3.3.3 General Responsibilities of the Architect

As the owner’s agent, the architect is responsible for the technical design within the context of the owner’s responsibility (refer to point #9 of the preceding section). The responsibilities outlined in this section can, therefore, be accurately thought of as an extension of the owner’s responsibilities when considered in the contractual sense.
The details of many of the architect’s responsibilities, such as review and approval of shop drawings, may be expressed clearly in the contract. In the absence of such clear definition, however, the items noted here will generally apply.
By engaging an independent design professional, the owner makes an attempt to secure the best possible design given the respective parameters of the particular project. At the same time, an attempt may also be made to shift complete responsibility for design onto the architect. This is normal and expected in conventional owner-architect relationships. In order to preserve these intentions, the owner then clearly and completely conveys all project objectives and necessities to the architect for consideration in the complete design. Participation in the actual design work should then be avoided by the owner as much as possible, if the owner wishes to be sure that the design liability remains solely with the design professionals, at least to the greatest extent allowed by current laws.
As far as the contractor is concerned, all of these considerations remain strictly between the owner and designer. The contractor needs only to consider them both as a single entity and to think of itself as dealing simply with the “owner.”
Given these considerations, and in the absence of specific and enforceable language to the contrary, the architect is generally responsible to the owner for:

1. Production and coordination of the plans and specifications.
2. Technical accuracy of all documents prepared by the design professional.
3. Compliance with all applicable codes.
4. Interpretation of the contract documents.
5. Submittal review and approval.
6. Prompt, timely response.
7. Evaluation of the work.
8. Diligence, skill, and good judgment.

• Production and Coordination of the Plans and Specifications*. It is the architect’s first responsibility to indicate clearly and completely all items of work in sufficient detail on the plans and/or in the specifications in order to accurately describe the complete project with sufficient particularity. All this has to be accomplished comprehensively, in a coordinated manner, and without overlap.
  Too often, however, attempts may be made in the contract to impose upon the contractor at least some degree of the design professional’s responsibility for the completeness and/or correctness of the plans and specifications. Such efforts may include incorporation of “exculpatory” clauses that are designed to shift the risk—or the burden—of one-party (architect) onto another party (the contractor). An example is language such as:

“The plans and specifications are complementary. The contractor is responsible to provide wall work shown on the plans, whether or not adequately described in the specifications, and all work described in the specifications, whether or not specifically indicated on the plans, as if called for by both.”
In the final analysis, however, the ultimate responsibility to adequately describe each building component does rest squarely with the designer, however uncomfortable the assumption of the liability may seem to them. That adequate description of each building component, depending upon the particular project delivery method contracted for, may include both the technical specification in the physical design itself, along with the clear identification of the individual responsibility (specifications section/division and/or particular subvendor).
In theory, in lump sum general contracting and other fundamental types of project delivery methods, the contractor may very well be entitled to assign individual subcontracts for each specification section strictly “per plans and specifications,” with complete confidence that when the procedure is completed the entire project will have been covered—once, and without overlap.
All necessary pieces for the complete project should be accounted for through that process. The responsibility for each may thereby be correctly specified and assigned without misunderstandings or disputes among the various subcontracted bid packages.

• Technical Accuracy of All Documents Prepared by the Design Professional*. It is the responsibility of the architect to be sure that the design is complete and correct, and that this accuracy is preserved throughout the production of the plans and specifications. The contract documents must be technically accurate in every respect. If, for example, a 5-hp motor is specified for a particular piece of equipment, the designer warrants that a 5-hp motor is available for the designed application. In addition, if that particular 5-hp motor requires 220 V of three-phase power, it is again the designer’s responsibility to be sure that the provision is included in the contract, along with the properly assigned responsibility for the final equipment connections. As an additional example, if a specified roof insulation R-factor is necessary and the thickness of the insulation is clearly indicated in the plans, there is a very good probability that the contractor should not be held responsible for any increases in roof blocking that may become necessary due to increases in the roof insulation thickness that may occur because the indicated insulation thickness did not measure up to the specified thermal performance. If the architect wants a blue finish on certain equipment, blue should be normally available. If a particular boiler or other equipment is specified, that equipment should fit between the walls of the boiler and equipment rooms.
  It is not normally the contractor’s responsibility to confirm these design coordination issues before the specified boiler, the 5-hp motor, or the roof insulation are placed on order. It is important to understand these distinctions clearly in order to defend against the chronic abuse that often surrounds the word “coordination.”

