Procurement teams must focus on their supply chain’s AI use

A new report from BEFA (the University of the Built Environment leadership forum chaired by Modernise Or Die author Mark Farmer) and Harlow Consulting outlines how the sector’s professionals should respond to the opportunities and threats posed by AI adoption. Its central message is that “AI should augment professional expertise rather than bypass it”.

What stands out in the report is its call for procurement teams and the insurance industry to help shape the use of AI. “Procurement will be an important lever for responsible use, with clients and procurement teams increasingly needing to understand not only whether suppliers are using AI, but how they are using it, with what data, under what controls and with what assurance,” the report states. “Procurement should reward transparency, accountability, evidence of checking and good information management, rather than vague claims about AI capability.”

The report also emphasises a positive outlook for the future: “There is potential transformation of procurement and assurance if AI becomes demonstrably safer and more reliable. In which case insurers and clients might mandate the use of AI, moving away from the current caution being shown by the insurance sector to the use of such tools during their nascent development and proof of better assurance. In particular, the parameters of AI use that professional indemnity insurers are prepared to underwrite will also very likely become the ‘guardrails’ that guide AI adoption.”

The report argues that AI will affect value, commercial models and long-term sector outcomes. “It may reduce the time required for some professional tasks, especially document production, analysis and routine processing. This will challenge business models based heavily on time spent rather than value delivered, and raise questions about pricing, liability, training, client expectations and the role of junior staff.”

Echoing RICS’ position on AI, BEFA’s report states that AI-assisted outputs should be treated as drafts or decision support, not authoritative conclusions. “Professionals should be expected to use, challenge, verify, document and then decide, particularly where outputs may influence design, planning, cost, procurement, compliance, safety, carbon or asset performance.