Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

A single copy of this document is licensed to

niall@[Link]

On

03/02/2014

This is an uncontrolled copy. Ensure use of the

most current version of the document by searching
the Construction Information Service.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Good Practice Guide: Inspecting Works

Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

RIBA Good Practice Guides

Other titles in this series:
Employment, by Brian Gegg and David Sharp
Extensions of Time, by Gillian Birkby, Albert Ponte and Frances Alderson
Fee Management, by Roland Phillips
Keeping Out of Trouble, by Owen Luder, 3rd edition
Negotiating the Planning Maze, by John Collins and Philip Moren
Painless Financial Management, by Brian Pinder-Ayres
Starting a Practice, by Simon Foxell
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Nicholas Jamieson
Inspecting Works
Good Practice Guide:
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

# Nicholas Jamieson, 2009

Published by RIBA Publishing, 15 Bonhill Street, London EC2P 2EA

ISBN 978 1 85946 193 8

Stock Code 63510

This is a revised and updated edition of the book Inspecting Works which first appeared in 2003 as part of
the Construction Companion series published by RIBA Enterprises.

The right of Nicholas Jamieson to be identified as the Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance
with the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 Sections 77 and 78.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or trans-
mitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, with-
out prior permission of the copyright owner.

British Library Cataloguing in Publications Data.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Publisher: Steven Cross

Commissioning Editor: James Thompson
Project Editor: Alasdair Deas
Editor: Andy Platts
Designed by Ben Millbank
Typeset by Academic þ Technical
Printed and bound by MPG Books, Cornwall

We make every effort to ensure the accuracy and quality of information when it is published. However, we
can take no responsibility for the subsequent use of this information, nor for any errors or omissions that it
may contain.

RIBA Publishing is part of RIBA Enterprises Ltd.

[Link]
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Series foreword

The Good Practice Guide series has been specifically developed to provide
architects, and other construction professionals, with practical advice and
guidance on a range of topics that affect them, and the management of their
business, on a day-to-day basis.
All of the guides in the series are written in an easy-to-read, straightforward style.
The guides are not meant to be definitive texts on the particular subject in
question, but each guide will be the reader’s first point of reference, offering
them a quick overview of the key points and then providing them with a
‘route map’ for finding further, more detailed information. Where appropriate,
checklists, tables, diagrams and case studies will be included to aid ease of use.

Good Practice Guide: Inspecting Works

In the RIBA appointment documents, where the architect acts as a contract
administrator, the architect’s duty to inspect the progress of building works on
site is enshrined as an essential part of the process of getting buildings built. It
is fundamental to the architect’s relationship with the contractor and crucial to
ensuring that the client has confidence in the quality of the building for which
they are paying.
Through practical experience of inspecting works, architects develop an under-
standing of construction operations, which needs to be supplemented by a
close understanding of their duties and liabilities on site. They need to be sure
where they stand dealing with both the legal basis for inspection as well as
the sharp end of site operations. A firm grounding in all these matters is provided
in this admirable Good Practice Guide. The only book to cover this topic in detail, it
contains vital information for all architects, whether established or making site
visits for the first time.
Sunand Prasad
President, RIBA
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Preface

Inspecting work in progress is important. It is the only practical way of reassuring

a client that the client’s contractor is providing what is required by the building
contract, and of satisfying an architect that the architect’s design will be reflected
in a building of which the architect can be proud.
However, inspecting work is neither covered in detail by courses at architecture
schools, nor much written about in recent books or journals. Furthermore, it is
not uncommon for young architects to spend insufficient time on site during
their early careers to build up knowledge of the subject by practical experience.
This guide is intended to go some way towards redressing the situation.
It starts by explaining the legal background against which architects carry out
inspections of building work, continues with an explanation of the practical
matters an architect should consider at each stage of a project, and finishes
with lists of points to look out for under the headings of the common construc-
tion trades.
Although written with architects in mind, much of the guidance applies to other
professionals involved in administering building contracts or inspecting work,
and will be of use to clerks of works and construction site managers.
Nicholas Jamieson
November 2008
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

About the author

Nicholas Jamieson is a director at Barbara Weiss Architects. He previously worked

for Paul Hyett Architects and John Potter Architect and has inspected work in
progress on a wide range of challenging projects. Educated at the Polytechnic
of the South Bank and the Bartlett School of Architecture, he lectures regularly
on the subject of inspecting building work.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Contents

Section 1 The architect’s obligations to inspect 1

....................................................................................................................

Section 2 How have the courts defined the architect’s duties

to inspect? 19
....................................................................................................................

Section 3 Practice management matters 49

....................................................................................................................

Section 4 As work is about to start 63

....................................................................................................................

Section 5 While work is in progress 75

....................................................................................................................

Section 6 Practical matters 101

....................................................................................................................

Section 7 Inspecting the work 113

....................................................................................................................

Notes 163
....................................................................................................................

Table of cases 165

....................................................................................................................

Bibliography 167
....................................................................................................................

Index 169
....................................................................................................................
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 1
The architect’s
obligations to inspect
In this Section:
. What is the architect’s duty of inspection?
. What do building contracts say?
. What do the standard forms of appointment say?
. What are the architect’s duties if nothing is specified?

What is the architect’s duty of inspection?

Vital to successful practice is a clear understanding of the architect’s responsi-
bilities and the extent of the architect’s liabilities in connection with building
work being carried out on site.

The architect’s duty to inspect is defined by the terms, both explicit and implied,
of the architect’s appointment. There is, however, a wide range of different
services for which an architect may be appointed and a number of different
standard forms that may be used.

The RIBA alone publishes a number of appointment documents. Other docu-

ments are published by the Association of Consultant Architects, the Construc-
tion Industry Council, the British Property Federation and by individual clients
such as the National Health Service. A standard set of appointment documents
published by the Joint Contracts Tribunal was on the horizon for a number of
years. Each document says something different about inspection.

In addition, a practical understanding of the architect’s responsibilities and

liabilities in relation to work in progress cannot be gained simply by reading

1
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

2 Inspecting Works

even the most elaborate of the forms referred to above – it is necessary for the
practising architect to look also at the architect’s duties and powers under
building contracts, and at how the architect’s duties have been defined by the
courts.

What do building contracts say?

Architects often think of their primary function as being the designing of build-
ings. Indeed, under some contemporary methods of procurement the architect is
required to do no more than prepare a design and provide minimal production
information. However, historically, just as much as to design buildings, the
profession was brought into being to give its clients confidence that:
. the quality of the work being carried out by a client’s building contractor com-
plied with the standards agreed under the contract between the client and the
contractor
. the client was not being misled into paying for work that did not comply with
the agreed standards.
The need for such a role was born from the divided interests of builders and those
who employed them. The tensions between the concerns of employer and
contractor continue to be reflected in the wording of most building contracts
used today, and despite changing procurement trends many contracts still rely
for the resolution of such tensions on the functions of an independent architect.
Under such building contracts an architect is required to issue certificates for the
value of work properly executed in accordance with the contract. By implication,
before such a certificate can be issued the architect must be satisfied that the
work to which the certificate relates has actually been carried out and has
been carried out correctly. The architect does so by visiting the site and
inspecting the work as it is being built. The procedure whereby the architect
inspects the contractor’s work and then certifies payment for work correctly
done – and only for work correctly done – is fundamental to the operation of
the contract. It is also fundamental to the protection of the employer’s interests,
and is one of the principal motives for the architect’s retention by the architect’s
client during the construction stages of the project.
It follows that, if an architect agrees to act as architect under the terms of such
a contract, it becomes one of his or her duties to see that if work is not done
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 1: The architect’s obligations to inspect 3

properly the contractor does not get paid for

it: even though the architect’s appointment
‘‘the architect is not
may make no specific reference to such a employed to spot or
duty. report defects on behalf of
At the same time, it is important that archi- the contractor’’
tects, employers and contractors understand
that under the building contract the architect needs to check work only for the
purpose of certification: the architect is not employed to spot or report defects
on behalf of the contractor. (It is entirely the contractor’s own responsibility to
check work in progress as necessary to ensure that it is completed in accordance
with the contract: the contractor is not permitted to rely on the architect.)

