Competence Under Fire: What Construction Firms Must Do Now
Posted on April 29, 2026
By Steve Wallace
As we are now operating in a year of full regulatory enforcement, competence has become the defining test for the construction industry. The Building Safety Regulator now has its complete enforcement powers. Higherrisk building registration deadlines have passed. Safety case assessments are underway. Procurement frameworks are shifting to “competencefirst” criteria. And the government has signalled that more of the Grenfell Inquiry’s Phase 2 recommendations are moving into implementation through 2026 and beyond.
In other words: the grace period has now passed. For me, the baseline is simple: Grenfell cannot be allowed to happen again. That’s it. We went too low. As an industry and as a society, we now have to start saying no.
Why competence is under fire in 2026
The fallout from Grenfell reshaped expectations. Competence is no longer just about technical skill; it’s about demonstrable assurance. Regulators, residents, clients, and the public want proof that safety is embedded in every stage of design, construction, and maintenance.
And the pressure is only increasing:
- Political scrutiny: Ministers want visible change, not warm words.
- Regulatory enforcement: The Building Safety Regulator expects documented, maintained competence frameworks, not boxticking.
- Public trust: Communities expect better. Firms that can’t demonstrate competence risk reputational damage as much as regulatory action.
But there’s something deeper at play. In my mind, there’s always been a battle between what I’ll call “good and evil” – between those who want to build safely for society, and those who want to look after themselves – usually involving money.
Whether it’s cladding manufacturers, designers, or clients, the question has too often been: “How much is that going to cost? Can we do it cheaper?” Grenfell showed us exactly where that mindset leads.
We’ve seen the consequences – repeatedly
Look at the recent highrise fire in Hong Kong. More deaths than Grenfell. Another example of what happens when people live cheekbyjowl in tower blocks built with combustible materials. You’re building a bonfire. And I guarantee there were smaller fires before the big one, fires that were put out, shrugged off, and never reviewed.
That’s the problem. We don’t learn from the small fires.
Health and safety management systems are built on a simple cycle: think about it, do it, check it, review it. The review is the part that saves lives. But too often, it’s the part that gets skipped.
Value engineering is not an excuse
Let’s be honest: the Grenfell tower’s cladding was produced and specified at that price because cost was probably prioritised over performance. That’s the reality the Inquiry exposed. Somewhere along the line, a ‘sharp pencil’ was probably taken to the job, because value engineering became the dominant philosophy.
And when the panels were installed, everyone involved could stand in court and say: “They were manufactured to this standard and installed to this standard.”
But that doesn’t make it right.
It doesn’t make it safe.
And it certainly doesn’t make it competent.
Meanwhile, residents are left living in unsafe buildings they can’t afford to fix, while those who built them have already been paid and walked away.
This is why I say competence is not just a technical issue, it’s a moral one. We should be building things we’d be happy for our own families to live in. Not buildings that meet the bare minimum at the lowest possible price.
What competence really means
Competence is often defined as skills, knowledge, attitude, training, and experience. I think that applies to companies just as much as individuals.
A competent company should have:
- Skills to deliver the job safely and correctly
- Knowledge of what can go wrong
- Attitude that prioritises safety over profit
- Training that looks ahead, not backwards
- Experience that builds empathy and judgement
If a firm can’t demonstrate those five things, it shouldn’t be anywhere near a highrisk building.
What construction firms must do in 2026
To meet the expectations of the Building Safety Regulator – and society – firms need to move beyond reactive compliance and build proactive, evidence based systems.
1. Build structured competence frameworks
Map every role against the skills, qualifications, and behaviours required. No assumptions. No gaps.
2. Invest in continuous professional development
Competence isn’t static. It needs refreshing, updating, and challenging.
3. Keep clear, auditable records
If you can’t prove competence, regulators will assume it doesn’t exist.
4. Embed competence into culture
This isn’t a paperwork exercise. It’s about attitude, accountability, and pride in doing things properly.
5. Prioritise fire safety at every stage
Design, materials, installation, maintenance – every decision must be made through the lens of fire safety.
Competence as the foundation of accountability
Something had to happen after Grenfell, and the government has chosen to focus on competence. I’m happy with that. But competence frameworks will only work if firms embrace them proactively – not because they’re forced to, but because it’s the right thing to do.
In 2026, competence is under fire. And it’s the measure by which our industry will be judged.
Those who step up, who invest in skills, enforce standards, review near misses, and build with integrity, will not only meet the regulator’s expectations but rebuild public trust. Those who don’t will find themselves exposed, both legally and morally.