Most building work is routine. The exceptions can be claimed.

Yes, if a project seeks an advance in science or technology and the team resolves technological uncertainty to get there. Most building work is routine, so the claim is usually for specific technical problems inside a project, not the project as a whole. A contractor, developer or specialist subcontractor can each have a claim, depending on who carried out and decided on the R&D.

No. A building being one of a kind does not make it uncertain. Applying standard methods and materials to a new design is routine. The work qualifies where the team faced a technical problem that a competent professional could not readily solve, such as a structural, thermal or construction-method challenge with no established answer, and set out to resolve it.

They can. Developing a new way of building, where it was not known whether it could work or how, is the kind of uncertainty the Government's guidelines look for. Using a method that is new to your firm but established in the industry is not an advance. We compare the work against what was available to competent professionals at the time.

Occasionally. Difficult ground is a normal part of groundworks, and standard engineering methods exist for most conditions. The work could qualify where the ground presented a problem without a known solution, and the team had to develop one. Records of the investigation, the options tested and the results would be needed.

Parts of it can be. Off-site manufacture, new structural systems and novel joining or assembly methods can involve real uncertainty. Using a supplier's established system as instructed does not. Where the uncertainty is in developing the system, the claim may sit with the developer or manufacturer, so we check who carried out and decided on the R&D.

The aim of saving energy does not make the work R&D. The test is whether the project resolved technological uncertainty to achieve an advance, for example a thermal performance that no established detail could deliver. Installing standard measures to meet a target is routine. We focus the claim on the technical problem, not the environmental benefit.

For contracted-out R&D, only the company that decides the R&D needs doing, and can evidence that decision and its planning, can claim. A contractor that develops a solution at its own risk to win work is in a different position from one that carries out R&D the client has specified. We read the contract before deciding who should claim.

They can, as contracted-out R&D, if you decided the R&D needed doing. For an unconnected subcontractor, 65% of the payment is the qualifying amount. For periods beginning on or after 1 April 2024, the work must be done in the UK or meet the overseas exception. Payments for routine trade work on the project do not qualify.

Yes, where the trial is part of resolving the uncertainty. A test panel, a trial installation or a mock-up built to see whether something will perform can be R&D, and the staff time and materials consumed can qualify. A first installation that is simply the first job using an established method is not. The trial needs a purpose, a measure and a result.

Meeting regulations is not R&D in itself. Where regulations create a technical problem with no known solution, and the team resolves it, the work can qualify. Our recycled plastics case study shows regulation driving genuine R&D in another sector. Using an approved document's standard details to comply is routine. The records should show the problem, the options tried and why the standard route failed.

Sometimes. Retrofitting buildings with unknown or varied conditions can create technical problems, such as combining a new system with an old structure in a way no standard detail covers. Routine upgrades following the supplier's instructions do not qualify. The claim concerns the uncertain element, not the whole retrofit, and the records should show what the old structure made difficult and how it was resolved.

We have not seen a published HMRC figure for construction. Overall, HMRC checked 17% of claims in 2023-24 and 77% of checks led to an adjustment. Because construction work is often routine on its face, a claim will probably be tested on whether the technical uncertainty is real. That makes project selection and records the key points.

Site records are the challenge, because the people doing the work are busy building. Photographs, daily logs, test results, method statements that changed and emails to designers all help. We interview the site and design teams and ask them to keep simple notes of the technical problems while they are happening. Records made at the time are far stronger than recollection.

Their time can qualify to the extent they are directly engaged in qualifying R&D, which might include designers, engineers and site managers working on the technical problem. Time spent on ordinary supervision and programme management does not. We apportion time carefully, because over-claiming site staff time is an easy mistake to make.

Yes. Materials used up in R&D are consumables, and a failed trial often consumes them. They need to be separated from materials used in the finished works, because those are part of the contract, not the R&D. Keep delivery notes and records that tie the materials to the trial, and note what the failed trial taught the team.