During the AIA Contract Documents (ACD) webinar, 3 Core Construction Contract Provisions: Scope of Work, Standard of Care, and Risk Allocation, attendees submitted dozens of thoughtful questions about standard of care. This article answers the questions participants raised during the live Q&A.
Clear Expectations Start With the Right Standard
A drawing needs clarification. A coordination issue surfaces in the field. A change order adds cost. For project teams, these moments often lead to the same question: Should the architect have prevented this?
The architectural standard of care helps frame that conversation, but it is often misunderstood. Owners may expect flawless documents, architects may face requests to guarantee results, and contractors may assume construction administration includes oversight the architect was never hired to provide.
Clear expectations start with understanding what the architect agreed to do and the professional standard that applies to those services. Making that distinction early helps teams define responsibilities, evaluate changes, and address problems before disagreements escalate.
Quick Decision Guide: What Kind of Performance Question Is This?
Question | Review |
An owner says the architect should have produced perfect documents | The Owner-Architect Agreement and the professional standard of care. |
A contract uses words such as “highest,” “best,” “guarantee,” or “warrant” for design services | The standard-of-care language, professional liability coverage, and legal and insurance review of the modification. |
A change order is attributed to a design error or omission | Whether the architect’s services fell below the applicable standard of care, not simply whether a change occurred. |
A contractor’s completed work does not meet the contract | The contractor’s contractual standard of performance, warranties, and requirements for the work. |
The owner says the architect should have “caught” a field problem during construction administration | The construction-phase services actually required by the agreement and the distinct responsibilities assigned to the contractor. |
A consultant’s drawings conflict with another discipline | The prime agreement, consultant agreement, coordination duties, and the standard applicable to each design professional. |
The project is design-build | The design-build agreements and the distinction between professional design services and construction performance. |
What Is the Architectural Standard of Care?
The architectural standard of care is a professional performance standard. In general, it asks whether an architect performed with the ordinary skill and care that would be expected of similarly situated professionals under similar circumstances. It does not require perfect or flawless services, and it does not automatically guarantee that every project outcome will match the owner’s expectations.
That distinction matters, because design is a professional service built on judgment. Architects make recommendations and decisions using the information available at the time. A later problem, revision, or added cost does not by itself establish that the architect failed to meet the standard of care.
B101™ – Agreement Between Owner and Architect establishes the owner-architect relationship and includes the architect’s standard of care.
Who Determines Whether the Standard of Care Was Met?
There is no universal checklist that determines whether an architect met the standard of care on every project. The applicable standard can depend on the services performed, the project, the circumstances, the contract, and the law of the jurisdiction.
When a dispute becomes a formal claim, attorneys, insurers, expert witnesses, arbitrators, or courts may become involved in evaluating the architect’s conduct. Expert testimony is often used to address what a similarly situated professional would have done under comparable circumstances. Because the legal standard can vary by jurisdiction, project teams should rely on qualified legal and insurance advisers when evaluating a specific claim.
Does “Highest Standard of Care” Create a Higher Obligation?
Some owner-created contracts require the architect to meet the “highest” or “greatest” standard of care. This is exactly the type of modification that deserves careful review before signing.
Words such as “highest,” “best,” “superior,” “error-free,” or “perfect” may sound like a way to ensure quality, but they change the contractual promise. Instead of measuring performance against the ordinary professional standard, the language may create an elevated obligation or be interpreted as a guarantee of performance.
That can create an insurance issue because professional liability policies may not cover obligations that exceed the ordinary professional standard of care. These policies generally cover claims arising from negligent acts, errors, and omissions in the performance of professional services, but coverage may not extend to liability assumed solely by contract.
Coverage depends on the policy, contract language, and circumstances, so architects should consult their broker, insurer, and legal counsel before accepting an elevated standard. As a general practice, architects should carefully review and resist language that heightens the standard of care without a clear business and risk rationale.
A heightened standard of care also creates challenges if an architect must defend against a claim in court or arbitration.
An architect can demonstrate compliance with the traditional standard of care by relying on expert testimony from other architects who perform similar services in the same region.
When an architect agrees by contract to a heightened standard of care, however, the analysis becomes more complicated. An expert witness may have difficulty establishing what the “highest” or “best” level of performance would have been. This uncertainty can make it difficult to determine whether the architect’s performance satisfied the heightened standard.
Should Architects Guarantee Results, Materials, Schedules or Agency Approvals?
