Phase 1, Engineering Validation

A Proposal for JKE Cavity Ties

JKE Cavity Ties

6 Weeks

USD 5,000

Scope & Fee Firm

01 — Background

Background

James Edwards is a bricklaying contractor based near Birmingham, running a team of 10 to 12 bricklayers on new build housing and apartment projects across the West Midlands. JKE Cavity Ties is his own product, developed from a problem he sees on his own sites every day: cavity wall ties bedded too shallow or too deep, ties pulled loose in wet mortar when the second leaf is built, and no straightforward way for anyone to verify embedment once the wall is up.

The product is a single-piece cavity wall tie in austenitic stainless steel with an integrated gauge tab formed from the same continuous wire. The tab presses flush against the face of the block or brick, so the tie is set by feel rather than by eye, and the tab remains visible afterwards as evidence of a correctly set tie. The intended market is bricklaying contractors, site managers, and building inspectors across the United Kingdom.

The concept has been developed to render and 3D CAD stage with Innovate Design. There is a concept presentation, a business specification and product potential report, and STEP models covering three tie variants. There is no physical prototype, no test data, and no filed patent at this stage.

This proposal covers Stage 1 of the program, Phase 1, Engineering Validation, following the discovery call held on 27 July 2026 with Nick Cunningham, President and Founder. Work proceeds under the mutual non-disclosure agreement already in place between the parties, with confidentiality agreements covering any third-party supplier engaged before that engagement begins.

02 — Our Preliminary Read

Our Preliminary Read on the Product

Ahead of Phase 1 engagement our team has reviewed the enquiry thread, the intake form, the discovery call notes, the concept presentation, and the product potential report. The STEP models will be reviewed on receipt by the Shield Works R&D team.

The following is not the Phase 1 output. It is the position our engineering work starts from, and it is set out here so the scope and the value of Phase 1 are clear before any commitment is made. This is a simple part to manufacture and a demanding product to get right, and the reasons for that are worth being open about at the outset.

2.1 The central technical question

Three questions decide whether this product works, and they are connected. Phase 1 carries them as a single dedicated engineering workstream.

Where the tab sits. The concept fixes the gauge tab at 63 mm from the tie end and applies that position across 225 mm, 250 mm and 275 mm variants for cavities from 75 mm to 150 mm. Under PD 6697 and NHBC Standards the requirement is a minimum 50 mm embedment into each leaf, allowing for normal tolerances in cavity width, and conventional symmetrical ties are specified to be centred in the cavity so that embedment is shared equally between the two leaves. A fixed stop at one end makes the tie deliberately asymmetric, which is the whole point of the design, but it also means the embedment achieved in the far leaf becomes a function of tie length and cavity width. On the concept dimensions, a 250 mm tie with the tab set at 63 mm leaves 87 mm in the far leaf at a 100 mm cavity, and 37 mm at a 150 mm cavity. The second case would fall short of the minimum. It follows that the tab position needs to be defined per tie length and cavity band rather than fixed at a single figure across the whole range. Establishing that matrix, and confirming it against the standards and against building control practice, is the first and most important piece of engineering work on this product.
What the tab does to declared performance. Wall ties placed on the Great Britain market fall under BS EN 845-1. That standard sets requirements for mechanical strength using the BS EN 846 test methods, for resistance to water crossing the cavity, for corrosion protection and durability, and for marking, together with type testing and factory production control. It also limits the materials that may be used. Under PD 6697 a tie is then specified by declared type according to its characteristic load capacity, which depends on building height, wind zone and site exposure. Forming the tab by coiling the wire back on itself introduces a local change at a point on the tie that carries load. A vertical leg standing in the cavity at the face of the leaf also sits exactly where mortar can ledge and where water can find a path across the cavity. Both of these need to be engineered deliberately rather than assumed, and both feed the test program.
Whether the tab can be formed at target cost. The commercial case rests on a tie competing against products selling in the region of GBP 53 to GBP 98 per box of 250. There is very little room in the unit cost. The concept describes the tab as formed from the same continuous wire and twisted directly into place, with no welding, clips or added parts. That is the right instinct, because every added operation is added cost on a product priced in pence. Whether that geometry can be produced in a single automated wire-forming operation, or whether it requires a secondary operation, is the single largest influence on the unit cost and therefore on whether the business case holds. Confirming the forming route with real wire-forming suppliers is a Phase 1 deliverable, not an assumption we are willing to make in advance.

