Errors and Omissions in Construction Documents

ERRORS AND OMISSIONS

The words “errors and omissions” are practically taboo in architectural circles and rarely spoken about even in private conversations between architects, engineers and their professional employees. But, the fact of the matter is errors and omissions in construction documents occur on every project. The unique nature and complexity of building projects is the common explanation for these mistakes. People make mistakes and the more complex the undertaking the more mistakes they make. However, the uniqueness and complexity of the undertaking is not the only cause of design mistakes.

A design error is an instruction (or lack of instruction) in the plans and specifications that if followed by the contractor will require replacement or correction at a cost (or result in a construction failure). The owner has already paid for the work once at bid time and now must pay for the replacement or correction. For example, in the remodeling of an auditorium the mechanical engineer showed new heating/cooling air terminal units above the lobby ceiling. The manufacturer, model number, design criteria were shown on the drawings. The contractor purchased the equipment in advance so that they would not delay the project. When it came time to install the equipment it was discovered the it would not fit above the new ceiling and the ceiling could not be lowered any further. The manufacturer had no interest in taking back the original units.

Responsibility for this error fell to the mechanical engineer. The auditorium lobby ceiling existed before the mechanical units were designed and the engineer could have measured the space above the ceiling during a survey of the building? Also, the owner provided record drawings of the building. The contractor, also, could have measured the ceiling height; but there was going to be a new ceiling at a lower height than the original and the contractor took it for granted the HVAC equipment would fit above it.

In another example, the architect specified doors between classrooms and corridors of a school remodeling project without requiring they be fire rated. The fire marshal rejected the doors and required fire rated doors be used. The first doors were already painted and machined for hardware and could not be returned for credit. In principle these are classic design errors, but variations on the facts are beyond imagination.

An omission occurs when something required to complete the building or comply with the building codes is not shown on the plans and or in the specifications. For example, a sidewalk between two buildings was required for pedestrian traffic but was not shown on the plans. The contractor is entitled to a change order for extra sidewalk. Costs for omissions are tempered by reasoning the owner has not paid for the sidewalk twice as was the case with the heating equipment. For this reason, it is referred to as a value added change order. But it is not entirely accurate to say it doesn’t cost extra, because contractors routinely overprice labor on change orders as much as 25 percent or more.

What Are the Causes of Design Mistakes?

The complexity of the design coupled with human limitation is responsible for most mistakes.

During the programming stage, the first step in the design process, the owner discusses their vision and needs for the building with the architect (if it is not a bridge or some other public works project). This stage is mostly conceptual and mathematical and managed by a few parties making for fewer mistakes. But, programming is followed by design development that involves many more parties from a wide variety of professional disciplines than the first stage.  

The challenges of design development on a large project are enormous and proves the mettle and talent of skilled and experienced architects, engineers and designers who perform this work on a daily basis. But, the task of exchanging hundreds of bits of verbal and written communications between many participants from different professional disciplines often results in mistakes caused by misinterpreted, dropped or forgotten communications.

Also, there are judgements and calculations made by the hundreds about physical spaces and the infrastructure of the building, about building codes, mechanical and electrical codes, heating loads, cooling loads, lighting requirements and finally the development of the aesthetic ambitions for the building. Each verbal and written communication, each application of professional knowledge is subject to revision as the project develops.

This is not a manufacturing process that gets improved with every new model year; but a new one-off design for each building where hundreds of specialists unique in their own knowledge come together to provide construction drawings to the builders. Not only must the professionals have a knowledge of the design requirements but they must also understand the knowledge, skills and talent of the trades that will build the project.

It is simply absurd to think that putting this complex aggregation of information into equally complex construction processes can be done without mistakes. Not just a few mistakes but many. Failures arrive in the form of engineering miscalculation, lack of attention, lack of knowledge, inexperience, and an overreliance on the trade contractor to finish the job. This fits with the unique-complexity argument.

But, unique-complexity is not the only reason for errors and omissions, professional miscalculation must be added to the equation. Poor judgement in taking on projects that are beyond the experience of the firm, lack of familiarity with the building codes, lack of adequate field surveys, inattention, missed meetings, vacations, people leaving the firm, limited surveys of existing buildings and using interns instead of more expensive experienced staff. Some of these causes obviously result from false economies.