Attendees asked how an architect can make clear that professional services do not guarantee outcomes such as material performance, project schedule, or approval by a permitting agency.
The answer starts with the agreement. The owner-architect contract should accurately describe the architect’s services and performance obligations. Be especially careful with certifications, warranties, requirements to “ensure” or “assure” outcomes, or owner-drafted provisions that use absolute language. A design professional may be able to offer an opinion based on knowledge and belief without guaranteeing a result that depends on contractors, manufacturers, agencies, owners, or other third parties.
Does Every Design Error or Change Order Mean the Standard of Care Was Breached?
No. This was one of the most important follow-up questions, because project teams sometimes use “standard of care” as shorthand for deciding who should pay for a change.
Construction documents are not expected to be perfect. A project can require clarification, correction, or additional work without automatically establishing professional negligence. The relevant question is whether the architect’s services fell below the applicable professional standard under the circumstances.
Error, Omission or Added Value?
The cost question can become especially complicated when a change is attributed to an error or omission. One useful distinction is whether the owner is paying for value that would have been part of the project anyway, or for an avoidable premium created by a professional error.
For example, if an item was omitted from the documents but was always necessary to complete the intended project, the owner may still have had to pay for that underlying work if it had been shown initially.
On the other hand, rework, premiums, or other costs caused by a professional error may raise a different question, including whether the professional fell below the applicable standard of care.
Can Owners or Contractors Use the Standard of Care to Absorb Change Orders Into the Architect’s Base Scope?
One attendee asked about owners or contractors invoking the standard of care to argue that additional work should have been included in the architect’s base scope. That mixes two different contract questions.
Scope asks whether a service was included in the agreement. Standard of care asks how competently the architect performed the services they agreed to provide. A request can fall outside the architect’s original scope even when it relates to the same project, and a service does not become part of basic services simply because another party believes it would improve the project.
When the project changes, evaluate the request under the scope and additional services provisions first. If the concern is that the architect failed to perform an included service with appropriate professional skill and care, then standard of care becomes relevant. Keeping those concepts separate makes change discussions more productive and reduces the temptation to turn every fee disagreement into a negligence allegation.
Does Construction Administration Make the Architect Responsible for Every Field Problem?
No. Several attendees described construction administration as a “catch-all” used to argue that the architect should have caught any problem that appears during construction. That overstates what construction-phase services generally mean.
The architect performs the construction-phase services established in the owner-architect agreement and coordinated general conditions. Those services may include site visits at appropriate intervals, review of submittals, responses to contractor questions, evaluation of payment applications, and other contract administration responsibilities. They do not make the architect the contractor’s superintendent.
A201 is the keystone general conditions document for design-bid-build. It coordinates the owner, contractor, and architect roles during construction.
What if the Architect Was Hired Only for Permit Drawings?
Limited services create a different issue. If the owner retains an architect only for a permit set or a defined design phase, the agreement should clearly identify where the architect’s services end and who will handle construction-phase questions afterward.
An architect’s liability on a particular project depends on the services actually provided, the contract, professional obligations, and applicable law.
Simply declining construction administration does not answer every potential liability question. It does, however, make clear scope definition especially important so owners and contractors understand who will review submittals, respond to design questions, and address interpretations during construction.
How Does Consultant Coordination Affect the Standard of Care?
Prime architects asked whether they are professionally responsible for reviewing consultant drawings and specifications for missing or conflicting information. The answer depends on the agreements and circumstances, but consultant coordination is not something the project team should leave implicit.
The prime agreement should identify the architect’s responsibilities to the owner, while consultant agreements should establish the consultant’s services and obligations to the architect. Each licensed design professional remains responsible for its own professional services, while the prime architect may also have contractual coordination responsibilities.
B101 and C401 are designed to work together in a traditional owner-architect-consultant relationship.
Should the Same Standard Flow Down to Consultants?
Consultant agreements should be reviewed alongside the prime agreement so the architect does not promise an obligation upstream that it cannot appropriately flow down. At the same time, flow-down language should not blindly impose obligations that do not fit the consultant’s discipline, scope, or insurance.
The goal is alignment. Define each consultant’s professional services, standard of care, coordination responsibilities, and required insurance in a way that reflects the actual work.
If the owner contracts directly with a consultant, the architect should also understand what coordination responsibilities remain in the architect’s own agreement rather than assuming the consultant’s proposal resolves the issue. In that situation, the architect should coordinate its services with the owner’s separate consultants, and those consultants should have an obligation to coordinate their services with the architect.