A point on the analysis above, because it matters to how you read this proposal. Finding that the geometry needs work is not the same as solving it. The calculation illustrates the risk sitting in the current concept, and it is offered so you can see the nature of the work rather than take our word for it. What Phase 1 does is convert that risk into a settled tab position matrix, a confirmed material and forming route, a supply base that has quoted against it, and a costed development plan. That is the difference between knowing there is a problem and having a product you can sell.

2.2 Material grade

The documentation refers to both 316 and 305 stainless steel in different places. Under NHBC Standards austenitic stainless steel is required where a tie is connected to or embedded in the outer leaf of an external cavity wall in buildings above three storeys, with the higher corrosion grade reserved for aggressive environments such as coastal locations. Grade selection is therefore a cost decision as much as a compliance decision. Specifying the highest grade across the entire range would carry a cost penalty this product cannot easily absorb. The grade is set in Phase 1 against the exposure requirement and the cost, and it is confirmed rather than assumed.

2.3 Range and SKU strategy

The concept describes three tie designs across three lengths, which is nine distinct products. Each product placed on the market carries its own declared performance, its own forming setup, and its own share of the test program. Our clear preliminary recommendation is to take a single lead variant through to launch, prove it commercially, and plan the remainder of the family from the same forming route so that further variants can be added later without reworking the production setup. Phase 1 sets out that recommendation formally, with the reasoning and the cost consequence of each option, so the decision is yours to make on real numbers.

2.4 Compliance route

The intake form records a requirement for UKAS certification. UKAS is the body that accredits testing laboratories rather than a product certification route in itself, so it is worth setting out what the route actually is. For a wall tie sold in Great Britain it runs through the Construction Products Regulation: initial type testing to BS EN 845-1 at a UK Approved Laboratory using the BS EN 846 test methods, factory production control at the manufacturing site, and a Declaration of Performance issued by the party placing the product on the market, supporting a UKCA mark. The precise assessment and verification route, the test program, and the obligations that sit with you as the party placing the product on the market are all confirmed within Phase 1.

This is the part of the program that needs the clearest expectation setting, so we would rather be direct about it now. Type testing on a structural building product is a real cost, it is paid directly to the test house rather than through us, and it is likely to be the largest single line in the development budget. Phase 1 establishes what that program is and what it costs, so it can be planned and funded properly rather than met as a surprise once tooling money has already been committed.

2.5 Intellectual property

The concept is at the stage where the intellectual property position should be assessed, before tooling investment is committed. The commercial value of this product sits almost entirely in one geometric feature, so the order of events matters: the search belongs before the tooling spend rather than after it. On the record currently available to us there is no filed patent and no novelty or freedom to operate search, so we would recommend you instruct a patent attorney to carry one out. That is not work we carry out and not advice we are qualified to give, but it is the right sequence and it is inexpensive relative to what follows it.

Phase 1 includes a review of comparable ties currently on the market as engineering and commercial context. That is a different exercise from a legal search and is not a substitute for one.

03 — Volume & Timeline

Volume and Timeline Targets

The following reflects the working assumptions drawn from the enquiry thread, the intake form, and the discovery call. The figures recorded through the enquiry are inconsistent in places, and they are reconciled and validated through Phase 1.

Site Trial Quantity	3,000 units indicated. Treated as a site trial batch for real-world validation rather than as a production order
First Production Run	60,000 units indicated
Annual Forecast	100,000 units indicated, against a business plan trajectory that is materially higher by year 3
Quantity Breaks to be Costed	50,000, 100,000, 250,000 and 500,000 units
Target Unit Cost	To be established through the Phase 1 Indicative Quotation. The unit cost figures recorded through the enquiry are inconsistent and are reset at the Engineering Kick-off Workshop
Target Retail Price	GBP 95 per box of 250, per the product potential report
Target Market	United Kingdom, new build housing and apartment construction
Funding Status	Personal capital, secured
Timeline	As soon as possible

04 — Phase 1

Phase 1, Engineering Validation

Phase 1 is the first paid engineering engagement in the JKE Cavity Ties development program. It is the start of development rather than preparation for it. It delivers the engineering basis needed to put a costed, phase-by-phase development plan in front of you with confidence, and it resolves the questions set out in Section 2 before any money is committed to tooling or testing.

