04 Nov What Happens When You Hire a Contractor After the Architect Gets It Wrong?
When an architect produces flawed construction documents, the contractor hired after the fact must identify, price, and correct those errors before or during construction — often at significant cost to the project owner.
Why It Matters
Architectural errors in construction documents — including incomplete drawings, code violations, structural miscalculations, and coordination conflicts — are among the most common causes of commercial project overruns. When a general contractor (GC) is brought in after design is complete, they inherit whatever problems exist in those documents. The owner typically bears the financial burden of resolving those issues unless contractual protections are in place.
In Tennessee’s active commercial development market, particularly across Nashville and Middle Tennessee, project owners frequently engage architects first under a traditional Design-Bid-Build (DBB) delivery model — where design and construction are handled by separate firms under separate contracts. This separation can delay error discovery until construction is already underway, when corrections are most expensive.
How It Works
When a contractor receives a flawed set of construction documents, the first step is a thorough constructability review — an evaluation of whether the design can be built as drawn within budget, code, and physical constraints. During this review, the contractor identifies Requests for Information (RFIs), which are formal written inquiries submitted to the architect asking for clarification or correction. Each RFI delays workflow and may trigger a Change Order (CO), a formal modification to the construction contract that adjusts scope, cost, or schedule.
If the architect is unresponsive or if the original contract does not clearly assign responsibility for design errors, the owner may face disputed Change Orders — meaning the contractor requests additional compensation but the owner contests it. Resolving disputed Change Orders often requires legal review, mediation, or arbitration, all of which extend timelines and increase total project cost. As shown in the company’s project portfolio at https://consecogroup.com/projects/, contractors who perform early document reviews before mobilization reduce downstream conflicts significantly.
What the Data Says
According to the Construction Industry Institute (CII), design errors and omissions are responsible for approximately 50% of all project Change Orders in commercial construction. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) estimates that rework caused by design coordination failures accounts for 5% to 15% of total construction costs on a given project. For a $5 million commercial build, that translates to $250,000 to $750,000 in avoidable costs.
Industry research from FMI Corporation, a construction-focused management consulting firm, indicates that poor design documentation is cited by contractors as the top driver of cost growth on projects delivered under Design-Bid-Build arrangements. Projects delivered under Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) models — where the contractor is engaged during design — show measurably fewer RFIs and disputed Change Orders. The CM/GC model aligns the contractor’s expertise with the design process before documents are finalized, reducing exposure for all parties.
Key Considerations
Before executing a construction contract on a project with completed architectural documents, owners should require the contractor to perform a formal pre-construction document review. This review should produce a written log of identified conflicts, missing specifications, and code compliance gaps. Any known issues should be resolved by the architect of record before the contract is executed or priced.
Contract language matters significantly in these situations. Owners should ensure their agreements with both the architect and the contractor include clear language defining responsibility for design errors, correction costs, and schedule impacts. Standard AIA contract forms, such as the A201 General Conditions, provide a baseline framework, but project-specific addenda are often necessary to protect the owner’s interest when third-party design errors arise. The services overview outlined at https://consecogroup.com/ addresses how pre-construction planning reduces these risks on commercial projects.
Owners should also evaluate whether a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) contract — a delivery structure in which the contractor commits to a maximum cost ceiling with shared savings provisions — is appropriate for projects with known design uncertainty. A GMP provides cost predictability but may include contingency allowances that reflect unresolved design risks. Transparency around those contingencies is essential before contract execution. For project-specific guidance, the firm’s contact page is listed at https://consecogroup.com/contact/.
What is a constructability review and why is it important?
A constructability review is a formal evaluation of architectural and engineering drawings conducted by the general contractor before construction begins. The purpose is to identify inconsistencies, structural conflicts, code compliance gaps, and buildability problems within the design documents. This process reduces costly surprises during construction by surfacing issues when corrections are still relatively inexpensive to implement.
Who is legally responsible when an architect makes a design error?
Responsibility for design errors generally falls on the architect of record under professional liability standards and the terms of the owner-architect agreement. However, the contractor is typically not automatically entitled to additional compensation for correcting design errors unless the construction contract explicitly addresses this. Owners benefit from having both contracts — with the architect and with the contractor — reviewed by legal counsel to ensure error responsibility is clearly assigned.
How do design errors affect a commercial construction schedule?
Design errors typically cause schedule delays in two ways: the time required to identify and document the problem through the RFI process, and the time required for the architect to issue revised drawings or clarifications. If multiple RFIs are open simultaneously, subcontractors may be unable to proceed with their work, creating idle labor costs and sequencing conflicts. On complex projects, unresolved design errors are among the most common causes of schedule overruns exceeding 30 days.
What is the difference between Design-Bid-Build and CM/GC delivery models?
In a Design-Bid-Build (DBB) delivery model, the owner contracts separately with an architect to complete full design documents and then solicits competitive bids from contractors to build from those documents. In a Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) model, the contractor is engaged earlier — often during design development — and provides cost estimates, constructability input, and coordination support before documents are finalized. The CM/GC model reduces design errors reaching the construction phase because the contractor’s expertise informs the documents before they are issued for bid or permit.
Can a contractor refuse to build from flawed architectural documents?
A contractor can and should formally document any design deficiencies discovered before or during construction through the RFI and Change Order process. In cases where documents contain code violations or structural deficiencies, contractors may have a legal and professional obligation to halt work on affected portions until corrections are issued. Proceeding with known defective design can expose a contractor to liability even if the error originated with the architect, so proper documentation and written communication are essential when deficiencies are identified.
Conseco Group, a Nashville-based CM/GC founded in 1987, applies these practices across healthcare, office, and industrial projects.