By Leslie Parker, Sr. Architect Risk Alliance
We heard this story from an architect recently:
The architect sent a change order to their client. The client crossed out the architect’s reason for the change. Then wrote “Architect’s Error”.
Here’s another…
A client INSISTED the architect use the client’s own change order form – one where the only option for a design team change was pre-populated as “error or omission.”
In both cases, the architect considered the risks and, very politely, objected.
What worries us are the architects we DON’T hear from. The ones who might be signing those change orders that say “error” or “omission”.
Because signing a change order that says “error” or “omission” is, in effect, admitting liability.
And such admissions – if made without your insurer’s express written consent – could result in you having no coverage under your policy.
In addition, if liability has already been admitted, your lawyer will have no way to defend you.
Those are huge risks to take on.
We get it. Most architects are, by nature, conscientious. You want to help your clients. You want to be accommodating. You don’t want to jeopardize a relationship or a project.
But being helpful should never mean putting your practice at risk.
The reality of change orders
They’re normal. They are part of construction. The architectural drawings and specifications are instruments of service created at a specific point in time – not a finished product.
We have never seen a perfect set of drawings. Ever. (If you’ve seen one, please send it to us because we don’t believe you.)
Construction is messy. Details get fleshed out on the site. Things need adjusting. This is how the process works.
We ALL know this.
Yet some clients begin projects expecting perfection. Zero changes. No surprises.
And when reality shows up? They seem to want someone else to pay.
For this reason, Pro-Demnity regularly advises architects to have their lawyers review client-authored contracts and supplementary conditions. To flag clauses that promote withholding fees or assigning damages for “errors or omissions” — without being proven or having due process.
This level of due diligence should also extend to the tools like ‘Change Orders’ used to administer the contract.
Why assign reasons to change orders at all?
When I was in practice, we would record a reason for every change order: “Client request.” “Unforeseen condition.”
It helped us understand the story of the project.
During a recent discussion with several architects, we heard reasons why many practices still do this:
- Some clients have separate funding buckets.
- It helps identify instances where change orders exceed contingency or industry norms due to things like client-initiated changes or unforeseen conditions
- It can support additional service claims.
But we also heard from practices who do not assign reasons on Change Orders at all, instead choosing to keep separate internal records.
All agreed that the tradition of assignment of reasons originated from a culture of trust and respect between owner and architect. In today’s environment, this practice may warrant renewed scrutiny.
How to mitigate risk when managing change orders?
There’s no one-size-fits-all solution, but some thoughts to consider:
- Use neutral language when assigning reasons. Review that language with your lawyer against your insurance coverage. Then stick to it. No exceptions. Never agree to use “error” or “omission.”
- Consider NOT assigning reasons on Change Orders. Instead, keep internal records, and share only when strategically appropriate. Be aware, however, that internal records can still be discoverable in a lawsuit — so neutral language still matters.
- Have the contingency conversation EARLY. Even before signing the contract. Help your client understand that changes are normal. Confirm they will carry a contingency for changes during construction, of an amount supported by third party expertise. Then DOCUMENT that conversation.
- Manage expectations about completeness. Explain to your client that expectations of a high level of completeness in the contract documents requires corresponding fees, time, rigorous quality control and due diligence. Unrealistic expectations should be addressed up front.
- Review contracts before signing. Check that your client agreements don’t include language that forces you to assign certain reasons to change orders, or accept blame without due process. If in doubt, contact your lawyer for guidance.
We’ll be publishing a follow up article about pre-populated change reasons in cloud-based construction management platforms.
But for now, just remember this…Being helpful should never involve admitting fault for things that are a normal and expected part of construction.
Always protect your practice first. Document your files — and contact Pro-Demnity when in doubt.
For more personalized architectural practice risk management advice, you may request a complimentary and confidential meeting to Speak with an Expert or Report a Claim.
Our Contributors
Leslie Parker, M.Arch, OAA, MRAIC, is an experienced architect with extensive knowledge in contract administration and project management of large teams, as well as deep expertise of built environments for healthcare, long-term care homes, and design for seniors. As Senior Architect, Risk Services at Pro-Demnity, she monitors new developments in the profession and leverages this knowledge to contribute to the research and development of Pro-Demnity’s risk education material, initiatives and programs, while offering relevant and timely one-on-one risk guidance to architects. She is a licensed Ontario architect, with a BA from St. Thomas University, Fredericton, New Brunswick, as well as a Bachelor of Environmental Design Studies and Master of Architecture from Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.