One thing worth being explicit about. The purpose of Phase 1 is not to push this product into production. It is to establish whether there is a technically and commercially viable route forward before larger commitments are made. If the work shows that the gauge tab cannot be formed at a viable cost, or cannot hold compliant embedment across a sellable range, we will tell you that plainly and set out what would need to change. Finding that out for USD 5,000 is a considerably better outcome than finding it out after tooling and test fees have been paid.

Phase 1 is delivered by the Shield Works R&D team, led by our Head of R&D, working alongside C2W sourcing, compliance, and commercial engineering resources.

Duration: approximately 6 working weeks from confirmation and receipt of the technical files. The pacing item is supplier engagement in Deliverable 5, where confirming the forming route needs real engineering responses from wire-forming factories rather than headline quotes.

Phase 1 is structured around six deliverables, each of which is real engineering or commercial work product.

Engineering Kick-off Workshop.

A working technical session with the Shield Works R&D team, not an introductory call. We walk through the product architecture, the STEP models, the concept presentation, the standards position, and your commercial goals, reset the target unit cost and volume assumptions on an agreed basis, and confirm the engineering priorities before work begins.

Independent CAD and Design Engineering Audit.

Written, annotated audit of the three supplied STEP models against the concept presentation, with specific engineering findings and redline direction. Focus on the tab geometry and its junction with the tie body, the cranked profile and drip, wire diameter, and the overall dimensional stack-up. Output: annotated engineering commentary and a ranked list of recommended design revisions.

Gauge Tab Geometry, Embedment Compliance, Declared Performance and Formability Study.

The dedicated engineering workstream on the central technical question in Section 2.1. Three outputs. First, a defined tab position matrix by tie length and cavity band, worked against the minimum embedment requirements in PD 6697 and NHBC Standards, so that every variant sold achieves compliant embedment in both leaves. Second, an engineering assessment of the tab against declared performance, covering the load path through the coiled junction, the mortar ledging and water crossing risk, coexistence with partial fill insulation and retaining clips, and what the tab means for the tie type that can be declared. Third, a formability assessment with real wire-forming suppliers confirming whether the tab can be produced in a single forming operation and what the cost consequence is if it cannot.

Preliminary DFM, DFA and DFX Engineering Assessment.

Written assessment covering the wire-forming strategy and tooling direction, material grade selection against exposure and cost, finish and passivation, packaging direction for boxed quantities, the compliance and test pathway with an indicative sequence, the range and SKU recommendation set out in Section 2.3, and a structured risk register with mitigations. Preliminary at this stage, against analysis and supplier data. Full DFM execution, engineering drawing release, and supplier qualification testing sit in Phase 2.

Supplier Engineering Shortlist and Indicative Quotation.

Qualified supplier shortlist drawn from the Shield Works supply chain and wider network across stainless wire forming and stainless wire supply, with first-round engineering engagement to confirm capability, capacity and minimum order quantity. Indicative unit pricing at the volume tiers in Section 3, together with indicative tooling and setup direction. Accuracy is subject to the defined level of readiness for manufacture. Final unit costs are locked against specific supplier quotes as Phase 2 progresses.

Development Roadmap (Full RTMP).

The consolidating document that carries the Phase 1 engineering output forward into sampling, tooling, testing, certification, pilot and qualified production. This is the full Route to Market Plan for JKE Cavity Ties, with phase timelines, phase costs, Shield Works resource allocation, tooling and forming strategy, the compliance and test program with its cost, and the risk register.

Fee: USD 5,000, payable in full on project confirmation.

05 — Path Beyond Phase 1

The Path Beyond Phase 1

Phase 1 ends with a costed, phase-by-phase development plan, delivered as the Development Roadmap in Deliverable 6. The outline below is the shape of that path, set out so you can see where Phase 1 leads before you commit to it. The firm timings and costs for each stage are produced inside the Roadmap itself, once the tab position and material are settled and the supply base has been engaged.

From Phase 1, the likely sequence is a first set of physical samples in the confirmed material and geometry, which is the point at which you can put real ties into mortar on your own sites and judge them. A site trial batch follows once the sample geometry is signed off, which is where the 3,000 unit quantity naturally sits. The compliance test program then runs against the settled design, because testing a design that is still moving wastes the test fee. Production setup and a first production run follow, sized to a viable minimum order rather than to the smallest batch technically possible.

We have deliberately not priced samples inside Phase 1. Committing to make a part before the tab position, the material grade and the lead variant are settled would risk making the wrong part, and it would commit a supplier we have not yet engaged. Samples sit at the front of Phase 2 for that reason, and they are costed in the Roadmap.