Defensive Strategies for Reducing the Cost of Errors and Omissions?

If architects and their insurance companies truly believe that any dialogue between the architect’s representative and the contractors performing the work will invariably lead to the perception that the design is not fixed and final but is open to interpretation, a risk they are unwilling to take, they will simply have to forgo perhaps the most powerful tool for minimizing the cost of errors and omissions – the observations of the last party in a position to call out an error before it gets built into the project – the contractor.

Let me start by mentioning what doesn’t work very well. Having a second architect, engineer or designer review a subordinate's work is mostly a waste of time and money. The supervisory person has not been present at all the meetings where most things are decided and communicated and just does not have enough time to do all the calculations a second time or go over the whole process again.

There are a few good defensive strategies for minimizing the costs of errors and missions. Of course, carefully examining a contractor’s quote for corrective work is one among them. But, the best method is encouraging contractor’s superintendents to ask about things they suspect are in error instead of building them into the project without question. Trade contractors have built many similar projects some with this architect and some with others and are quite knowledgeable about what is questionable.

AIA general conditions require contractors who become aware of errors or omissions to bring them to the attention of the architect-engineer and contractors consider it common courtesy to ask about suspected particulars; but, if the time frame for getting answers to their questions begins to bog down their schedule or they have to fight for compensation when it is due, they won’t ask in the future.

The first opportunity to establish a working policy with contractors encouraging them to ask about suspected errors or omissions is during the prebid and post bid interviews. Contractors knowledge of errors and omissions at this stage is limited, because the estimator and project manager who attend these meetings have only studied the drawings to know how to bid the job not how to build it. But, even at this stage the contractor usually comes to the precontract meetings with several questions. It is important to respond quickly and set a pace for a constructive dialogue in the future.

It is in the morning when the jobsite foreman is studying the drawings and assigning work for the day that they come across suspected mistakes in the plans. Unfortunately, there is more often than not a crisis mentality at this moment, this is when they are ready to start work for the day. But, this is the last real opportunity for getting out ahead of errors and omissions. The architect should accommodate the foreman with a quick, written answer.

The architect who is unwilling to pursue this method for minimizing costs for errors and omissions is not doing their duty as the owner’s representative.

Preparing the Client for Errors and Omissions

The best way to prepare the client for errors and omissions is to discuss the issue during contract negotiations. It should be approached in a businesslike manner as just another term of the agreement in the spirit of “How can we agree on a formula that serves the interest of both of us.” The owner has made a decision, usually after careful deliberation, to hire the architect-engineer and is unlikely they will back out at the mere mention of errors and omissions.

There is a huge benefit to having this discussion when the decision makers are still at the table rather than later when lower level bureaucrats are asked to sign the first change order. Presidents, CEOs and board members are used to making difficult decisions while lower level bureaucrats do not like making decisions. The CEO will look at the issue with the confidence they will not lose their job for making policy, lower level bureaucrats do not make policy. If policy making is left to them a confrontation will follow.

At what point can the owner ask the A/E to pay for mistakes?

There is simply no hard and fast answer to this question. A mistake of a few thousand dollars on a small budget project can wreck the owner’s finances whereas on a fifty-million-dollar project it is hardly a hiccup. For this reason, using percentages as a threshold has limited usefulness without being specific about the scale of the project.

I worked for an architect who made a point of discussing errors and omissions during contract negotiations. To one client, who wanted a rule to control when the A/E would be asked to share in the costs of errors and omissions, the professional gave them a clause in the agreement: the owner would pay the costs of errors and omissions up to 2-percent of the budget (50-million-dollar project) and errors and omissions combined were not to exceed 3-percent. The architect would pay the costs of errors and omissions between 3-percent and 5 percent. The architect was comfortable with these numbers because they were familiar with the type and scale of the project and had completed several similar designs in the past. The project was a total success, partly because the architect and client had an understanding going into the project that there would be a reasonable cost sharing associated with the errors and omissions and it never became an issue.