It is also important that architects and their clients understand that the ability of
the architect to protect the employer against defective work by the contractor is
limited. Typically, the building contract will give the architect power only:
. to refuse to certify payments for defective work
. to order the removal of defective work from site
. to issue instructions requiring that defective work be remedied within a given
period
. ultimately to determine the contractor’s employment.

Contrary to some clients’ expectations, building contracts do not give the archi-
tect power to take the contractor by the scruff of the neck and force the
contractor to carry out the works in accordance with the contract.

To summarise, the main function of the

inspecting architect is to see that the client
‘‘the main function of the
gets value for money: the architect cannot inspecting architect is to
be blamed for the failures of the contractor,
but should not certify payment for work
see that the client gets
that is not done properly. value for money’’

What do the standard forms of appointment say?

The extent to which the architect, before certifying payment, should inspect work
in progress is determined by the wording of the architect’s appointment, and its
interpretation by the courts.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

4 Inspecting Works

To understand architects’ inspection duties as described by current standard

appointment documents it is helpful to look back to previous documents
published when the appointment of an architect seems to have been simpler,
and to trace subsequent developments.

The 1966 version of the RIBA Conditions of Engagement

In 1966 the RIBA published the first version of Conditions of Engagement, which
states that, irrespective of the nature of the project:
1.16 The architect shall give such periodic supervision and inspection as
may be necessary to ensure the works are being executed in general
accordance with the contract; constant supervision does not form part
of his normal duties.
1.17 Where the employment of a resident architect for constant super-
vision is agreed, he will be employed by the architect . . .
1.18 Where frequent or constant inspection is required a Clerk of Works
shall be employed. He shall be nominated or approved by the architect,
and be under the architect’s direction or control. He shall be appointed
and paid by the client or alternatively may be employed by the architect . . .
The first point to note is the distinction in clause 1.16 between ‘periodic’ and
‘constant’ supervision and inspection. The distinction goes to the root of what
is normally to be expected of the architect in relation to work in progress on site.
All forms of appointment, when setting out the inspection duties of the architect,
attempt to reconcile:
. the interests of the client
. the interests of the architect
. the requirements of the building contract.
It might be expected that clients would demand of their architects continuous
presence on site, that architects maintain a constant watch over the shoulder
of the contractor’s operatives, that architects check the length and gauge of
every screw and nail being fixed – thereby giving clients the greatest confidence
that they are getting that for which they will be paying. However, a need for the
architect to perform such an exhaustive checking service would imply that the
contractor is either totally incompetent or totally untrustworthy, neither of
which should be the case if the contractor has been correctly chosen. Therefore,
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 1: The architect’s obligations to inspect 5

payment of the fees that an architect would charge for performing such services
is not normally justified, and agreements between architects and clients have
been designed to give the client as much peace of mind as can be afforded
without wasting too much money paying the architect to double-check con-
struction work.
The primary purpose of the distinction between periodic and continuous
supervision and inspection is therefore to make sure that clients do not auto-
matically assume that the architect will be following the contractor’s every
move on site, but that the architect can be expected to inspect the works as
often as is necessary to ensure that they are ‘in general’ being carried out as
described by the contract documents. If the client requires more frequent
inspection or supervision, clauses 1.17 and 1.18 provide for the appointment of
specialist site staff.
Of further interest is the use of the terms ‘supervision’ and ‘inspection’, and
the differentiation made between them. Insofar as ‘periodic supervision and
inspection’ are required, the architect is to be responsible for both; but if
‘constant supervision’ is required a resident architect is to be employed; and if
‘constant inspection’ is required a clerk of works is to be employed.
The allocation of supervision to the resident architect, and inspection to the clerk
of works, implies that the responsibilities of supervision are the more onerous.
The responsibilities for the architect were apparently found to be too onerous:
after initial publication it was judged that the term ‘supervision’ implied duties
that, under the terms of conventional building contracts, should properly be
the responsibility of the contractor rather than of the architect – and the term
was omitted from all subsequent standard forms for the appointment of an archi-
tect. (Members of the judiciary and other legal professions have, however,
continued habitually to refer to ‘supervision’ rather ‘inspection’.)
A further point to note is that clause 1.16 leaves the architect with the duty to
‘ensure’ the works are being carried out in accordance with the contract (albeit
only ‘in general’). The wording appears to require the architect, if necessary,
somehow to force the contractor to carry out the works in accordance with
the contract documents – but does not make clear how the architect is effectively
empowered to do so. As the architect is in practice incapable of forcing the
contractor to do anything, the word ‘ensure’ was omitted from the second
edition of the document.1
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

6 Inspecting Works

The 1971 version of Conditions of Engagement

The next version of Conditions of Engagement was published in 1971. It states:
1.33 The architect shall . . . make such periodic visits to the site as he
considers necessary to inspect generally the progress and quality of
the work and to determine in general if the work is proceeding in
accordance with the contract documents.
1.34 The architect shall not be responsible for the contractor’s
operational methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, nor for
safety precautions in connection with the work, nor shall he be respon-
sible for any failure by the contractor to carry out and complete the work
in accordance with the terms of the building contract between the client
and the contractor.
It continues:
1.60 During his on-site inspections made in accordance with Clause 1.33
the architect shall endeavour to guard the client against defects and
deficiencies in the work of the contractor, but shall not be required to
make exhaustive or continuous inspections to check the quality or
quantity of the work.
1.61 Where frequent or constant inspection is required a clerk or clerks
of works should be employed. He shall be nominated or approved by the
architect and be under the architect’s direction and control. He may be
appointed and paid by the client or employed by the architect.
1.62 Where the need for frequent or constant on-site inspection by the
architect is agreed to be necessary, a resident architect shall be
appointed by the architect.
Although clauses 1.33, 1.34 and 1.60 of the 1971 version cover the same ground
as clause 1.16 of the 1966 version, the new clauses are extended with careful
rewording and qualification aimed at limiting
‘‘the new clauses are the architect’s liability in respect of failures
aimed at limiting the by the contractor.

architect’s liability in In particular, the word ‘supervision’ is com-

pletely excised, and the wording of clause
respect of failures by the 1.16 of the 1966 version requiring the archi-
contractor’’ tect to ‘ensure’ the works are being executed
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 1: The architect’s obligations to inspect 7

in accordance with the contract is replaced in clause 1.33 by the requirement for
the architect merely to ‘determine if’ the work is being carried out as it should be,
and in clause 1.60 by the requirement for the architect to do no more than
‘endeavour to guard’ against any shortcomings of the contractor. Clause 1.34
emphasises the latter point by listing specific exclusions.
Clause 1.61 is practically identical to clause 1.18 of the previous version, and
clause 1.62 corresponds to the earlier clause 1.17, but is rewritten to avoid the
use of the term ‘supervision’.
Clause 1.33, for the first time in an RIBA form
of appointment, explicitly requires the archi-
‘‘Clause 1.33 explicitly
tect to inspect progress as well as quality. requires the architect to
In general, the changes incorporated within inspect progress as well as
the 1971 version of Conditions of Engage- quality’’
ment serve to align the requirements of the
architect’s appointment more accurately with the architect’s duties under the
building contract, placing responsibility for the contractor’s performance where
it properly belongs, firmly with the contractor, while leaving responsibility
for carrying out inspections for the purpose of certifying payments with the
architect.

