Trend Alert: The Removal of the Design Professional from the Construction Administration Phase

In recent years, design professionals have been increasingly excluded from the construction administration phase of projects in the design and construction industry. To reduce costs, owners and developers may choose to minimize or eliminate the involvement of architects and engineers during this phase. While this approach may lower expenses initially, it often introduces long-term legal and operational risks.

Construction administration is not a formality. It is a critical phase where design professionals serve as stewards of quality and compliance. Their responsibilities include reviewing submittals, responding to requests for information (RFIs), conducting site visits, and verifying that construction aligns with the design intent and contract documents. When design professionals are removed from this phase, the project loses a vital layer of oversight. This absence can lead to unverified substitutions of materials or methods, increased construction defects due to misinterpretation of design documents, and delayed issue resolution when contractors lack the design insight needed to address field conditions.

Owners often limit or remove design professionals from construction administration for several reasons. Cost savings are a primary motivator, as eliminating these services reduces professional fees. Some owners rely on contractors, assuming they can manage the work without design oversight. Others believe that involving fewer parties will improve efficiency and reduce delays. While these motivations are understandable, they can result in unintended consequences that negatively affect project outcomes.

The impact on project quality and risk is significant. Without the architect or engineer monitoring progress, there is no assurance that the contractor’s work matches the design documents. Deviations often go unnoticed until they become costly problems. Excluding design professionals does not remove liability. If defects arise, claimants may still pursue the architect or engineer, even if they had no role during construction, by alleging flaws in the design. Without construction administration involvement, design professionals lose the ability to document or defend against such claims. Owners who remove these services often assume more responsibility themselves. Without a professional reviewing shop drawings, RFIs or site conditions, owners may face disputes over quality, delays or change orders. In the absence of the design professional, contractors may make field decisions that affect design integrity, compliance and safety, which can lead to costly rework or performance issues.

Recent claim activity highlights the risks. Projects that excluded design professionals from construction administration show a higher incidence of claims related to construction defects, miscommunication and unmet expectations. These claims often involve allegations of design errors that could have been clarified or corrected during construction, disputes over scope and responsibility due to lack of documentation or oversight, and costly litigation stemming from unchecked deviations.

Strategies to Mitigate Risk

1. Present Construction Administration as Essential to Protecting the Client’s Investment Clients may view construction administration as optional. Position it as a key component of risk management. Consider using language such as:
• "Construction is the phase where errors become expensive. Without oversight, even minor mistakes can lead to costly change orders."
• "Our role is to advocate for you throughout construction, ensuring the contractor delivers according to your expectations and the contract."
• "Excluding construction administration means relying solely on the contractor’s interpretation of the documents."
2. Integrate Construction Administration into the Initial Proposal Avoid listing construction administration as an add-on. Include it in your standard scope of work as Phase 5: Construction Administration. Outline specific deliverables such as site visits, RFI responses, submittal reviews and progress meetings. Only distinguish extended services, such as full-time on-site representation, as optional if needed.
3. Reference Industry Standards for Support Cite established contract documents to reinforce your position. For example, AIA Document B101 identifies construction administration as a basic service. Emphasize that this is standard industry practice and that deviations increase risk. You might say: "Eliminating construction administration would require a departure from recognized best practices and increase exposure to risk."
4. Connect Construction Administration to Liability and Risk Design professionals are often held accountable for misinterpretation of design intent, even if they were not involved during construction. Key messages to communicate include:
• "If we are not engaged during construction, we cannot ensure the design is executed as intended."
• "Omitting construction administration increases legal vulnerability for all parties."
• "Our timely involvement allows for early detection of issues before they escalate into significant claims."
5. Offer Scaled Options If budget is a concern, present tiered service levels:

This approach allows clients to choose the level of oversight they are comfortable with, rather than eliminating it entirely.

Final Thought

Removing design professionals from the construction administration phase may offer short-term savings, but it often leads to long-term exposure. As construction grows more complex, with tighter schedules, evolving technologies and increased legal scrutiny, the presence of a design professional during construction is not a luxury. It is a necessity.