One further point on funding, because it was discussed openly on the call and it is better restated here. The capital currently set aside will not cover development, tooling, the compliance test program and a first production order together. The purpose of the Roadmap is to break that into funded stages with real numbers against each, so the program can be paced to the money available rather than stalled part way through.

5.1 Preliminary risk register

Risk	Likelihood	Impact	Primary Mitigation
A single fixed tab position cannot serve the full range of tie lengths and cavity widths compliantly	High	High	Tab position matrix by tie length and cavity band produced in Deliverable 3 before any tooling commitment
The tab cannot be formed in one operation, pushing unit cost above what the market will bear	Medium	High	Formability confirmed with real wire-forming suppliers in Deliverable 3, with the cost consequence of a secondary operation quantified
Compliance test program cost exceeds the capital currently available	High	High	Test program and its cost established in Phase 1 and staged in the Roadmap, so it is funded rather than met as a surprise
The tab creates a mortar ledge or water path across the cavity	Medium	High	Assessed against the water crossing requirement in BS EN 845-1 as part of Deliverable 3, with geometry revisions where needed
Declared tie type is reduced by the coiled junction in the load path	Medium	Medium	Load path assessed in Deliverable 3 and confirmed by type testing against the settled geometry
Nine variants dilute limited capital across too many products	High	Medium	Single lead variant recommendation with the family planned from the same forming route
No novelty or freedom to operate position established	High	Medium	Recommendation to instruct a patent attorney before tooling spend, with comparable products reviewed in Phase 1 as commercial context

06 — Exclusions

Exclusions

The Phase 1 fee covers all six deliverables in Section 4. The activities below sit outside this engagement. Where they are needed, they are scoped and costed within the Development Roadmap, or coordinated through approved external partners. Sequencing them this way keeps unnecessary cost out of the early stages and avoids committing to tooling and testing before the fundamental questions are answered.

Industrial design refinement or 3D CAD development work beyond the audit and redline direction.
Full DFM execution, engineering drawing release, and supplier qualification testing.
Physical samples, site trial batches, and physical testing.
Tooling and forming setup costs. Tooling is customer-owned once paid, per your specification.
Type testing and certification fees under BS EN 845-1 and the Construction Products Regulation. The pathway, the test program and its cost are established in Phase 1. The testing itself is carried out by an approved laboratory and paid directly to that laboratory.
Patent attorney fees, novelty and freedom to operate searches, and any patent or design registration filing.
Shipping of samples or trial batches between China and the United Kingdom.
Packaging artwork and graphic design.
Production unit costs for the first production run and beyond.

Note on the model once production begins: once a supplier set is confirmed and production starts, C2W and Shield Works operate as your manufacturing partner. You receive a single unit cost per tie that covers goods, quality control, supplier management, packaging, and logistics coordination. These are not billed to you as separate service fees. The Phase 1 Supplier Engineering Shortlist and Indicative Quotation exists to establish those unit costs with confidence before any production commitment is made.

07 — Payment Terms

Payment Terms

Engagement Fee

USD 5,000

payable in full on project confirmation

Stage	Fee	Payment Trigger
Phase 1, Engineering Validation	USD 5,000	Payable in full on project confirmation

Costs for each subsequent stage are set out in the Development Roadmap and approved by you before any work on that stage begins. You will not receive a bill from us that you have not already agreed.

08 — Safeguards

Safeguards and Clarifications

Provisional status.

The Phase 1 scope and fee are firm. The costed, phase-by-phase development plan is produced through the Phase 1 work and delivered in the Development Roadmap. The Engineering Kick-off Workshop is where the Shield Works R&D team aligns the work against the real technical priorities, principally the tab position matrix and the formability question, before engineering work begins.

Standards interpretation.

The embedment and material positions set out in Section 2 are drawn from the current published standards and guidance and are directional at this stage. Confirming them against the current editions, and against how building control and warranty providers apply them in practice, is part of Deliverable 3. Where our findings differ from the assumptions in the concept presentation, we will set out the difference plainly and the design consequence of it.

Certification.

Phase 1 delivers the compliance pathway, the test program and its cost. It does not deliver certification itself, and no certification outcome can be guaranteed in advance of testing. Testing is carried out by an approved laboratory and paid directly to that laboratory. As the party placing the product on the Great Britain market, the Declaration of Performance and the associated obligations sit with you, and we will make clear in the Roadmap what those obligations are so they can be planned for.