Architect’s Appointment
In 1982 the RIBA superseded Conditions of Engagement with Architect’s Appoint-
ment. In ‘Part 1 Architect’s Services’, which describes services normally to be
provided, the architect is required to:
1.22 Visit the site as appropriate to inspect generally the progress and
quality of the work.
In ‘Part 3 Conditions of Appointment’, the document states that when employed
in connection with the construction stages of a project:
3.10 . . . the architect will visit the site at intervals appropriate to the
stage of construction to inspect the progress and quality of the works
and to determine that they are being executed generally in accordance
with the contract documents. The architect will not be required to make
frequent or constant inspections.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

8 Inspecting Works

3.11 Where frequent or constant inspection is required a clerk or clerks

of works will be employed. They will be employed either by the client or
by the architect and will in either event be under the architect’s direction
and control.
3.12 Where frequent or constant inspection by the architect is agreed to
be necessary, a resident architect may be appointed by the architect on
part or full time basis.
The division of responsibility between architect and contractor is again made
clear by clause 3.9, which states:
The client will hold the contractor, and not the architect, responsible for
the contractor’s operational methods and for the proper execution of the
works.
Similarly, the responsibilities of the architect in relation to other consultants are
addressed by clause 3.6, which states:
the client will hold each consultant, and not the architect, responsible for
the competence, general inspection and performance of the work
entrusted to that consultant . . .
The wording of Architect’s Appointment is a more succinct equivalent to that of
the later version of Conditions of Engagement.

Standard Form of Agreement for the Appointment of an Architect

Architect’s Appointment and Conditions of Engagement were products of a
time when it would be assumed that, whatever the project, the architect
would act, simply, as architect. It was common knowledge, even among those
unfamiliar with the construction industry, that anyone playing the role of
architect could be expected to act as principal designer, to be leader of the
project team, and generally to bear overall responsibility for the project. So
much was the role taken for granted that within appointment documents it
was necessary only very briefly to define the services to be performed by the
architect. However, by 1992, when the RIBA replaced Architect’s Appointment
with Standard Form of Agreement for the Appointment of an Architect
(SFA/92), the old idea of the architect as a trusted professional advisor had
been replaced by the architect reconceived as a commercial provider of
services.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 1: The architect’s obligations to inspect 9

SFA/92 reflects the shift in values by, in ‘Schedule Two’, presenting a catalogue of
potential services from which customers can pick and choose. Under the heading
‘K–L Operations on Site and Completion’, there are, on offer to those interested in
inspection services, the following:

04 Generally inspect materials delivered to site

05 As appropriate conduct sample taking and carrying out tests of
materials, components, techniques and workmanship and examine the
conduct and results of such tests whether on or off site
06 As appropriate instruct the opening up of completed work to
determine that it is generally in accordance with the Contract Documents
07 As appropriate visit the sites of the extraction and fabrication and
assembly of materials and components to inspect such materials and
workmanship before delivery to site
08 At intervals appropriate to the stage of construction visit the Works
to inspect the progress and quality of the Works and to determine
that they are being executed generally in accordance with the Contract
Documents
09 Direct and control the activities of Site Staff . . .
14 Monitor the progress of the Works against the contractor’s
programme and report to the Client.

The services chosen are to be carried out subject to conditions, set out under the
heading ‘Conditions of Appointment’, including:

3.3.1 The Architect shall recommend the appointment of Site Staff to the
Client if in his opinion such appointments are necessary to provide the
Services specified in K–L 04-08 of Schedule Two.
3.3.2 The Architect shall confirm in writing to the Client the Site Staff to
be appointed, their disciplines, the expected duration of their employ-
ment, the party to appoint them and the party to pay, and the
method of recovery of payment to them.
3.3.3 All Site Staff shall be under the direction and control of the
Architect.

Under the heading ‘Definitions’ the document defines ‘Site Staff ’ as:

Staff appointed by either the Architect or the Client to provide inspection

of the Works on behalf of the Client.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

10 Inspecting Works

The client, according to clause 3.2.2 of the ‘Conditions’:

shall hold the contractor and not the Architect responsible for the
contractor’s management and operational methods and for the proper
carrying out and completion of the Works and for health and safety
provisions on the Site.
Clause 4.1.7 contains wording in relation to consultants identical to that of clause
3.6 of Architect’s Appointment.
In 1995, as an alternative to SFA/92, for use in small to medium-sized projects, the
RIBA published Conditions of Engagement for the Appointment of an Architect
(CE/95). The descriptions of inspection services, and the conditions under
which they are to be performed, are identical to those of SFA/92.
SFA/92 and CE/95 provide the fullest description, published so far in an RIBA
standard form of appointment, of the potential duties of an architect employed
to provide inspection services.

SFA/99
In contrast to SFA/92, its replacement – the first version of SFA/99 – says less
about site inspection duties than any of its predecessors. In fact, nowhere in
SFA/99 is there stated an express requirement for the architect to visit the site
for the purpose of carrying out inspection duties. Instead, there are a number
of obtuse references to site-related activities.
‘Schedule 2: Services’ requires the architect to:
Make visits to the Works in accordance with clause 2.8 [of the Conditions
of Engagement].
Clause 2.8 of the ‘Conditions of Engagement’ requires that:
The Architect shall in providing the Services make such visits to the
Works as the Architect at the date of the appointment reasonably
expected to be necessary.
‘Schedule 2: Services’ also requires the client and the architect to choose one or
more of the following roles in which the architect is to act:
. designer
. design leader
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 1: The architect’s obligations to inspect 11

. lead consultant during pre-construction work stages

. lead consultant during construction work stages.
The roles are defined in the ‘Services Supplement’, which is divided into two
parts. The first part is headed ‘Architect’s Design Services’ and comprises an
abbreviated version of the list of ‘Services Specific to Building Projects’ provided
in ‘Schedule Two’ of SFA/92. The second part, headed ‘Architect’s Management
Services’, defines the roles referred to above, and states that, when acting as
‘Lead Consultant’ and ‘Contract Administrator’, the authority and responsibility
of the architect includes:
administering the building contract, including:
. monitoring the progress of the Works against the Contractor’s
programme . . .
and
. co-ordinating and monitoring the work of Consultants and Site
Inspectors, if any, to the extent required for the administration of
the building contract . . .
‘Schedule 4: Other Appointments’ provides for details of a ‘Site Inspector/Clerk of
Works’ to be entered if applicable.
The ‘Conditions of Engagement’, under the heading ‘Definitions’, define ‘Site
Inspectors’ as:
Clerks of Works or others appointed by the Client to perform inspection
services in connection with the construction of the Works.
Clause 2.5 of the ‘Conditions of Engagement’ requires that:
The Architect shall advise the Client on the appointment of full- or
part-time Site Inspectors other than those named in Schedule 4, under
separate agreements where the Architect considers that the execution
of the Works warrants such appointment.
Clause 3.10 of the ‘Conditions’ requires that:
Where it is agreed Site Inspectors shall be appointed they shall be under
the direction of the Lead Consultant and the Client shall appoint and pay
them under separate agreements and shall confirm in writing to the
Architect the services to be performed, their disciplines and the expected
duration of their employment.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

12 Inspecting Works

According to clause 3.11.1 of the ‘Conditions’, the client:

in respect of any work or services in connection with the Project

performed or to be performed by any person other than the Architect,
shall:

1. hold such person responsible . . . for visits to the site in connection

with the work undertaken by him.

Clause 3.12 of the ‘Conditions’ comprises wording similar to that of clause 3.2.2 of
SFA/92.

There is no further reference to inspection services.

It is of interest to note that, in an attempt to limit the architect’s vicarious

liability for negligence on the part of ‘Site Inspectors’, the form, unlike all
previous forms, provides no alternative to their appointment by the client.
Furthermore, the form, unlike SFA/92, refers to the clerk of works but, like
SFA/92, does not acknowledge the site architect – perhaps again to limit the
architect’s potential liability.

