Claim Reduction is a monthly series by the ASCE Committee on Claims Reduction and Management designed to help engineers learn from problems that others have encountered.
In this article, the term engineer refers to the Engineer of Record and everyone working on the design team.
Design and construction projects usually break the design period into four phases: predesign, design development, preparing construction documents, and construction phase support. Some clients try to save money by eliminating the fourth phase, construction phase support. The problem with this approach is that clients may find that the “savings” cost more in the long run and release the engineer of responsibility for the design.
On typical civil projects, design services account for approximately 10% of the total design and construction costs; construction phase services account for approximately 2% of that 10%. While construction costs are usually around 80% of the total design and construction budget, trying to save a portion of 2% of the budget while spending 80% for construction can actually cost clients more than the “savings.” (Even if the client chooses to use in-house staff or a third party, there is still some costs for performing these services.)
Engineers strive to develop a “complete design” before a project goes out for bid; however, in reality, design continues throughout construction. During the construction phase, contractors submit requests for information (RFIs) to seek clarification of the design intent and are usually required to provide material and equipment submittals to confirm the contractor’s selected materials and equipment meet the design requirements.
RFIs must be responded to by the engineer (or other designer) who developed that design. Otherwise, the RFI response could result in a change that affects the function of the facility.
This also applies to submittals. If the materials or equipment included in a submittal are not as intended by the engineer and are approved by someone that was not involved with the design, the materials or equipment may not function as intended. This could have an adverse effect on the functioning of the facility or result in a change to remove and bring in the materials or equipment specified.
As a result of the RFIs and other issues affecting the functioning of the project (such as exposed existing conditions that arise during construction), changes will be issued to the contractor. The engineer should be responsible for developing these changes to the design to confirm that the change conforms to the design requirements.
There will be instances in which the engineer does not need to review administrative changes, but as a valued team member they should be made aware of those changes. Administration changes are those changes wherein the client is requesting changes to the contract documents that do not affect the design or function of the facility. Examples of administrative changes could be changing the address where payment estimates should be sent, requesting that the contractor relocate its field office, or changing the paint color of a room.
If another party, either the client or a third party, takes on the responsibility of reviewing and responding to RFIs, submittals, and/or issuing design changes, it can “relieve” the engineer from design responsibility. This can also expose the client to added costs and loss of ability to recover damages from the engineer should an error occur in the review process.
The following scenarios are taken from real projects.
Scenario 1
The design firm was contracted to provide construction phase services. The engineer (or someone from his/her firm) reviewed the rebar shop drawings on a pump station. In reviewing the rebar shop drawings they didn’t notice missing rebar. When the contractor started up the pumpstation, there was a blowout that damaged the new facility. Because the cause of the blowout was found to be the engineer’s error in the shop-drawing review (the shop drawings were stamped with no exceptions taken), the client was able to recover damages from the design firm. (Responsibility for missing details in a shop-drawing review is the subject of another article. In this situation, it was determined in arbitration that the engineer had responsibility for reviewing shop drawings and identifying the missing rebar.)
Scenario 2
On a wastewater treatment plant project, the construction documents called for explosion-proof electrical cabinets. On this project, the client “saved” money by client staff reviewing submittals and issuing changes. The requirement for explosion-proof electrical cabinets was identified in the contract documents with a specific cabinet model and number.
The engineer was limited to only a few site visits and was not provided with copies of submittals. When the engineer was allowed to visit the site toward the end of construction, they discovered the installed cabinets and pointed out that the wrong cabinets were installed. In reviewing the submittal process, it was determined that the contractor notified the client of the change and in fact offered a cost savings to the client. The client accepted the change and credit without consulting the engineer. In this situation, the client had the responsibility for changing back to explosion-proof electrical cabinets. That resulted in added costs to the owner retrofitting the cabinets and delays to completing the project cost far more than the “savings” provided by the contractor.
On these and other projects where the client is looking to save money by minimizing the engineer’s involvement during the construction phase, engineers need to be vigilant in notifying the client that their actions are actually relieving the engineer of responsibility of the project design. On the Scenario 2 project, multiple letters were sent to the client notifying them that changes made by the client or others, initiated without engineer review, were not the engineer’s responsibility and could affect the functioning of the new facility.
Scenario 3
On many pipeline projects, particularly gravity lines for sewer and stormwater systems where it’s not practical to expose all underground conditions, the engineer may be called upon to review existing conditions to confirm the planned construction will meet the design requirements. On a recent project, the contractor exposed a “classified” ductbank in line with a planned gravity line. Because of the nature of the cables in the ductbank, it was not shown on any as-built documents. In this situation, the engineer was called upon to redesign the pipe alignment to meet the design requirements. By retaining the engineer during the construction phase, the redesign resulted in only a few days of delay to that operation and didn’t affect the completion of the project.
Recommended practice
Recommended risk management practices state that delegating risks to the party that can best manage those risks will go a long way toward minimizing the impacts to those risks. Changes happen on all projects. A recommended practice to minimize and mitigate impacts from misinterpretations and changes is to retain the engineer during the construction phase. In the end, anticipated savings may not be realized and in fact may cost more in the long run.
Learn more at ASCE’s Risk Management Hub.
Read more helpful insights from the committee’s Claim Reduction series on the Civil Engineering Source.
Want to learn more about risk management? Have thoughts of your own to share? Join the ASCE Community of Practice on Risk Management, where professionals just like you are sharing practical risk management knowledge across multiple disciplines.
