# Size is not the only measure of construction quality: Decoding Conquas workmanship bands for private homes

- **Source:** EdgeProp Singapore
- **Published:** 2026-07-27T09:20:14.000Z
- **Author:** Ng Ming Yang
- **Original:** https://www.edgeprop.sg/property-news/size-not-only-measure-quality-decoding-conquas-bands-private-homes
- **Topics:** Private Residential, Government & Policy, Transactions & Deals

## Featured rationale

Builder track records may offer buyers a stronger workmanship signal than development size, particularly when assessing construction quality at boutique private-home projects.

## AI summary

Builder bands explained about 78% of project-band variation, versus 31% for project size, while 70% of projects exactly matched their builder’s band.

## Original article

Boutique developments of fewer than 50 units made up nearly 60% of assessed private residential projects that fell into the lower half of the workmanship scale (Bands 4 to 6). That is based on an analysis by EdgeProp Singapore of data from the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) over the past six years.

Those bands come from BCA’s Construction Quality Assessment System (Conquas), which assesses construction workmanship on completion and sorts projects into six bands, with Band 1 the highest.

While smaller builds are over-represented in the lower Conquas bands, project size alone does not tell the full picture.

Read also: Longer ABSD remission timelines for developers of large and mega en bloc sites

Project size alone is a weak guide to build quality

Analysis of BCA data for the past six years suggests that project size can explain about 31% of the differences in scores, as there is an R² (a statistical measure of how much one factor explains another) of 0.31 between project size and Conquas outcomes.

In other words, while project size has some influence on quality outcomes, most of the variation is due to other factors.

Developments with above 300 units averaged a higher Band 1.8, compared with a lower Band 3.77 for projects with under 50 units.

Projects become progressively smaller across the bands, with median project size falling from 429 units in Band 1, to 16 units in Band 5.

Meanwhile, larger projects were much more likely to rank more highly for workmanship quality. About 83% of projects with 300 or more units achieved either Band 1 or 2, compared with just 21% of those with fewer than 50 units (see Table 1).

[object Object]

That said, those averages tell only part of the story, as performance can still vary widely.

Boutique projects span the full range from Bands 1 to 6. Eden (20 units) and Baywind Residences (24 units) each achieved Band 1, while Lavender Residence (17 units) and Mooi Residences (24 units) were the only two Band 6 projects in the six-year period.

Read also: What's moving the market: Singapore's biggest property deals and hottest searches (July 24)

As for larger developments, not all achieved top Conquas outcomes either. For instance, Pullman Residences Newton (340 units) was rated at Band 5 and Affinity at Serangoon (1,052 units) rated Band 4.

The builder’s band is the stronger signal

Compared with the development's size, the builder's Conquas band is far more closely linked to a project's band.

Across all builder bands, more than 90% of their projects stayed within a single band (see Table 2).

[object Object]

Builder bands accounted for about 78% of the variation in project bands.

Overall, seven in 10 projects landed in exactly the same band as their builder, and 95% within one band.

This trend is even more pronounced within boutique projects, where 84% of projects were in the same band as their builder, and every project fell within a single band of their builder’s band.

Individual portfolios show the same consistency. All five projects completed by a Band 1 builder were assessed at Band 1, from the 20-unit Eden to the 592-unit Amber Park. One Band 5 builder delivered Band 4 at Tedge (42 units), and Band 5 at the 140-unit RV Altitude.

Developer track record matters, but again, it is not the whole picture

The developer band is a reliable guide at both extremes. Every project from a Band 1 developer was rated at Band 1 or 2, and all from Band 5 developers were assessed at Band 5.

Read also: Buildings can be easier to maintain and reap 'substantial' cost savings with DfM features: study

The linkage is less clear for mid-tier developers. Band 3 developers show the widest spread, with 28% of their projects at Band 1 or 2, 44% at Band 3, and 28% at Band 4.

A potential explanation for this may lie in the builder hired. Across the ten developers using two or more builders on three or more projects, the builder's band tracks the outcome closely.

One Band 4 developer illustrates the point. The nine projects it developed alone were built by seven different builders, with results from Band 1 to Band 5. Its Band 2 builders delivered The Addition (26 units) at Band 1, and Mayfair Gardens (215 units) and Mayfair Modern (171 units) at Band 2. Where it engaged Band 5 builders, Sea Pavillion Residences (24 units) and The Verandah Residences (170 units) both came in at Band 5.

What portfolio depth tells us at the boutique end

Notably, many builders of boutique developments have only a limited track record.

Builders of projects under 50 units had, on average, 1.7 assessed projects over the period in review, as compared with 5.1 projects for those working on developments with 300 homes or more.

Among the boutique projects, 61% were built by a builder who appears only once in the sample, versus just 14% of projects with 300 units or more. It suggests that builders of larger developments typically have more extensive track records.

This matters because a builder with only one assessed project on record will have a builder band that reflects that single project's result. While the band is still valid, it is worth considering it alongside other information known about the builder.