The differences between SFA/99 and SFA/92 are significant. The drafting of
SFA/99 was aimed at producing an appointment document that would accord
with an increasing tendency for the management functions of the architect to
be separated from the design functions. Under a widening range of procurement
regimes architects were finding themselves with tasks more narrowly defined
than in the past. Assumptions could no longer be made about the inspection
services – if any – that a client would require of an architect. However,
whereas SFA/92 helpfully lists a range of specific services from which a client
can pick and choose, SFA/99 is adaptable only insofar as it is vague.

CE/99, the replacement for CE/95, contains almost identical wording to SFA/99,
except for some rearrangement, and the omission of the definitions of the
architect’s management roles (although the form still requires the role or roles
to be chosen).

The 2004 version of SFA/99

The limitations in relation to site inspection duties of the first version of SFA/99
were to some extent addressed by an updated version published in 2004.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 1: The architect’s obligations to inspect 13

On page A of ‘Schedule 2’ are listed six categories of service. Against each

category is a tick-box. The services to be performed by the architect are deter-
mined by ticking one or more of the boxes. The second to fifth categories
comprise services as ‘designer’, as ‘lead designer’, as ‘Lead Consultant’ and
as ‘Lead Consultant and Contract Administrator’ – alongside each of which
the work stages during which the services are to be performed are to be
inserted.

If the box alongside the sixth category is ticked, the architect is required to:
make visits to construction works in connection with:

1. inspection generally of the progress and quality of the work; and

2. approval of such elements of the works as may be reserved for
approval by the Architect; and
3. obtaining information necessary for the issue of any notice, certificate
or instruction required for administration of the building contract by
the Contract Administrator; and
4. at the frequency that the Architect at the date of the Agreement
reasonably expected to be necessary.

The authority and responsibility of the architect when acting as ‘Lead Consultant
and Contract Administrator’ are described on page B of ‘Schedule 2’ in almost
identical terms to those found in the ‘Services Supplement’ of the original
version.

Under the heading ‘Architect’s Design Services’ on page C of the ‘Services

Supplement’ are listed the services to be performed by the architect ‘where
appointed as designer’. Included alongside ‘K Construction to practical com-
pletion’ is:

Make visits to construction works.

Presumably, therefore, if the architect is to act as ‘designer’ for work stages

including ‘K’, he or she will have to ‘make visits to construction works’: whether
or not the sixth category on page A is ticked. Although the sixth category on
page A describes the architect’s inspection duties more explicitly than anything
found in the original version of SFA/99, if the category is not ticked, the purpose
of the ‘visits to construction works’ will arguably remain just as unclear as if the
original version had been used.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

14 Inspecting Works

Clause 2.8 of the original ‘Conditions of Engagement’ is omitted from the

updated version (as equivalent wording is included in the description of the
sixth category of services on page A of ‘Schedule 2’). The provision for inserting
details of ‘Site Inspector/Clerk of Works’ and the definition of ‘Site Inspectors’ in
the updated version are practically identical to those of the original. For no
obvious reason, clause 2.5 of the original ‘Conditions of Engagement’ is
omitted from the update. Clause 3.10 remains unaltered, and the wording of
clauses 3.11.1 and 3.12 are practically identical. Services in relation to work not
in accordance with the building contract remains an ‘additional’ service for
which, presumably, the architect is entitled to charge additional fees.

Equivalent revisions were made to CE/99.

S-Con-07-A
In 2007 the RIBA published its Standard Agreement for the Appointment of an
Architect S-Con-07-A, to replace SFA/99 and CE/99.

The agreement is presented as a pack of component documents, which at first

glance may suggest that S-Con-07-A differs from its immediate predecessors.
However, its contents in relation to inspecting building works are similar to the
later versions of SFA/99 and CE/99.

The name of the ‘Architect’ and ‘Site Inspector(s)/Clerk(s) of Works’ are to be listed
in a ‘Project Data’ form. The ‘Roles’ of the architect, and the stages during which
they are to be performed are indicated by means of a separate ‘Schedule of Role
Specifications’ form. Options include ‘Lead Consultant’, ‘Contract Administrator/
Employer’s Agent’, ‘Lead Designer’ and ‘Architectural Designer’.

An architect appointed as ‘Architectural Designer’ or ‘Lead Designer’, among

other duties:

(Where engaged to provide services during the construction stage other

than any duties in connection with administration of the building
contract), makes the appropriate number of visits to the site for:

(a) inspection generally of the progress and quality of the Relevant

Design as built;
(b) approval of such elements of the works as may be specified to be to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Designer;
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 1: The architect’s obligations to inspect 15

(c) obtaining information necessary for the issue of any notice, certifi-
cate or instruction by the administrator of the building contract.
The services to be performed by an architect acting as ‘Architectural Designer’ or
as both ‘Architectural Designer’ and ‘Lead Designer’ are further to be defined by
selecting or deleting services listed in an additional form, the ‘Schedule of Design
Services’. Included alongside ‘K Construction to practical completion’ is simply:
Makes visits to construction works as Designer.
Clause A3.6 of the ‘Conditions of Appointment’, another form, comprises
wording practically identical to that of clause 3.11.1 of SFA/99 except that,
mysteriously, specific reference to ‘visits to the site’ is omitted.
Clause A3.7 of the ‘Conditions’ establishes that:
The Client holds the contractor or contractors appointed to undertake
construction works responsible for the management and operational
methods necessary for the proper carrying out and completion of the
construction works in compliance with the building contract or contracts
and for health and safety provisions on the Site.
No further references to building works or inspection duties are made.

Conclusion
The variety of procurement arrangements in current use appears to have made it
impossible precisely to define the architect’s inspection duties by the use of
standard clauses in a form of appointment. It has therefore become necessary
to consider separately for each project the particular inspection services to be
performed.
Inexperienced clients reading ‘Schedule Two’ of SFA/92, under the heading ‘K–L
Operations on Site and Completion’, would find themselves informed by a fairly
comprehensive summary of the inspection services that may potentially be
provided by an architect. The same clients having read SFA/99 or S-Con-07-A
would remain largely uninformed of:
. the potential inspection services that the architect can provide
. the purpose of the inspection services
. the basis on which the length and frequency of the architect’s visits to site
should be calculated
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

16 Inspecting Works

. the limitations of the architect’s liability in connection with the inspection

services on offer
. how any of the above is to differ according to the management role the
architect is playing.
Presumably the architect can – and should – explain such matters to the client
while the appointment is being negotiated, and record the substance of any
associated agreement by somehow altering, amending or adding to the standard
form, perhaps by a letter. If the architect neglects to do so, explanations may be
left to the courts.

What are the architect’s duties if nothing is specified?

The duties that will be imposed upon an architect who undertakes to carry out
site inspection services without making clear the nature of the services will, of
course, depend on the circumstances of the case. Needless to say, it is not desir-
able for an architect to be found in such a position. However, in the past, when
such cases have come to court, judges have sometimes turned for guidance to
the edition of the RIBA Architect’s Job Book current at the time of the architect’s
appointment.2
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 1: The architect’s obligations to inspect 17

SUMMARY

. The architect’s duty to inspect is defined by the terms of the architect’s

appointment.
. However, an understanding of the architect’s responsibilities and liabil-
ities in relation to work in progress cannot be gained simply by reading
standard forms of appointment – it is necessary to look also at the
architect’s duties and powers under building contracts, and at how the
architect’s duties have been defined by the courts.
. Under standard building contracts the architect needs to check work only
for the purpose of certification; the architect is not required to spot or
report defects on behalf of the contractor.
. The architect can normally be expected to inspect the works as often as is
necessary to ensure that they are ‘in general’ being carried out as
described by the contract documents. If the client requires more frequent
inspection or supervision, specialist site staff should be appointed.
. The architect is required to inspect progress as well as quality.
. The variety of procurement arrangements in current use means that
descriptions of inspection services in standard appointment documents
are vague. The architect should discuss inspection services with the
client while the appointment is being negotiated and record the scope
of services agreed, if necessary by adding a letter or attachment to the
standard document.
. Services in relation to work not in accordance with the building contract
are normally an ‘additional’ service for which the architect is entitled to
charge additional fees.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 2
How have the courts
defined the architect’s
duties to inspect?
In this Section:
. With what degree of care should the architect’s duties to inspect be discharged?
. How often and for how long should the architect visit site?
. To what extent can the architect be expected to discover defects?
. What duties does the architect owe to the contractor in connection with defects or
with methods of working?
. To what extent is the architect liable for the performance of the clerk of works?