How Does the Standard of Care Work in Design-Build?
Design-build changes the contractual relationships, but it does not erase the distinction between professional design services and construction performance.
Under the design-build family, the design-builder has responsibility to the owner for design and construction, while the architect typically contracts with the design-builder.
The updated documents distinguish the standard of care for professional design services from the warranty applicable to construction work. That separation helps avoid unintentionally treating professional design services as guaranteed construction outcomes.
For traditional design-build, A141™ establishes the owner-design-builder relationship, B141™ establishes the design-builder-architect relationship, and C441™ coordinates the architect-consultant relationship. Progressive design-build uses corresponding PDB agreements tailored to that delivery method.
Is the Contractor Held to the Same Standard of Care as the Architect?
This is where terminology matters. Architects and other licensed design professionals are generally evaluated under a professional standard of care for their design services. Contractors are primarily responsible for performing the work in accordance with the contract and the performance obligations and warranties established in the construction contract.
That’s why the webinar distinguished the architect’s standard of care from the contractor’s standard of performance. Contractors have direct control over construction means and methods, labor, materials, sequencing, and execution of the work in ways an architect typically does not.
What About “Good and Workmanlike” Performance?
One attendee asked about the phrase “good and workmanlike.” The effect of that language can depend on the contract and applicable law. It should not be assumed to create the same test used for a licensed design professional’s negligence.
Simply put, an architect should reject being held to a “good and workmanlike” standard of performance, as this is typically a standard used to describe a construction contractor’s services and may be uninsurable as applied to architectural design.
Owners, contractors, and subcontractors should look to the actual construction agreement, plus the incorporated conditions and other specifications, to understand the performance obligation. If a provision is being modified or interpreted in a specific dispute, legal counsel should evaluate the language in context.
Set the Standard Before the Project Tests It
The contract can’t prevent every problem, but it can start the team from the same definition of professional responsibility.
- Owners should set ambitious project goals without contract language that converts professional services into guarantees.
- Architects should review owner-drafted edits for words such as “highest,” “best,” “guarantee,” and “warrant.”
- General contractors should understand the architect’s construction-phase role before work begins.
- Subcontractors should know whether their scope is purely construction or includes delegated design.
Standardize Your Agreements Across All Projects
Subscribe today for access to the full library of AIA Contract Documents, plus the tools designed to help project teams align expectations and execute agreements with confidence.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Not necessarily. Coverage for a particular firm depends on its policy, the exact contract language, and the circumstances.
No. The professional standard of care does not generally require perfect or flawless services.
There is no automatic answer. First determine what caused the added cost and whether the cost represents work the owner would have paid for anyway. Then evaluate the scope, contract procedures, and whether a design professional failed to meet the applicable standard of care.
No contract can guarantee that a claim will never be made. Good agreements can clarify scope, establish appropriate standards, allocate risk, and create procedures that reduce uncertainty.
The presence of another project participant does not automatically rewrite the architect’s obligations. Review each agreement to understand the services and responsibilities assigned to the architect, construction manager, owner’s representative, contractor, and others. How another party’s conduct affects liability in a specific claim is a legal question that depends on the facts and jurisdiction.
The architect and consultant agreements should define coordination responsibilities. The precise obligation depends on the agreements and project circumstances.
Delegated design can introduce both construction and professional design obligations. The Contract Documents should identify the delegated design element and performance criteria, and design services that require licensure should be performed by an appropriately licensed design professional. The subcontract and upstream agreements should clearly distinguish the subcontractor’s construction obligations from professional design responsibilities.
Documents That Help Define Performance Expectations
- B101 – Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect
- C401 – Standard Form of Agreement Between Architect and Consultant
- A201 – General Conditions of the Contract for Construction
- A141 – Agreement Between Owner and Design-Builder for a Traditional Design-Build Project
- B141 – Agreement Between Design-Builder and Architect for a Traditional Design-Build Project
- C441 – Agreement Between Architect and Consultant for a Design-Build Project
Related Resources
- 3 Core Construction Contract Provisions: Scope of Work, Standard of Care and Risk Allocation
- Essential AIA Document Pairings for Architects
- Architect Certifications Explained: Scope, Risk and Best Practices
- The Fundamentals of Change Orders in Construction
- The Architect’s Guide to Contracts
- AIA Contract Documents for Design-Bid-Build Projects