This pattern does not seem to apply to developers. Unlike builders, developers of boutique and large projects had similarly sized track records.

Small-project developers averaged 2.2 assessed projects against 2.5 for large-project developers. Also, most have only one or two banded projects, regardless of the scale they build at.

In essence, portfolio depth separates builders, but not developers.

Ultimately, Conquas measures the work of a whole project team. The builder matters, but other factors including the specification, the site and the design also bear on the outcome.

Bands are drifting downward, market-wide

Beyond differences between individual projects, the data also points to performance gradually declining across the market during the period analysed.

The mean project band fell from 2.18 in 2022, to 2.75 in 2025. Meanwhile, the share of projects rated as Band 1 or 2 shrank from 64.7% to 52.7%.

Three factors — a labour shortage, the mix of projects being completed, and the assessment method — may have influenced this.

First, the manpower crunch. Ministry of Manpower (MOM) data shows the construction and real estate sector's workforce fell by roughly 52,000 in 2020 compared to 2019. Headcount has since recovered past pre-pandemic levels, but ManpowerGroup's February 2026 survey found 77% of Construction and Real Estate employers struggling to fill roles.

Second, the composition or mix of projects completed each year had changed. Boutique projects' share of annual completions rose from 9.1% in 2021 to 29.1% in 2025. Given that such smaller projects tend to skew towards the lower workmanship bands, their growing share lowered the overall average.

Bands slipped among bigger developments of 300 units or more as well, from an average of 1.14 in 2022 to 2.27 in 2025 (see Chart 1).

Lastly, the assessment method was adjusted. Conquas revised internal-finishes weightings from June 2022, and restructured the assessment into three components for tenders called from July 2023.

As a result, projects assessed early in the six-year period were not scored on the same rubric as those assessed today.

What it means for buyers

Project size explains about a third of the variation in Conquas outcomes across the market.

The builder's band tracks the project bands far more closely, accounting for roughly 78% of the variation across all projects and also matching the outcome exactly in 84% of developments under 50 units.

The developer's band holds at both extremes but weakens in the middle, where the choice of builder accounts for much of the spread.

To be sure, these are associations rather than causes, as the analysis does not control for budget, specification or site complexity. Besides, a builder's band itself partly reflects the developers that hire it and the brief that the latter sets.

For a boutique launch, buyers may want to consider the builder's band, the developer's record and the number of assessments behind each figure, alongside unit count.

Note: This analysis is based on EdgeProp Singapore's compilation of BCA Conquas band data for private residential projects assessed over the past six years, together with the developer and builder bands recorded for each project.

## Chinese translation

> Translation model: grok_cli

### 规模并非衡量施工质量的唯一标准：解读私人住宅CONQUAS工艺等级

EdgeProp分析了建屋局（BCA）数据。规模只是图景的一部分，开发商与承建商等级也会影响CONQUAS结果。

少于50个单位的精品式发展项目，在工艺评分落在下半段（第4至第6级）的已评估私人住宅项目中，占比接近60%。这是EdgeProp Singapore根据建设局（Building and Construction Authority，BCA）过去六年数据分析得出的结果。

这些等级来自BCA的施工质量评估系统（Construction Quality Assessment System，Conquas），该系统在项目竣工时评估施工工艺，并将项目划分为六个等级，其中第1级最高。

虽然较小项目在较低Conquas等级中占比偏高，但项目规模本身并不能说明全部情况。

延伸阅读：大型与超大型集体出售地块开发商的ABSD额外买方印花税减免期限延长

仅凭项目规模难以判断建造质量

对BCA过去六年数据的分析显示，项目规模约可解释评分差异的31%，因为项目规模与Conquas结果之间的R²（衡量一个因素能解释另一因素差异程度的统计指标）为0.31。

换言之，虽然项目规模对质量结果有一定影响，但大部分差异仍由其他因素造成。

超过300个单位的发展项目平均等级为较高的1.8级，而少于50个单位的项目平均等级则较低，为3.77级。

各等级中的项目规模逐步缩小，中位项目规模从第1级的429个单位，降至第5级的16个单位。

与此同时，较大项目更有可能在工艺质量上取得较高排名。约83%拥有300个或以上单位的项目达到第1或第2级，而少于50个单位的项目中仅有21%达到这一水平（见表1）。

[object Object]

话虽如此，这些平均值只说明了部分情况，因为表现仍可能有很大差异。

精品式项目横跨第1至第6级的完整区间。Eden（20个单位）与Baywind Residences（24个单位）均取得第1级，而Lavender Residence（17个单位）与Mooi Residences（24个单位）则是这六年间仅有的两个第6级项目。

延伸阅读：市场动向：新加坡最大宗物业交易与最热搜索（7月24日）

至于较大型发展项目，也并非全部取得顶尖Conquas结果。例如，Pullman Residences Newton（340个单位）被评为第5级，Affinity at Serangoon（1,052个单位）被评为第4级。