Product liability and insurance.

This is a structural building product and the liability position deserves stating clearly. Shield Works holds China-based operational insurance covering its own facility and employees. It does not hold standalone international product liability insurance, and product liability for a product sold under your brand sits with you as the brand owner. Manufacturing defects arising from workmanship or Shield Works supplied material remain our responsibility, capped at the value of the goods. Design responsibility remains with the brand owner. We would recommend you take advice on product liability insurance and on the merits of holding this product within a limited company before you place it on the market.

Scope changes.

If requirements change materially during Phase 1, for example a decision to carry more than one variant through to launch, or a change in target volumes, we will set out the effect on cost and timeline and agree the change with you before proceeding.

Quotation accuracy.

The Indicative Quotation delivered in Phase 1 is subject to the level of readiness for manufacture. Final pricing is locked against specific supplier quotes inside the Phase 1 output and refined as development progresses.

Minimum order quantity.

Wire forming is a high volume, low unit cost process, and suppliers set minimum order quantities accordingly. The realistic minimum order for a viable first production run is confirmed in Deliverable 5. It is likely to sit above the 60,000 unit figure currently indicated, and planning for that early is better than discovering it late.

Manufacturing routes.

Stainless wire forming, finishing and packaging are delivered through the Shield Works verified supply chain under Shield Works as prime contractor and single point of accountability. You deal with one commercial counterparty for the all-in supply.

Intellectual property.

You retain all intellectual property in JKE Cavity Ties, including the design, the CAD, and any derivative work produced under our engagement. Shield Works retains only its own background IP and operates within an IP-secure, ISO-certified facility. Work proceeds under the non-disclosure agreement already in place between the parties, with confidentiality agreements covering all third-party suppliers before any external engagement begins.

Timelines.

The 6 working week Phase 1 estimate assumes reasonable availability for the Engineering Kick-off Workshop and follow-up technical discussions, and receipt of the STEP files on confirmation.

09 — Why C2W & Shield Works

Why C2W and Shield Works

Shield Works combines product engineering, manufacturing engineering, and China-based execution within a single development program, integrated from the outset rather than run as separate handoffs.

In-house R&D, mechanical engineering, DFM and DFX, and quality control, led by Mark Jacobs, a mechanical engineer with over 27 years of manufacturing experience and CEO of Shield Works and the C2W Group, alongside Sourya Ghosh, Head of R&D, who has an aerospace engineering background and leads the engineering content of every Phase 1 engagement.

Full-time dedicated project manager in our China HQ coordinating all suppliers, engineering resources, and your side of the project, with full visibility on who is making what and where.

Established supply chain in stainless steel wire forming, stamping, metal fabrication and passivated finishing, which is exactly the process set this product needs.

Over 21 years delivering products from China, including regulated and performance-critical parts where declared performance and traceable material grade matter.

Directly employed inspectors across China, including in Jiangsu and Shanghai as well as our Zhuhai base, so quality control on your production is carried out by our own people rather than subcontracted to a platform.

IP-secure, ISO-certified manufacturing facility in Zhuhai for assembly, quality control, packaging, and warehousing.

Single commercial counterparty, transparent factory selection, and direct supplier relationships. No hidden middlemen, no opaque quotes, and no surprises on quality.

10 — Next Steps

Next Steps

You review this proposal and confirm acceptance of the Phase 1 scope and fee. Any questions on scope or sequence can be raised by email beforehand, and a short call with our Head of R&D can be arranged if that would help.

C2W issues the invoice for USD 5,000.

On receipt of payment, the three STEP models, the concept presentation, and the product potential report are formally shared with the Shield Works R&D team.

We schedule the Engineering Kick-off Workshop. This sets the engineering priorities: the tab position matrix, the formability question, the material grade, the lead variant decision, and the compliance pathway.

Phase 1 output, including the Development Roadmap, is delivered within approximately 6 working weeks of the Engineering Kick-off Workshop, with costs and timelines for the full development program for your approval.

This proposal is non-binding at this stage and is intended to give you clarity on cost, structure, and what Phase 1 will actually produce. If you are happy with the direction, let us know and we will issue the invoice and get the Engineering Kick-off Workshop scheduled.

We look forward to helping you take JKE Cavity Ties from concept to a proven, compliant, manufacturable product.

Warm regards,

Mark Jacobs

CEO, C2W Group / Shield Works

July 2026