• Compliance with All Applicable Codes*. The architect is responsible to be sure that the specific design as it is assembled and integrated into the project complies with all fire, safety, and all other applicable building codes in every respect. If the door between two spaces needs to bear a fire rating, for example, it is up to the architect to indicate in the contract the precise rating that the code actually dictates. In this example, it is not enough to leave the contractor with oversimplified instruction to “provide all doors in accordance with the fire code.” Similarly, unless specific engineering activities are incorporated into the respective subcontract, such as may be the case in the Fire Protection Systems specification section, it is again the designer who must specify pipe sizes, etc., as those technical requirements relate to appropriate code restrictions. From that point, the designer is completely within his or her rights to require installation and workmanship in accordance with applicable codes and standards. Lacking any clear specific design requirement in the particular contract, however, the designer should not require the determination by the contractor of any component of the design itself.

• Interpretation of the Contract Documents*. Depending upon the exact contractual relationships, the duties of the architect to interpret the documents for both clarifications and dispute resolution vary widely. The first determination of contractual interpretation creates an early friction point. This is often the case because an initial response to many types of questions raised by contractors due to apparently incomplete designs is often related to the design professional’s “intent” in the preparation of the design. The reality, however, is simply that it is not the “intent” that had been priced by the contractor in the original bid, but the specific indication in the contract language.
  In any event, the different possible relationships between owner and the architect may leave a range from no authority to absolute authority vested in the architect for interpretation and “final” decision on all matters relating to design and construction. Most often, however, the architect’s role is to review conflicts, proposed changes, and the like, and to submit specific recommendations to the owner for the owner’s ultimate decision and action.
  The AIA A201 Document—General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, prior to the updated 2007 edition, stipulated that “The Architect shall be the interpreter of the requirements of the Contract Documents and the judge of the performance thereunder by both the owner and the Contractor.” As the new wave of collaborative construction contracts were issued by the AIA and other organizations in 2007 and 2009, this atmosphere of working together was incorporated into Article 4 of AIA A201 (2007 edition), which states:

Interpretations and decisions of the Architect will be consistent with the intent of, and reasonably inferable from, the Contract Documents and will be in writing or in the form of drawings. When making such interpretations and decisions, the Architect will endeavor to secure faithful performance by both Owner and Contractor, will not show partiality to either and will not be liable for results of interpretation or decisions rendered in good faith.
In every case, know what the contract exactly says with respect to ultimate authority for interpretation of the contract. Know what your rights are and what your position is, and do not allow authority to be assumed by those who do not rightfully possess it.

• Submittal Review and Approval*. Review and approval of shop drawings and other submittals for the various reasons specified in your contract are ongoing activities that are most likely to be the most time-consuming of all the architect’s activities, particularly during the first third of the construction phase of the project. It is for this reason, combined with the fact that there exists such great potential for abuse, that this subject justifies special attention.
  Assuming proper and timely submissions by the contractor, the architect is normally responsible to receive and act upon each approval submission in a manner that should be precisely described within the body of the contract itself. Lacking that precise description, architectural action should be conducted within the parameters customary in the trade.
  Before continuing, it is important to note that much too often contractors—and very often their subcontractors—fail to comply with specific submittal requirements that may in fact be very clearly detailed in the contract. Subcontractors fail to provide complete, clear, and coordinated information, and inexperienced or otherwise diverted members of the general contractor’s staff can “rubber-stamp” submittals and ship them off for review by the design professionals without having properly performed their own review and coordination. These types of inappropriate actions taken (or avoided) by contractors on submittals can justifiably upset the design professional, cause unnecessary delays in the submittal/approval process, and even give the other contracting parties the idea that the contractor is not fulfilling its own duties and obligations. To the extent that this may be true, the design professional may be justified in its criticisms of the contractor, and in its belief that it may be entitled to compensation for the extra time needed to process the inappropriate submittals. As contractors, then, it is important as a very practical matter that all subvendors are compelled to comply with submittal requirements in every respect—right down to the number of copies specified—and the work of each separate bid package should be thoroughly coordinated with all others and with the contract itself. If all of these things are accomplished consistently, the contractor will have every right to expect the design professionals to fulfill their own obligations completely and on time.
  Considering the above, the responsibilities of the design professionals with respect to review and approving submittals generally include the following:

• Conformance to Requirements.* This principle requires a precise, detailed review by the design professional of every significant component of the submittal in order to confirm that the respective item proposed by the contractor (or its subvendor) meets all design and performance criteria as originally specified in the contract. This process is implemented in order to confirm that the product meets the stated requirements and that the product is not simply submitted as someone would now wish it to be. “Standard colors” does not mean “special colors,” and “_” insulated glass does not mean “1” insulated glass.” Obvious efforts to embellish the contract should be easy to spot (because the contractor has performed its own coordination activities). It is important for contractors to exercise the discipline necessary and to check all review comments that may have been made by each design professional involved in the process in order to determine if it has any potential to impact cost or time of performance.