承建商等级是更强的信号

与发展项目规模相比，承建商的Conquas等级与项目等级的关联更为紧密。

在所有承建商等级中，超过90%的项目保持在同一等级内（见表2）。

[object Object]

承建商等级约可解释项目等级差异的78%。

总体而言，七成项目的等级与其承建商完全相同，95%则落在相差不超过一级的范围内。

这一趋势在精品式项目中更为明显：84%的项目与承建商处于同一等级，且所有项目都落在承建商等级相差不超过一级的范围内。

个别作品组合也呈现出同样的一致性。某第1级承建商完成的全部五个项目均被评为第1级，从20个单位的Eden到592个单位的Amber Park皆然。某第5级承建商则交付了第4级的Tedge（42个单位），以及第5级、共140个单位的RV Altitude。

开发商往绩重要，但同样不是全部图景

开发商等级在两端都是可靠指标。来自第1级开发商的每个项目均被评为第1或第2级，而来自第5级开发商的项目则全部被评为第5级。

延伸阅读：研究：具备DfM特征的建筑更易维护，并可节省“可观”成本

对中档开发商而言，关联则不那么清晰。第3级开发商的分布最广：28%的项目为第1或第2级，44%为第3级，28%为第4级。

一个可能的解释在于所聘用的承建商。在十家在三项或以上项目中使用两家或以上承建商的开发商中，承建商等级与结果高度吻合。

某第4级开发商可说明这一点。其单独开发的九个项目由七家不同承建商建造，结果从第1级到第5级不等。其第2级承建商交付了第1级的The Addition（26个单位），以及第2级的Mayfair Gardens（215个单位）与Mayfair Modern（171个单位）。在聘用第5级承建商时，Sea Pavillion Residences（24个单位）与The Verandah Residences（170个单位）均落在第5级。

作品组合深度在精品端说明了什么

值得注意的是，许多精品式发展项目的承建商往绩有限。

在检视期内，承建少于50个单位项目的承建商平均仅有1.7个已评估项目，而参与300户或以上发展项目的承建商平均为5.1个项目。

在精品式项目中，61%由样本中仅出现一次的承建商建造，而300个单位或以上的项目中这一比例仅为14%。这显示较大型发展项目的承建商通常拥有更丰富的往绩。

这一点很重要，因为仅有一个已评估项目在案的承建商，其承建商等级会反映该单一项目的结果。虽然该等级仍然有效，但宜结合已知的其他承建商信息一并考虑。

这一模式似乎不适用于开发商。与承建商不同，精品式与大型项目的开发商往绩规模相近。

小型项目开发商平均有2.2个已评估项目，大型项目开发商为2.5个。此外，无论建造规模如何，多数开发商仅有一至两个已定级项目。

本质上，作品组合深度区分的是承建商，而非开发商。

归根结底，Conquas衡量的是整个项目团队的工作。承建商很重要，但规格、工地与设计等其他因素也会影响结果。

等级在全市场呈下行趋势

除个别项目之间的差异外，数据也显示，在分析期内，市场整体表现正逐步下滑。

项目平均等级从2022年的2.18降至2025年的2.75。与此同时，被评为第1或第2级的项目占比从64.7%缩减至52.7%。

劳动力短缺、竣工项目结构，以及评估方法——这三项因素可能产生了影响。

首先是人力紧缺。人力部（Ministry of Manpower，MOM）数据显示，建筑与房地产行业劳动力在2020年较2019年减少约52,000人。此后人手已回升并超过疫情前水平，但ManpowerGroup 2026年2月的调查发现，77%的建筑与房地产雇主仍难以填补岗位。

其次，每年竣工项目的构成或组合已有变化。精品式项目占年度竣工量的比重从2021年的9.1%升至2025年的29.1%。鉴于此类较小项目往往偏向较低工艺等级，其占比上升拉低了整体平均水平。

300个单位或以上的较大型发展项目等级也有下滑，平均从2022年的1.14降至2025年的2.27（见图表1）。

最后，评估方法经过调整。Conquas自2022年6月起修订了内部装修的权重，并自2023年7月起对招标项目的评估重组为三个组成部分。

因此，六年期初评估的项目，与今日评估的项目所依据的评分标准并不相同。

对买家意味着什么

项目规模约可解释全市场Conquas结果差异的三分之一。

承建商等级与项目等级的对应关系远为紧密，在所有项目中约可解释78%的差异，且在少于50个单位的发展项目中，有84%结果完全一致。

开发商等级在两端成立，但在中间减弱，该区间内承建商的选择解释了大部分分散度。

需要明确的是，这些是关联而非因果，因为分析并未控制预算、规格或工地复杂度等因素。此外，承建商等级本身也部分反映了聘用它的开发商，以及后者所设定的任务要求。

对于精品式新盘，买家除单位数量外，或可考虑承建商等级、开发商往绩，以及支撑各数字的评估次数。

注：本分析基于EdgeProp Singapore汇编的BCA Conquas等级数据，涵盖过去六年已评估的私人住宅项目，以及每个项目所记录的开发商与承建商等级。