What You Don’t Know About Construction Administration Could Cost You

The drawings may be complete. The design team’s role in protecting the design intent may not be.

Originally published December 2024. Updated September 2026 to reflect current owner-side construction administration and project practices.

The construction documents are complete.

The contractor has been selected.

Construction is beginning.

An owner might reasonably ask:

“Why am I still paying the architect and engineers?”

Because issuing the drawings is not the end of the design process.

Once construction begins, questions arise. Products are submitted. Field conditions are uncovered. Contractors request clarification. Substitutions are proposed. Details need interpretation.

Someone needs to evaluate those issues against the design.

That is where Construction Administration—often called CA—becomes important.

What Is Construction Administration?

Construction Administration generally refers to services performed by the architect, engineers and other design consultants during construction.

The exact scope depends on the consultants’ agreements and the project’s delivery method, but CA services may include:

• reviewing submittals and shop drawings;
• responding to Requests for Information (RFIs);
• reviewing proposed substitutions;
• making periodic site observations;
• interpreting the construction documents;
• reviewing contractor payment applications;
• evaluating proposed changes;
• participating in punch-list and closeout activities; and
• addressing design issues discovered during construction.

The important point for the owner is that these services are not simply an extension of drafting.

They provide continuity between what was designed and what is being built.

A Completed Drawing Set Will Still Generate Questions

Even a well-coordinated construction document set will generate questions during construction.

A condition in the field may differ from what was anticipated.

A specified product may no longer be available.

Two details may appear to conflict.

A contractor may propose a different installation method.

An RFI may expose a coordination issue that wasn’t apparent on the drawings.

The existence of a question does not necessarily mean someone made a mistake.

Construction is where the documents meet actual field conditions.

The issue is how those questions are evaluated and resolved.

RFIs Are Not Just Paperwork

An RFI can look administrative.

It can also contain a project decision.

Suppose the contractor asks whether a specified condition can be handled differently.

The response may affect cost, schedule, performance, appearance, maintainability or another discipline’s work.

The owner does not need to personally answer every RFI.

But the project needs a process for recognizing when an apparently technical question has consequences that require an owner decision.

A fast answer is useful.

A fast answer to the wrong question is not.

Submittal Review Matters

Shop drawings, product data and samples provide another checkpoint between design and installation.

The contractor submits information about what it intends to provide. The appropriate design professional reviews that information within the scope established by the contract.

That process should not be confused with redesigning the contractor’s work or relieving the contractor of its contractual responsibilities.

But it does give the project another opportunity to identify inconsistencies before materials are fabricated or installed.

The owner should understand whether required submittals are moving through the process on time and whether unresolved reviews are beginning to affect procurement or construction.

A Substitution Is Not Just a Different Product

During construction, a contractor may propose substituting one product or system for another.

Sometimes the alternative is perfectly reasonable.

But “equal” is not always a simple determination.

A substitution may affect:

• performance;
• dimensions;
• controls;
• warranties;
• energy use;
• maintenance requirements;
• compatibility with other systems;
• appearance;
• lead time; or
• lifecycle cost.

The immediate question may be:

“Can we use this instead?”

The owner’s question should be:

“What changes if we do?”

That is a much better basis for evaluating the proposal.

Site Visits Have a Purpose—and Limits

Owners sometimes assume that because an architect or engineer visits the site, that consultant is continuously inspecting every aspect of the contractor’s work.

That is generally not what periodic construction observation means.

The consultant’s contractual scope should define the nature and frequency of its site involvement.

Periodic observations can help identify whether the work observed appears generally consistent with the design documents and can surface questions requiring further attention.

They are not a substitute for the contractor’s responsibility for construction means, methods, sequencing, safety or quality control.

The distinction matters because owners need to understand who is actually responsible for what.

CA Scope Should Be Established Before Construction

One of the worst times to discover a gap in Construction Administration is after a problem appears.

Before construction begins, I would want to understand:

Who reviews RFIs?

Who reviews submittals?

Which consultants remain involved?

How often are site observations anticipated?

Who evaluates substitutions?

Who reviews proposed design changes?

Who participates in punch-list and closeout activities?

What services are included in the consultant’s fee, and what would constitute additional services?

Those answers should not be improvised after construction is underway.

The Owner Still Needs to Govern the Process

Construction Administration does not transfer project leadership back to the architect.

The owner still needs visibility into issues affecting cost, schedule, scope and business requirements.

A technical response can have a commercial consequence.

A substitution can create an operational consequence.

An RFI can expose an owner decision that was never actually made.

A late design change can solve one problem while creating additional design work and fees.

The owner’s representative or project leadership should understand which issues can remain within the normal design-and-construction workflow and which need to be elevated for an owner decision.

That is governance, not design.

Don’t Measure CA by the Number of RFIs

A project with many RFIs is not automatically poorly designed.

A project with very few RFIs is not automatically well designed.

The more useful questions are:

What kinds of issues are being raised?

Are the same problems recurring?

Are responses timely enough to support construction?

Are RFIs generating cost or schedule exposure?

Are owner decisions being identified before someone answers on the owner’s behalf?

Patterns matter more than the raw count.

The Drawings Are Finished. The Decisions Aren’t.

Construction Administration matters because construction continually tests the assumptions, coordination and decisions embedded in the design documents.

The objective is not to keep consultants involved simply because construction is occurring.

It is to have the right expertise available when the project needs interpretation, review or a design response.

Owners should understand that scope before construction begins.

Because when a question appears in the field, the important issue is not merely who can answer it.

It is whether the right person is answering it—with an understanding of what the answer changes.

Leadership takeaway: Define Construction Administration responsibilities before construction starts. The design may be documented, but RFIs, submittals, substitutions and field conditions will continue to create decisions that need the right technical review and owner oversight.