Guided demo scenario

Riverside Leisure Centre Refurbishment — a worked underwriting

Operational-asset refurbishment with low design maturity, high inflation exposure and a politically sensitive deadline. Tests fragility of fixed-price routes. The panels below are exactly what rule set v0.3.0 produces from the prefilled inputs — no manual editing.

1 · Prefilled inputs

2 · Expected route comparison

Each candidate route is scored against the twelve conditions. The engine returns a behaviour label and the smallest single-input change that would shift it (the counterfactual).

3 · Expected red flags

The reshaping register surfaces the highest-weighted flags first. For this scenario the engine returns 5 priority flags.

• redFixed price proposed while design maturity is lowLensPriceability

  The market may price uncertainty heavily, qualify bids, withdraw, or later convert uncertainty into claims and variations.

  Suggested action: Consider two-stage procurement, ECI, indexed bands, provisional sum governance or delaying tender until design maturity improves.

• redContingency appears weak compared with retained volatilityLensRisk-adjusted affordability

  Low contingency combined with high volatility increases the probability of affordability escalation during delivery.

  Suggested action: Revisit contingency adequacy against volatility exposure, set earlier value-engineering triggers and define an affordability escalation route.

• redSurveys incomplete but procurement assumes scope certaintyLensPriceability

  Unresolved survey information tends to convert into variations, claims or provisional sum disputes once the contract is let.

  Suggested action: Complete or progress critical surveys before tender, or build provisional sums and survey-related compensation events into the pricing structure.

• redMaterial final-account exposure not yet governedLensRisk-adjusted affordability

  Where a material gap between contract sum and final account is anticipated, the authority's reported affordability position is misleading and the eventual outturn falls outside governance.

  Suggested action: Carry an independent final-account forecast alongside the contract sum, publish a commercial close-out plan, and reserve contingency against the forecast gap.

• redHigh inflation exposure without indexation or target-cost mechanismLensDownside protection

  Without a transparent inflation mechanism, contractors price worst-case scenarios into the tender or convert exposure into claims.

  Suggested action: Consider indexation linked to a recognised index, target-cost with painshare/gainshare, capped exposure bands or package-level review for long-lead items.

4 · Expected report panel

COMMERCIAL REASONING PANEL — Riverside Leisure Centre Refurbishment
Generated by DCA RouteLab on 2026-07-20 00:45 UTC — Commercial Strategy Pack (full) — Rule set v1

The following panel has been prepared to support officer reasoning. It is intended to be reviewed, edited and adopted within the authority's existing procurement, finance and legal governance processes. It does not constitute legal advice, a procurement decision, or an assurance of value for money.

PROJECT COMMERCIAL PROFILE
——————————————————————————————
Authority / department: Example Borough Council — Property & Capital Delivery
Asset type: Leisure / operational asset
Estimated value: £10m–£25m
Current stage: Procurement strategy
Intended contract form: JCT
Intended pricing approach: Fixed price / lump sum

ROUTE BEHAVIOUR SUMMARY
———————————————————————————
• Open tender — Fragile under current conditions.
  Open tender on a fixed-price basis is sensitive to design and survey maturity under current ratings.
• Competitive flexible procedure — Usable with controls.
  Competitive flexible procedure is appropriate where commercial structure benefits from being tested with bidders; procurement and legal capability are prerequisites.
• Framework call-off — Usable with controls.
  Framework call-off can be appropriate where lot health, supplier capacity and pricing basis are confirmed as fit for the project.
• Two-stage design and build / ECI — High governance burden.
  This route is structurally governance-heavy and should be matched to genuine commercial need.
• Construction management — High governance burden.
  Construction management retains substantial client-side interface and integration risk.
• Alliancing / collaborative model — High governance burden.
  This route is structurally governance-heavy and should be matched to genuine commercial need.

MAIN VOLATILITY EXPOSURES
—————————————————————————————
• Inflation exposure is high and warrants a transparent pricing mechanism.
• Design maturity is below the level typically required for robust fixed-price risk transfer.
• Survey information remains incomplete and represents a residual scope risk.
• Third-party and utilities dependencies require explicit interface allocation.

…