• Provide Missing Design Information*. In many instances, complete preparation of the submittal by the contractor or its subvendor may not be possible because design information is lacking. Dimensions sufficient to make precise location calculations may not, for example, be available. The precision of detailed, large-scale shop drawings may expose conflicts that may require significant redesign, or that may require nothing more than the designer’s decision as to which possible alternative may be preferred.
  While it may be true that the contractor is normally held “responsible for dimensions,” this is normally not so when insufficient information was originally included in the contract. If original dimension information is lacking, the architect may become “responsible for dimensions.”

• Prompt, Timely Response*. No matter how narrow or broad the scope of responsibilities of the design professionals is as designated in the contract, the architect (and his or her subconsultants) are obligated to perform their work in time frames that are compatible with needs of the project schedule. The American Institute of Architects AIA Document A 201, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, provides that the architect has an express obligation to take all actions “with reasonable promptness so as not to cause a delay in the work.” Even if “reasonable promptness” is not specifically defined in terms of the number of days considered to be acceptable, the durations of the review/approval activities by the architect and its subconsultants may be established by customary trade practice, by confirmation or clarification at early job meetings, or by calling attention to specific requirements in the appropriate correspondence as individual situations may dictate.
  Common activities that the architect will normally be required to perform at such “reasonably prompt” rates include:

• Review and approval of shop drawings and other submittals.
• Review and recommend or approve Change Orders.
• Prepared Change Order designs.
• Approve Applications for Payments.
• Issue documentation (meeting minutes, transmittals, etc.).
• Conduct site inspections and investigations.
• Perform, monitor, and process tests and other performance evaluations.
• Prepare clarifications.
• Respond to all ongoing operating questions.

The architect is responsible to properly and completely respond to both usual and unusual situations within either the stated or implied time constraints. If such time constraints are consistently being stretched by the design professional, that person or organization may risk bearing the responsibility for delays and other consequential damages that may result.

• Evaluation of the Work*. The architect has a responsibility to satisfy himself or herself that the work is being performed in accordance with the design, as well as with applicable workmanship standards. The architect may not necessarily be responsible to be intimately familiar with every nut and bolt of construction as the work is progressing. Fundamentally, it is a responsibility of the respective subcontractors or trade contractors to install their portions of the work correctly in the first place—the first time. Ignoring the site until a problem finally comes up, however, is an unacceptable extreme that should not be tolerated.
  The activities that make up this ongoing evaluation of the work as determined specifically in most contracts can include the following:

• Inspection*. The architect is normally responsible for making regular visits to the jobsite in order to familiarize himself or herself generally with the progress and the quality of the work as it is being performed. It is not enough to simply review the progress photographs and try to get a picture of the job progress through the correspondence. The architect must be on the site in order to confirm that the work is progressing along the lines expected, and the architect must do so as the work is progressing (not long after). It will probably not be considered reasonable, for example, for the architect to wait until all the brick is up before it is determined that the color of the mortar is not close enough to the sample in order to be considered acceptable.
  Finally, the architect should be available on a frequent, periodic basis, and at any other time required in order to provide answers to questions and to resolve minor conflicts as quickly as possible, without having to cause the contractor to hunt unreasonably and for a long period of time in order to secure simple answers.

• Testing*. This function or responsibility may actually be split between the architect and owner, or be incorporated within the contract in some other manner. Most often, construction contracts provide that inspections and testing of the work as it is being performed should be an activity to be performed and paid for by some owner’s agent as opposed to the contractor in order to avoid conflict of interest. Regardless of who performs the testing and inspection responsibilities, the results of such efforts are normally subject to review and approval by the architect. In many cases, the architect should therefore conduct those activities to the extent of its responsibility completely and on time.

• Evaluation*. The architect is responsible to either determine entirely or to confirm the owner’s evaluation of the “fitness” of the work, along with the associated dollar value. Specific activities included in the process may be:

• Determine/confirm/verify the amount of work put in place by the contractor, along with corresponding payment value.
• Confirm acceptable material quality and workmanship standards.
• Reject work that does not conform to the contract.
• Determine the dates of substantial completion and final completion.
• Issue stop-work orders in cases in which defective and nonconforming work is being allowed by the contractor to proceed.

• Diligence, Skill, and Good Judgment*. It is unusual to find many “express” warranties of architects (and their subconsultants) in most construction agreements. These design professionals do, however, implicitly warrant that they have exercised diligence, competence, skill, and good judgment throughout the design process and contract preparation. Moreover, they are considered to have performed all of their activities in accordance with the professional standards of the community in which the work is to be constructed. With the exception of the most obvious errors (patent errors), the contractor has the right to assume that the information provided in the contract documents is complete and sufficient in order to allow an accurate estimate, and to allow the contractor to construct the work as designed. More subtle differences that become apparent as the work progresses are then the responsibility of the party that causes or contributes to the deficiency.