Engineering is full of R&D. Much of it looks like normal client work.

Design work where the engineers faced a technical problem that a competent professional could not readily solve, and set out to resolve it. That could be a design that has to meet a performance requirement existing solutions cannot meet, or a system whose parts interact in ways that cannot be predicted. Applying established design methods to a new client's brief is not R&D.

No. Every project being different does not make it uncertain. A bespoke design built from known methods and standard components is routine, however much skill it takes. The work qualifies where something about it could not be resolved by applying what is already known, and the team had to investigate. That distinction is what we draw project by project.

Modelling can be a way of resolving uncertainty and the time spent can qualify, if it is part of testing something unproven. Using CAD to draw a design, or running standard simulations to check a known approach, is routine. What counts is the question the modelling was answering. If the answer was already available to a competent professional, it is not R&D.

The R&D inside them can. The contract is the commercial wrapper. Within it there may be genuine technical problems that you took on and solved. The important question for a contractor is who decided the R&D needed doing, because that determines who can claim. We look at the contract before drawing the claim.

For contracted-out R&D, only the company that decides the R&D needs doing, and can evidence that decision and the planning, can claim. The company doing the work generally cannot claim for R&D contracted out to it, though it may claim for R&D it decides on itself, or where the client is not entitled to relief. We review the contract and the roles before deciding who should claim.

Usually not. Calculations that show a design meets a code or standard, using established methods, are routine. Work to find out how to meet a requirement where no accepted method exists may qualify. It comes down to whether the calculation was applying known rules or resolving something unknown. The records should show which it was.

Building a rig to test an uncertain design can be part of the R&D, and consumables used in testing can qualify. The rig itself, if it is kept as an asset, is capital expenditure, which R&D relief does not cover. We split the cost of the staff time and materials consumed from the cost of the asset and look at whether a capital allowance applies.

Yes. Professional, scientific and technical activities make up 20% of claims on HMRC's provisional 2024-25 figures. One of our case studies is a building services engineering consultancy that claimed on five projects, including control system refurbishment and automation work. The projects looked like normal client work, but each contained real technical uncertainty.

They are often where the uncertainty sits, because the difficulty can be in how disciplines interact. The Government's guidelines recognise system uncertainty, which can arise from the interaction of parts of a system. We describe the project at the level of the technical problem and identify the competent professionals from each discipline who can speak to it.

It can. Using a known material in a new way can raise genuine uncertainty about whether it will perform. The claim does not depend on the material being new, but on the application being one where a competent professional could not readily deduce the outcome. Manufacturers' data sheets and standard practice are what we compare the work against.

They show what was designed and what was calculated, and they are most useful in versions. Early drawings that were abandoned, calculations that did not work and revised designs show a problem being worked on. Together with notes of why a change was made, they make it possible to describe the uncertainty and how it was resolved.

Yes. The Government's guidelines say that a project can be R&D even if it fails. A design that did not work often shows the uncertainty was real. The costs of the work are claimable, and the failed attempt is useful evidence. What matters is that the team tackled the problem systematically, and that you can show it.

Routine maintenance and repair are not. Work to solve a technical problem that maintenance has revealed, where no known solution exists, can be. Control system upgrades, for instance, are routine when they follow the supplier's instructions, and qualify only where the team faced uncertainty. The records have to show the difference.

Fees for contracted-out R&D can qualify, if you decided the R&D needed doing and can evidence that decision. For an unconnected subcontractor, 65% of the payment counts. For periods beginning on or after 1 April 2024, the work must be done in the UK, or meet the overseas exception. Fees for routine design input do not.

It applies the same guidelines as for any sector. It asks whether the project sought an advance in the field, what the uncertainty was and whether a competent professional could have readily resolved it. HMRC may ask to speak to the engineers. We prepare the technical account in advance and prepare your engineers, so the story is clear and consistent.