Generally
A certain amount of care must be taken when reading case law as it will always
deal with the particular circumstances of each case, not least of which will be the
terms of the architect’s appointment. However, it is possible to derive some
general principles that can, with some confidence, be applied to an architect’s
duties to inspect under the standard forms of appointment.

In Sutcliffe v. Chippendale & Edmondson (1971) Judge William Stabb QC said:

It can be said that when a person engages an architect . . . he is entitled to

expect that the architect . . . will do all that is reasonably within his power
to ensure that the work is properly and expeditiously carried out, so as to
achieve the end result as contemplated by the contract. In particular the
building owner is entitled to expect his architect so to administer the

19
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

20 Inspecting Works

contract and supervise the work, as to ensure, so far as is reasonably

possible, that the quality of work matches up to the standard
contemplated.
When considering the judge’s words it is essential to keep in mind that:
. the architect’s duty to inspect is owed to the building owner alone, and not to
the contractor
. the standard against which the quality of the work is to be assessed is the
standard set out in the contract documents as agreed between the employer
and the contractor – and is not to be subject to the architect’s discretion,
except where the contract expressly provides otherwise.
It is also worth remarking on the judge’s use of the word ‘supervision’, rather than
‘inspection’. The choice of words is in accordance with both the version of RIBA
Conditions of Engagement and common parlance as they were at the time of the
judgment. Although nowadays architects are encouraged to use the word
‘inspection’, the word ‘supervision’ is still occasionally heard. It is interesting to
note Mr Recorder Coles’ comments on the usage made in the later case of
Brown and Brown v. Gilbert-Scott and Payne (1992). Referring to the case pleadings
the judge, an Official Referee, said:
Some argument was addressed to the question whether the use of the
word ‘supervision’ here added anything to the [architect’s] obligation –
i.e., above and beyond what was involved in the obligation to inspect
the works as they progressed. In my judgement the [architect] had a
duty to inspect the works of the [contractor] and that the use of the
word ‘supervision’ does not enlarge his duty in any way.
In a more recent case, Consarc Design Ltd v. Hutch Investments Ltd (1999), in which
it was alleged architects employed under SFA/92 failed to spot defective prepara-
tion for a screed, Judge Peter Bowsher QC said:
The older forms of contract required the architect to ‘supervise’. The more
recent contracts, including the contract in this case, require the architect
to ‘visit the Works to inspect the progress and quality of the Works’. It
seems to me that inspection is a lesser responsibility than supervision.
In view of the above, and despite the dicta in Brown and Brown, it appears that an
architect using the word ‘supervision’ in relation to the architect’s duties under
his or her appointment would be unwise.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 2: How have the courts defined the architect’s duties to inspect? 21

Before the judge’s statement in Sutcliffe v. Chippendale & Edmondson can usefully
be applied in practice, it is necessary to understand how the limits of what
is ‘reasonably possible’ are to be defined. Such an understanding can be
gained by looking at how the courts have answered a number of component
questions.

With what degree of care should the architect’s duties to inspect be

discharged?
In general, the courts have found that the degree of care required depends upon
the circumstances of the case.
Some of the circumstances that it might be necessary to take into account are
indicated by the case of The Kensington Chelsea and Westminster Area Health
Authority v. Wettern Composites and Others (1984). The health authority employed
a firm of architects to design an extension to a hospital. The design included
artificial stone mullions, arranged in a series of columns each of five mullions
one above the other, as part of the external cladding. The mullions were each
about 4 m long, and weighed about 340 kg.
The mullions were to be supported vertically by either concrete corbels or metal
angles, which were to fit into a recess at the back of each mullion. The mullions
were to be supported horizontally by cramps, at one end of which were to be
dowels fitted into the mullions at horizontal joints, and the other ends of
which were to be free to slide up and down within abbey slots cast into the
structural frame. The joints between mullions were to be filled with sealant to
allow relative movement.

During construction a clerk of works was employed by the health authority.

Fixing of the mullions started in November 1964. Shortly afterwards the architect
wrote to the contractor complaining of defects in the manufacture of the
mullions, and of unacceptable attempts at rectification. Instances of other
defects were recorded during construction. Fixing of the mullions was completed
in July 1965.
In 1976 the health authority discovered cracking in one of the mullions. Concern
was raised, the defect was monitored, and continuing movement was found.
After further investigations it was concluded that the mullion installation was
unsafe. In 1980 all the mullions were removed and replaced.3
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

22 Inspecting Works

As any claim in contract was barred by the Limitation Acts, the health authority
sued the architect and the engineer in the tort of negligence in respect of their
duties to ‘supervise’ the erection of the mullions.

In considering the skill and care with which the architect should have carried out
the duty to inspect, Judge David Smout QC, Official Referee, said:

The ordinary skill and care must of necessity be measured with regard to
the special circumstances that need to be taken into account. Amongst
the special circumstances that arise in this case are the following:
. That the architects had been alerted by 27 November 1964, to the poor
workmanship and to some lack of frankness on the part of the sub-
contractors that should have put the architects on their guard. They
became aware of further inadequate workmanship on 9 December
1964. I echo the words of Judge Stabb again in Sutcliffe v. Chippendale
& Edmondson . . .

‘I think that the degree of supervision required of an architect must be

governed to some extent by his confidence in the contractor. If and
when something occurs which should
‘‘the degree of supervision indicate to him a lack of competence
in the contractor, then, in the interests
required of an architect of his employer, the standard of his
must be governed to some supervision should be higher. No one
suggests that the architect is required
extent by his confidence in to tell a contractor how his work is to
the contractor’’ be done, nor is the architect responsible
for the manner in which the contractor
does his work. What his supervisory duty does require of him is to
follow the progress of the work and to take steps to see that those
works comply with the general requirements of the contract in speci-
fication and quality. If he should fail to exercise his professional care
and skill in this respect, he would be liable to his employer for any
damage attributable to that failure.’
. That much of the work of fixing up the mullions would be speedily
covered up in the course of erection and as such called for closer
supervision than would otherwise be the case . . .
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 2: How have the courts defined the architect’s duties to inspect? 23

. That the burden of supervision is the greater where poor workman-

ship can result in physical danger. The size and weight and position
of the mullions are relevant factors.
. That a clerk of works was engaged to attend site full-time for the
purpose of providing constant supervision of the building work so
far as that was practicable.
In other words, when determining the degree of care with which the architect
should inspect, account should be taken of such matters as:
. the competence and relevant experience of the contractor and subcontractors
. how quickly important work will be covered up
. the implications of the failure of work
. the presence of site inspectors.
The competence of the contractor being a special circumstance affecting the
degree of care required was also held in the case of Brown and Brown v.
Gilbert-Scott and Payne.
The case involved a couple who wished to extend their house by building a
conservatory. They employed an architect, a design was developed, and
tenders were obtained. The tenders were too high. To save money a young, inex-
perienced builder with whom the architect had done some church work was,
eventually, appointed.
The building work was carried out in a way that was far from satisfactory in terms
of programme and quality. The architect’s clients sued both the architect and the
builder, submitting a long list of defects in design, inspection and workmanship.
The judge said:
It is not suggested that [the architect] knew [the contractor] to be
inefficient or a bad builder. But, it is urged by the plaintiff that one of
the circumstances against which this question of the appropriate degree
or quality of his inspection is to be considered in this case was the
youth and inexperience of [the builder]. I think that there is force in this
submission: [the builder] was only young, [the architect] knew he had
not been engaged in a job of this size before – although he had worked
with him before and had found him to be a competent and reliable
worker. But the work he had previously done for him before was on
churches and work which was more properly described as that of
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

