A prime architect does not erase its promise to the owner by assigning part of the work to a consultant. A recent Florida federal ruling shows how that principle can reach structural design, consultant coordination, and submittal review. The practical lesson is not that architects guarantee perfect drawings. It’s that prime and consultant agreements must describe the same work, carry compatible risk terms, and support a disciplined review process. And the work only begins there. It’s crucial that all parties are vigilant about the documentation they submit throughout the project, and that they’re fulfilling all obligations they’ve contracted for; even the seemingly insignificant ones.
What the Court Decided
Orlando Health, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc. involves a dispute of a six-story, 150-bed hospital in Lake Mary, Florida. Orlando Health retained HKS under a modified AIA B101. HKS then retained BBM Structural Engineers to provide structural engineering services, as the parties had a history of successful projects together.
The court found that deficient structural drawings omitted top-mat rebar from part of a 12-inch second-floor slab and contained separate cantilever and undersized-beam defects. It rejected HKS’s effort to attribute the missing rebar to construction manager Brasfield & Gorrie. Orlando Health also did not prevail on its additional claims, including a separate slab-deflection theory and alleged independent breaches by HKS.
The court calculated $3,375,964.41 in damages, including corrective work and additional services, and directed the parties to submit a proposed judgment. HKS’s third-party claims against BBM remain pending, so this trial-court ruling does not resolve the entire dispute.
Delegation Did Not Change the Prime Contract
The modified B101 required HKS to provide architectural and engineering services, including structural engineering. HKS hired BBM to perform that discipline, but its involvement did not change what HKS had promised Orlando Health. HKS had agreed, through its own work or otherwise, to provide the engineering services. As a result, the court held HKS responsible in contract for the defective structural services to Orlando Health, and it left HKS to pursue its own claims against BBM.
The distinction of duties matters. Each licensed professional remains responsible for their own services, but the owner may still look at the prime architect when the owner-architect agreement assigns the prime a coordinated package of design services. A consultant agreement should flow down applicable scope, standard of care, coordination, documentation, liability, dispute, remedy, and insurance obligations without imposing duties unrelated to that consultant’s discipline.
Shop-Drawing Review Still Requires a Defined Workflow
The rebar shop drawings also omitted the top mat, and the design review process did not flag it.
The HKS agreement described the architect’s submittal review as limited to checking conformance with information in, and the design concept expressed by, the contract documents.
The ruling does not convert that limited review into a guarantee of fabrication details. But it does show the risk when discipline-specific review responsibilities, routing, comments, and closeout are unclear or incomplete.
What Project Teams Should Review
- Prime architects should align B101 commitments with consultant scope and coverage, then document who reviews each submittal and how exceptions are resolved. They should also ensure their consultants are properly overseeing work, when required, and making necessary site visits.
- Owners should preserve clear single-point responsibility for the services included in the prime agreement.
- Consultants should confirm that flow-down terms match their actual role and professional liability program and don’t exceed them.
- All parties should distinguish repair costs from consequential losses. In an earlier ruling, this court treated remediation costs as direct damages not barred by the agreement’s consequential-damages waiver.
The result is fact and contract-specific. Project teams should obtain legal and insurance review before modifying coordinated agreements or applying this ruling to another situation or jurisdiction.
Put Design Responsibilities in Context
The Orlando Health decision shows why project teams should carefully define consultant responsibilities, coordination procedures, and review obligations. Those duties also operate within the architect’s broader professional standard of care.
Explore common questions about the architectural standard of care and what project teams should consider when allocating design risk.
