ENCON Group Inc.
Telephone 613-786-2000
Facsimile 613-786-2001
Toll Free 800-267-6684
www.encon.ca
Professional Liability
Perspective
Number 8
June 1993
Architects and Engineers
Professional Liability Insurance
Responsibility for Shop Drawings
Program endorsed by
What is it about shop drawings that can leave design
professionals with feelings of such profound
discomfort? One issue seems to surface time and
again: How much responsibility for the information
contained in the drawings rests with the architects
and engineers who review them; and how much rests
with the contractors, subcontractors and fabricators
who prepare them? There may be no satisfactory
answer. Communication over shop drawings is
a point of interaction between design professionals
and contractors where responsibilities may easily
be confused.
Uncertain Territory
An example: A boiler explodes during start-up testing
on a project. The explosion kills two workers. The
cause? The boiler was installed without a pressure
relief valve. The valve was not shown on a contractor
submittal requesting “or equal” approval, and you
approved the substitution.
Now imagine the following courtroom scene:
Lawyer:
This publication has been prepared
for general information use. It should
not be relied upon as legal advice
or legal opinion with respect to any
specific factual circumstances.
“Is it true that your contract with the owner
required that you review shop drawings,
product data, samples and other contractor
submissions for conformance with the
information given and the design concepts
expressed in the Contract Documents?”
Lawyer:
“And did you review the submission for the
boiler in question for conformance with
the information so given and the design
concept so expressed?”
Engineer: “Yes, I did.”
Lawyer:
“Then, please tell the court, was it consistent
with the information given in the Contract
Documents that this boiler be installed
without a pressure relief valve? Was it the
intent of your design that it explode and kill
two innocent people?”
Small wonder the question of responsibility for the
contractor submissions produces such profound
discomfort. That the engineer was eventually
exonerated on appeal in this particular case offers
little relief.
Unsettling scenarios such as this have led a
number of lawyers serving design professionals to the
conclusion that the very fact that they review
contractor submissions at all creates a responsibility
for every scrap of information they contain. Others
continue to support the notion that the limited
responsibilities so carefully articulated in the standard
documents afford an effective shield in most cases.
This difference of opinion notwithstanding, more and
more evidence seems to point to the conclusion that
the only safe rule of thumb is, “If you pick up the shop
drawings, the responsibility is yours.”
Engineer: “Yes, it is.”
© 2005 Professional Practice Associates
PLP-8-E June 1993
Unfamiliar Boundaries
What do you do in light of all this? Consider the
following suggestions:
Refine your commitment
The standard documents are a place to start, but if
what you truly intend to do is review architectural
details for aesthetics and engineering submissions for
their technical content, take the time and the trouble
to make this distinction in your agreement.
Pinpoint your requirements
Specify and review only those submissions you must,
to protect the integrity of your design. This does not
include plumbing or lighting fixtures, and the fact that
it does not makes some architects and engineers
uneasy. Shop drawings and other submissions have
long been used 1) to verify the contractor’s compliance
with the plans and specifications, and 2) as a final
check on the design. The former should not be
necessary—it only confuses responsibilities. The latter
is misplaced timing. There are more appropriate
points in the process for design review and plan
checking. “Not Required for Review” is the only
reasonable response to submissions which represent
little more than an invitation to share a responsibility
which would not otherwise (and should not) be yours.
Insist on review by the contractor
The General Conditions require review and approval
by the general contractor before shop drawings and
other submissions are forwarded to you. Be prepared
to insist that this obligation be met, even if it means
you have to reject submissions which have obviously
not been reviewed. The contractor will have to be
advised of your intentions during the pre-bid and
pre-construction conferences, and you can expect
that your resolve will be challenged—but stick to your
guns. You will prevail if you persist, and you have
every reasonable right to do so.
ENCON Group Inc.
Telephone 613-786-2000
Facsimile 613-786-2001
Toll Free
800-267-6684
www.encon.ca
Control the flow of submissions
You need time for adequate review, and you cannot
afford to be stampeded by the contractor into turning
out approvals as if you were stamping out sausages in
a sausage factory. Insist that a schedule of submissions
be prepared prior to the start of construction, and
hold the contractor to it (or to reasonable and timely
revisions necessitated by circumstances beyond the
contractor’s control). Document any deviations, and
inform the contractor in writing of any delay in your
processing caused by the failure to meet the approved
schedule.
Take your responsibility seriously
If you review contractor submissions for their
technical content (as you must in some cases), be
prepared to accept responsibility for every detail,
dimension, calculation and margin note. As the
tragedy at the Kansas City Hyatt made painfully clear;
there is no consolation in the fact that the contractor
may have a duty to identify changes to the plans and
specifications for your benefit. Structural steel,
structural connections, stairways, railings and any
other submissions you require for technical review
command meticulous attention to detail. Anything
less may well be adjudged an abdication of the
responsibility you assumed when you insisted on
reviewing the submissions in the first place.
These steps are prudent precautions. They will not
eliminate all opportunities for confusion over
responsibility, but they just may relieve some of the
profound discomfort we feel about the way we have
approached the problem in the past.