24 Inspecting Works

stone-masonry rather than the more general work which was required in
the construction of this conservatory. It cannot be said that [the architect]
ought not to have recommended [the contractor] to do the work, but
what can be said is that he was not a very experienced builder and that
is a factor which [the architect] ought to have borne in mind when it
came to the question of just how frequent or detailed his inspection of
the work done by [the contractor] was to be. The [expert witness] called
by the plaintiff . . . said that given these circumstances, [the architect]
should have watched [the builder] ‘like a hawk’. I think that that is
putting it ‘too high’ – but I do think that [the contractor’s] age and inex-
perience was a factor which [the architect] ought to have borne in mind
when he was discharging his obligation to inspect the work.

How often and for how long should the architect visit site?
In the Scottish case of Jameson v. Simon (1899) an architect had been employed
in connection with the building of a house. The house was completed but, a
month after the client moved in, dry rot was discovered. Investigations showed
that the rot originated from pieces of wood found in the sub-base below the
ground floor slab. Two separate contractors had been involved in supplying
and laying the sub-base. A mason was to have provided the bottom 2.5 ft –
using waste stone arising from his work elsewhere on the house. A plasterer
was then to have provided a 3 in. deep upper layer of small stones, before
laying the slab itself. It appears the quantity of waste stone generated by the
mason turned out to be less than was needed to provide the bottom layer of
sub-base. Although it is not clear who was directly responsible, the difference
was made up by using general rubbish from the site – including pieces of
wood. The architect had visited site on average once a week but had not been
present during the period between when the laying of sub-base was started
and when it was covered up by the slab. The client sued the architect.

The judge, the Lord Ordinary, Lord Kyllachy, said the architect:

undertook, like other architects, to grant certificates to the contractors

upon which the contractors should be paid, and by these certificates
he certified, if not expressly, by the plainest implication, that the work
done had been done according to contract. Prima facie therefore, he
must at least be held to warrant that in so far as he could ascertain by
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 2: How have the courts defined the architect’s duties to inspect? 25

reasonable care and skill there had been no scamping of the work or
serious deviation from the plans and specifications. That seems to be
his prima facie undertaking, and I confess I am not prepared upon
anything I have heard to put his responsibility lower. He was bound to
supervise, and in doing so he was I think, bound to use reasonable
care and skill, the burden being upon him to shew that with respect
to any disconformity or default it was such as could not be discovered
by reasonable care and skill. I cannot assent to the suggestion that an
architect undertaking and being handsomely paid for supervision, the
limit of his duty is to pay occasional visits at longer or shorter intervals
to the work, and paying those visits to assume that all is right which
he does not observe to be wrong.

The case went to the House of Lords, where it was accepted that in terms of
the frequency and duration of his visits the architect had not deviated from
the normal standards of the profession. However, the court agreed that it was
not enough simply to visit the site at regular intervals and remain there for a
given amount of time, but that the architect must make specific inspections of
important parts of the works. Lord Justice Clerk said:

as regards so substantial and important a matter as the bottoming of the

cement floor of considerable area, such as this is shown by the plans to
have been, I cannot hold that [the architect] is not chargeable with negli-
gence if he fails before the bottoming is hid from view by the cement to
make sure that unsuitable rubbish of a kind that will rot when covered up
with wet cement has not been thrown in in quantities as bottoming
contrary to the specifications. It is contended that the architect cannot
be constantly at the work, and this is obviously true. But he or
someone representing him should undoubtedly see to the principal
parts of the work before they are hid from view, and if need be I think
he should require a contractor to give notice before an operation is to
be done which will prevent his so inspecting an important part of the
work as to be able to give his certificates upon knowledge and not an
assumption, as to how work hidden from view had been done.

The question has also been addressed in a number of more recent cases. In an
Australian case, Florida Hotels Pty Ltd v. Mayo (1965), a firm of architects was
employed in connection with the design and construction of extensions to a
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

26 Inspecting Works

hotel, including a swimming pool at the rear. No main contractor was employed.
Instead, trade contractors and supervisory staff were employed directly by the
hotel owner.
The hotel owner’s managing director asked the architects to carry out their
inspections regularly on Tuesdays and Fridays, when he would also be able to
attend. The architects obliged.
The land on which the pool was constructed sloped away from the hotel. The
structure of the poolside furthest from the hotel was to comprise two concrete
slabs arranged end to end. On a particular Friday morning one of the architects
found that the formwork for the slabs was well advanced but not yet completed,
and that no reinforcement was yet in place. He left site at lunchtime. During the
remaining part of the day the formwork was completed and reinforcement fixed.
The reinforcement comprised a rectangular-patterned mesh. The engineer’s
specification required the mesh to be laid such that the bars at closer centres
spanned continuously across the width of each slab.
The mesh was supplied in long rolls, with the bars at shorter centres arranged
along the length of the rolls. This meant that to arrange the mesh as specified
it would be necessary to cut the rolls into a number of short lengths and
arrange them across the width of each slab. Instead, the mesh was simply cut
into very long lengths, which were laid next to each other longitudinally from
one end of each slab to the other in such a way that no continuous bars
spanned across the width of the slabs. The reinforcing strength of the mesh
was thus reduced by 75 per cent.

Without the knowledge of the architects, concrete was ordered on the Friday
evening and delivered and poured on the Saturday morning.
On the following Tuesday the formwork was removed from one of the slabs, and
removal of the formwork to the other slab started. The first slab collapsed,
seriously injuring a workman who was removing the formwork from the
second slab. The workman sued the hotel owner, who then joined in the archi-
tects, blaming them for not properly supervising the work.
The case went to appeal, where one of the judges, Chief Justice Barwick, said:
there could not be any dispute that an architect with the obligation of
supervising construction work is bound to supervise such an important
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 2: How have the courts defined the architect’s duties to inspect? 27

step as the preparation of the formwork and the placement of reinforce-

ment for the formation of such suspended concrete slabs as were
intended in this case to form the eastern aprons of the swimming pool.
But, because the supervision which the respondents were obliged to
give was said . . . to be ‘periodical’ [the architects] in effect claimed that
as on all former occasions during the construction of the extensions to
the hotel, presumably including also the earlier construction in
connexion with the swimming pool, the foreman had alerted them to
the time for the pouring of concrete, they were entitled to assume, in
default of notification to the contrary, that concrete would not be
poured between the days on which they made their routine inspections
of the work . . . I am clearly of the opinion that in law [the architects] were
not so entitled. They were bound to supervise the work, inspecting it
with due skill and care. There can be no doubt that due skill and care
in this case required them to supervise the work done in preparation
for the pouring of concrete to form these slabs. The facts of this case
bring out starkly the importance of the performance of this obligation.
In my opinion [the architects] were bound to take reasonable steps to
ensure that they inspected the formwork and the placed reinforcement
before concrete was poured and the work covered up. They do not
satisfy this by relying on the workmen whose work they were employed
to supervise: in particular, they were not entitled to assume from past
satisfactory performances of the foreman, that they would be notified
of the readiness of the work for inspection and of the time for the
pouring of the concrete. They were not engaged to supervise only
such work as could be seen on the particular days of their routine inspec-
tions, or to attend to supervise only when advised that an occasion for
supervision had arisen or was about to arise. They owed a duty to
keep themselves informed of the progress of the work. They were
bound, in my opinion, at least to have made reasonable arrangements
of a reliable nature to be kept informed of the general progress of the
work and, in particular, to be notified of the readiness of formwork and
the placement of reinforcement for the pouring of concrete; these
arrangements ought to have included clear and express instructions to
the foreman that work of the kind in question must not be covered up
till [the architects] had inspected it or, at the very least, had an adequate
opportunity for its inspection.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

28 Inspecting Works

The main points to note from the case are:

. the architect must inspect matters of importance
. the architect cannot rely on the contractor to advise him or her of when such
inspections should be carried out.

