streets is Managing Director of Alphafish and a global leader in real estate delivery. With 20+ years’ experience, he has led £10B+ capital programmes for UHNWIs, developers, and Fortune 500 firms, known for turning around complex projects and aligning organisations with regulatory and strategic goals.
Contractor insolvency is not a black swan event. It is a structural by-product of how we procure capital projects in the UK.
Over the past five years, London has seen enough high-profile failures to understand that insolvency risk is real. Yet, many organisations continue to structure capital programmes in ways that quietly amplify exposure rather than mitigate it.
In 2026, this is no longer acceptable. The cost of debt is higher. Insurance markets are tighter. Regulatory scrutiny has intensified. Boards are demanding audit-grade visibility into capital deployment. Under these conditions, insolvency risk is not a contractor problem. It is a client-structure problem.
The myth: “We transferred the risk”
Many organisations take comfort in design-and-build procurement routes on the basis that risk has been “passed down the chain.”
On paper, this appears logical:
Lump sum contract
Performance bond
Parent company guarantee
Professional indemnity cover
Risk transferred. Except it rarely works that cleanly. In reality:
Bonds often cover only a fraction of total exposure.
Professional indemnity exclusions are extensive and increasing.
Supply chain insolvency can paralyse programme momentum even if the main contractor remains solvent.
Live trading environments cannot tolerate programme shock while disputes are resolved.
When insolvency occurs mid-programme, clients discover that contractual transfer does not equate to operational resilience.
The project stops. Time is lost. Confidence erodes. Costs escalate through remobilisation. The structural decisions made at the procurement stage determine how painful that moment becomes.
Why insolvency risk is elevated in 2026
Three macro pressures are reshaping contractor risk profiles in London:
Margin compression: Competitive tendering in a volatile cost environment pushes margins to unsustainable levels. Contractors absorb inflationary shocks, supply chain volatility, and programme acceleration risk within tight fee structures. When stress compounds, liquidity becomes fragile.
Insurance contraction: Professional indemnity cover remains constrained across fire, façade, and high-risk technical elements. Premiums have increased. Exclusions have widened. Clients frequently assume insurance structures are robust without interrogating limitations.
Cashflow exposure in layered procurement: Traditional layered procurement structures create multiple profit centres: Client to Consultant to Main Contractor to Tier 1 Subcontractor to Tier 2 Specialist. Each layer extracts margin. Cashflow strain accumulates downward. Exposure increases upward. The result is a structurally fragile ecosystem.
Where clients unintentionally increase their own exposure
Most insolvency exposure is embedded at three decision points:
1. Over-reliance on lump sum comfort
A lump sum price does not eliminate risk. It compresses it.
When pricing is forced through competitive tension without structural alignment, contractors absorb unpriced risk. That risk re-emerges later through claims, disputes, or financial distress. The lowest number on tender day often carries the highest long-term exposure.
2. Fragmented commercial authority
When cost management, project management, and procurement sit across separate advisory silos, no single authority governs commercial alignment.
Scope packages are tendered sequentially. Interfaces are managed reactively. Programme logic bends under commercial tension. Fragmentation weakens structural resilience.
3. Insufficient gateway discipline
Capital programmes frequently move from concept to site with inadequate interrogation of:
Contractor balance sheet strength
Supply chain concentration risk
Dependency on specialist trades
Cashflow modelling under stress scenarios
Without staged approval gateways tied to capital deployment controls, boards commit funding into structurally vulnerable arrangements.
Structural de-risking: What actually works
Insolvency cannot be eliminated. But exposure can be structurally reduced. The most resilient capital programmes share several characteristics:
Single-line commercial authority
One accountable commercial lead with visibility across:
Design development
Procurement structuring
Contractor appointment
Cost control
Programme logic
This removes ambiguity and prevents layered commercial drift.
Procurement calibrated to risk appetite
Not every project should follow a standard D&B route. Regulated trading floors, technical facilities, petrochemical environments, and multi-site programmes require tailored procurement logic that reflects operational risk tolerance. The contract structure should serve the business, not industry convention.
Structured phase overlap with control
Overlapping design and construction phases can accelerate programmes, but only where governance is tight.
When structured correctly, this reduces overall exposure by shortening capital-at-risk duration. When poorly controlled, it amplifies insolvency impact. The difference is structural discipline.
Transparent supply chain mapping
Understanding dependency chains, particularly in façade, MEP, and specialist technical trades, is essential. Exposure rarely sits at Tier 1 alone. Boards should demand visibility into where real risk sits within the ecosystem.
A London trading environment example
In regulated financial environments, insolvency exposure is magnified. Zero tolerance for trading disruption means that even short programme shockwaves create disproportionate operational risk. In these settings, resilience must be engineered into procurement:
Contractor obligations aligned to continuity requirements
Clear escalation pathways
Financial robustness testing
Professional appointments structured to maintain oversight if contractor replacement becomes necessary
This is not theoretical. It is structural capital protection.
The CFO perspective
For CFOs and PE sponsors, the question is not: “Will our contractor fail?” It is: “If failure occurred mid-programme, how quickly could we recover without material capital erosion?”
Structural de-risking influences:
Cashflow predictability
Balance sheet exposure
Investor confidence
Audit traceability
Operational readiness timelines
When capital deployment reaches a £20m-£200m scale, even small structural inefficiencies translate into material value loss.
Three questions boards should ask before an appointment
Before signing a major London capital contract in 2026, boards should ask:
What proportion of risk are we structurally retaining despite contractual transfer?
Where is single-line commercial accountability embedded?
How would we maintain programme continuity if the main contractor were removed tomorrow?
If those answers are unclear, insolvency risk remains structurally exposed.
Insolvency is a structural outcome
Contractor failure is rarely sudden. It is usually the endpoint of accumulated structural strain:
Margin compression
Layered procurement
Diffused accountability
Misaligned risk allocation
Clients cannot control macroeconomic pressure. But they can control how capital programmes are structured.
In an environment of tighter liquidity, increased scrutiny, and higher governance expectations, structural discipline is no longer optional. It is the difference between a recoverable disruption and a capital event. Because in complex capital programmes, insolvency is not a surprise. It is a structural outcome, unless you design against it.
Visit my website for more info!
Neil Streets, Founder and Managing Director
Neil Streets is a recognised leader in strategic real estate and infrastructure delivery. He is the Managing Director of Alphafish, a specialist consultancy advising UHNWIs, developers, and global firms on capital programmes exceeding £10 billion. With over two decades of international experience, Neil has held senior roles at Cazoo, Dow, and Amazon. He has directed landmark developments including a £5B new town regeneration and a £2B luxury masterplan in Albania. Known for turning around complex projects and aligning organisations with regulatory reform, Neil is also an expert in high-risk buildings legislation and agile delivery.