In Alexander Corfield v. David Grant (1992) the defendant was a hotelier who, with
his wife, ran a business that was recommended by a well-known hotel guide.
They bought a listed private house into which, after carrying out some
alterations, they wished to move their business. They appointed an architect,
the plaintiff, and told him they needed the proposed building work completed
ready to accept guests within eight months of the architect’s appointment – in
time to feature in the following year’s guides. The vendors would not be vacating
the building until two months after the architect’s appointment. The defendant
and his wife then expected to see building work start as soon as possible. Upon
the architect’s suggestion, in an attempt to make a prompt start on site, it was
decided to negotiate with a builder, proposed by the architect, at the same
time as the usual statutory consents were sought.

However, the unfolding of the job did not please the defendant, and he ended up
refusing to pay fees owed to the architect. The architect sued, and the defendant
counter-claimed, submitting a litany of alleged breaches of contract, among
which was an accusation that the architect did not spend enough time on site,
including that, during the period of a particular month, the architect spent less
than an hour on site. Judge Bowsher QC, an Official Referee, said:

In the calendar month in question, the plaintiff personally went to the

site on five occasions, he had five meetings in his office, and [the plain-
tiff’s assistant] went to site twice. It is possible that the plaintiff’s five site
visits did not add up to an hour in total. The defendant is more likely to
have been keeping a check on this than the plaintiff.

What is adequate by the way of supervision and other work is not in the
end to be tested by the number of hours worked on site or elsewhere,
but by asking whether it was enough. At some stages of some jobs
exclusive attention may be required to the job in question (either in the
office or on site): at other stages of the same jobs, or during most of
the duration of other jobs, it will be quite sufficient to give attention to
the job only from time to time. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 2: How have the courts defined the architect’s duties to inspect? 29

In Brown and Brown v. Gilbert Scott and Payne the question was considered again,
although with an outcome not so favourable to the architect concerned:
There was a certain amount of evidence and submissions were made as
to the number of times an architect . . . in this contract should have visited
the site. Here, [the architect] paid some 18 visits to the site. An attempt
was made to show that each site visit would have taken some three
hours in all, including travelling time from Oxford and that all in all he
would have spent some 54 hours on site visits. I must say that I did
not find this sort of analysis very helpful. It is not the number or visits
made which is the way to judge the architect’s performance of his
duty to inspect. One must look to a whole range of factors such as the
frequency of visits, the duration of each visit, what the architect did
when he was there and how the visits fitted into the work which was
being done by the builders.
Again, it was suggested that inspection
is not a very profitable part of the archi-
‘‘If an architect takes on
tect’s engagement but I cannot see how the contractual obligation
that can affect his duty in respect of
inspection. If an architect takes on the
to inspect, then he ought
contractual obligation to inspect, then to carry out this particular
he ought to carry out this particular part of his engagement in
part of his engagement in a proper
manner. a proper manner’’
It was further suggested that this site was quite a long way from [the
architect’s] office in Oxford and therefore that this must be taken into
account. I cannot see why it should. As I have said, if an architect takes
on a job which is some distance from his office, that should be no
reason for offering any different sort of service unless such was agreed
between the parties.
The principles set out by the judge were applied in his consideration of each of
the specific defects of which the plaintiffs had complained. A good example is an
apparent failure of the liquid-applied damp-proof membrane below the conser-
vatory floor: fungus growth began to appear on the tiles a few months after they
were laid. Upon investigation it had been found that the membrane had not
been applied evenly to the correct thickness, and had not been lapped with
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

30 Inspecting Works

the wall damp-proof course. In response to the plaintiff’s allegation that the
architect, as well as the contractor, was to blame for the defect, the judge said:

It is common ground between [the architect] and [the contractor] that

the latter had telephoned [the architect] to tell him that he would be
laying the [damp-proof membrane] either the next day or very shortly
thereafter. However, [the architect] could not be there at the time
when [the contractor] was going to do the work. He was conscious of
the fact that [the plaintiffs] were getting impatient for work to be
finished and he decided that it was not reasonable to hold up the tile
laying. He therefore told [the contractor] to go ahead with the laying
of the membrane. He said in his evidence that he took a calculated risk
in not being there, but he said he trusted the contractor: it was not a
difficult job and he believed that [the contractor] ‘had the integrity’ to
do it properly.

The judge then reviewed the various arguments put forward by witnesses and
concluded:

In my judgement this was one of those

‘‘the architect’s duty is to critical stages in this job when the archi-
do all that is reasonably tect should either have been present or,
at least, have satisfied himself that the
within his power to work had been done properly. Directing
ensure that the work is myself in accordance with the various
properly done’’ statements of principle I have set out
above, I think that [the architect] failed
in his duty to inspect during this critical phase of the works. As Judge
Stabb QC said in Sutcliffe v. Chippendale & Edmondson . . . the architect’s
duty is to do all that is reasonably within his power to ensure that the
work is properly done – he is engaged at this stage of the works (and
for a considerable proportion of the overall fee) in order to protect the
interests of his client. I conclude that it was not that urgent that [the
architect] could not have said to [the contractor] that he was not able
to come the following day to inspect the laying of the DPM and to
have instructed him to wait for a few days until he could be present.
Alternatively, if he was not able to be present whilst it was actually
being laid, then he should have got there and inspected the work
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 2: How have the courts defined the architect’s duties to inspect? 31

before the tiles had been laid. In view of the fact that [the contractor]
thought he had to lay the tiles immediately after the laying of the
screed, then he should have told [the contractor] to wait until the next
week before it was done. [The architect] may well have been justified
in trusting to the integrity of [the contractor], but there was also the
issue of the experience and competence of this young builder to take
into account and in this item, as with others, it was not so much a ques-
tion of [the contractor’s] integrity as his competence and experience.

As to the apportionment of blame between the two Defendants for this

item, I find that each is equally to blame for this defect and for the
damages which flow from it . . .

In an even more recent case, McGlinn v. Waltham Contractors Ltd (2007), Judge
Peter Coulson QC said:

The frequency and duration of inspections should be tailored to the

nature of the works going on at site from time to time . . . Thus it
seems to me that it is not enough for the inspecting professional reli-
giously to carry out an inspection of
the work either before or after the fort-
nightly or monthly site meetings, and
‘‘The frequency and
not otherwise. The dates of such site duration of inspections
meetings may well have been arranged should be tailored to the
some time in advance, without any
reference to the particular elements of nature of the works going
work being progressed on site at the on at site’’
time. Moreover, if inspections are
confined to the fortnightly or monthly site meetings, the contractor
will know that, at all other times, his work will effectively remain safe
from inspection.4

To what extent can the architect be expected to discover defects?

In the House of Lords case of East Ham Borough Council v. Bernard Sunley and Sons
Ltd (1965), Lord Upjohn said:

As is well known the architect is not permanently on the site but appears
at intervals it may be of a week or a fortnight and he has, of course, to
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

32 Inspecting Works

inspect the progress of the work. When he arrives on the site there may
be many very important matters with which he has to deal: the work may
be getting behind-hand through labour troubles; some of the suppliers
of materials or the subcontractors may be lagging; there may be physical
trouble on the site itself, such as, for example, finding an unexpected
amount of underground water. All these are matters which may call for
important decisions by the architect. He may in such circumstances
think that he knows the builder sufficiently well and can trust him to
carry out a good job; that it is more important that he should deal
with urgent matters on site than that he should make a minute inspec-
tion on the site to see that the builder is complying with the specifica-
tions laid down by him . . . It by no means follows that, in failing to
discover a defect which a reasonable examination would have disclosed,
in fact the architect was necessarily thereby in breach of his duty to the
building owner so as to be liable in action for negligence. It may well be
that the omission of the architect to find the defects was due to no more
than an error of judgement, or was a deliberately calculated risk which in
all the circumstances of the case was reasonable and proper.
Putting it simply: an architect will not be expected to spot every single minor
defect.
The principles set forth by Lord Upjohn are
‘‘an architect will not be exemplified by later cases such as Victoria
expected to spot every University of Manchester v. Hugh Wilson
single minor defect’’ (1984). An architect designed for the univer-
sity a building of reinforced concrete, clad
in brickwork and ceramic tiles. The tiles fell off, and the university sued the archi-
tect, the contractor, and the nominated tiling subcontractor.
The subcontractor went into liquidation before the trial, and the university and
the architect settled on the fifth day of the trial. The trial continued as an
action against the contractor, during which Judge John Newey QC, Official
Referee, considered the standard of inspection required of an architect, saying:
The subcontractors failed to butter the backs of the tiles correctly, so as
not to leave voids, and they allowed sand to remain between some tiling
courses. It would seem that on no occasion did the architects discover
that the subcontractors were not doing their work properly. If the
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 2: How have the courts defined the architect’s duties to inspect? 33

areas of tiling had been small and the subcontractors had worked on site
for only a short period, I think that, bearing in mind the problems of
supervision . . . the architects might be excused for not having detected
the subcontractors’ failures.5
In another case, George Fischer Holding Ltd v. Multi Design Consultants Ltd and
Davis Langdon & Everest (1998), under a design and build contract the plaintiff
employed a contractor to provide a new warehouse building. The plaintiff also
engaged an employer’s representative, who was required by the contract of its
engagement:
To make visits to the site sufficient to monitor the contractor’s workman-
ship and progress; to check on the use of materials, to check on the
work’s conformity to the specifications and drawings and to report
generally on the progress and quality of the works having regard to
the terms of the contract between the employer and the contractor . . .
Although the employer’s representative was not an architect, and the contract
was a design and build contract, the wording of the inspection duties to be
performed is very similar to that used in architects’ standard forms of
appointment.
The contractor laid roofing panels with end laps that leaked, causing con-
siderable damage. The plaintiff sued both the contractor and the employer’s
representative. Judge John Hicks QC, Official Referee, found:
[the employer’s representative] made no visits to the roof whatever
during the period when the panels were being laid and the lap joints
formed, so they were undeniably in gross breach of duty. [The employer’s
representative’s] only excuse for that omission was that access was not
safe. That is obviously no answer; he was entitled to require the
contractor to provide safe access.
The only defence seriously advanced in respect of that breach was that
the defective formation of the seals at the lap joints would not have
been detected even had [the employer’s representative] carried out
inspection visits, because the work of making the seals would not
necessarily or probably have been going on during the visits, and if it
were the workman would have taken untypical care while under the
eye of the employer’s representative. That defence fails at every level.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

34 Inspecting Works

As to missing the relevant phase of the operation, first, it is clear on the

evidence that on visits of the frequency and length which [the employer’s
representative] says he carried out elsewhere on site, and even without
any special attention to this point, the likelihood is that he would on
many occasions have had the opportunity of seeing lap joints formed
and sealed. Secondly, the formation of the joints was so obviously
crucial that even if the overall frequency of visits was not increased
special attention should have been paid to ensuring that they fully
covered this aspect. But, thirdly, since this whole discussion predicates
the acceptance by [the employer’s representative] of the very risky and
inadvisable inclusion of lap joints in such shallow slopes, it was incum-
bent upon them to exercise the closest and the most rigorous inspection
and supervision of the process. The last point also disposes of the
suggestion that workmen will ‘put on a show’ – either they cannot do
that all the time, or if they do that achieves the object anyway. Moreover
it is in any event part of the necessary skill of a competent inspecting
officer to detect and make allowances for such behaviour. I therefore
find both [the contractor and the employer’s representative] responsible
for the major contribution to leaking roofs made by the inclusion and
defective construction of end laps in the roof panelling.
A final case, London Hospital (Trustees) v. T P Bennett (1987), is of interest because
it addressed the question of the architect’s liability when the contractor deliber-
ately conceals defects.
Architects designed a ten-storey nurses’ home of reinforced concrete, clad with
brick panels. The panels were to be supported by reinforced concrete nibs
projecting from the main structure. The contractor failed to set out the con-
struction sufficiently accurately in the vertical direction, resulting in there
being insufficient room to fit the required number of brick courses between
nibs. The contractor then hacked away at the nibs until the brickwork would
fit, in some cases reducing the nibs to no more than a few reinforcement bars
protruding into thin air. Years after the building was completed, a panel of brick-
work began to bulge. Upon investigation it was found that the brickwork
throughout the external elevations was so poorly supported as to be potentially
dangerous. All of the brickwork was taken down, the nibs were repaired, and the
brickwork rebuilt. The building owner sued the architect, the structural engineer
and the contractor.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 2: How have the courts defined the architect’s duties to inspect? 35

The plaintiffs accused the architect of failing

to detect the destruction of the nibs. The
‘‘there is no duty in law
judge found that during the architect’s for an architect to prevent
visits the contractor had, in a way that deliberate wrongdoing by
could not have been foreseen by the archi-
tect, deliberately concealed the damage to a contractor’’
the nibs, and that therefore the architect
could not be held liable for contributing to the damage. It was thereby
established that there is no duty in law for an architect to prevent deliberate
wrongdoing by a contractor – provided the wrongdoing cannot reasonably be
foreseen.

What duties does the architect owe to the contractor in connection with
defects?
The question can be answered by reference to two cases.
In East Ham Borough Council v. Bernard Sunley and Sons Ltd a contractor was sued
in connection with defective fixing of stone facing panels that started to fall from
the exterior of a building after the issue of the final certificate. The contractor
sought to avoid liability on the grounds that the architect had not spotted the
defects and brought them to the contractor’s attention during the course of
construction. The case went to the House of Lords, where Lord Upjohn said:
It seems to me most unlikely that the parties to the contract contem-
plated that the builder should be excused for faulty work . . . merely
because the architect failed to carry out some examination which
would have disclosed the defect. Even if the architect in failing to
make the examination was in clear breach of his duty to his client, the
building owner, I can see no reason why this should enable the builder
to avoid liability for his defective work; the architect owes no duty to
the builder except to issue certificates . . . I cannot see why [the builder]
should be allowed to escape from the ordinary consequences of his
negligence when discovered years later, consequences which would
undoubtedly flow if the building owner had not appointed an architect
for his, the building owner’s, protection.
In other words, the architect is present for the benefit of the employer, not to act
as a scapegoat for the contractor.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

36 Inspecting Works

Lord Pearson, as far as inspections made during the course of the works were
concerned, agreed, saying:

It seems to me unreasonable, too favourable to the contractors, to let

them shelter behind the architect’s failure to detect faults in the course
of his visits during the progress of the work. The architect’s duty is to
the employers and not to the contractors, and the extent of his
obligation to make inspections and tests depends on his contract with
the employers and the arrangements made and the circumstances of
the case. Prima facie the contractors should be and remain liable
for their own breaches of contract, and should not have a general
release from liability in respect of all breaches which the architect
should have detected but failed to detect throughout the currency of
the contract.

In a second case, Bowmer & Kirkland Ltd v. Wilson Bowden Properties Ltd (1996), a
developer employed a contractor to build two office buildings. About six months
after practical completion, leaking balconies and other defects became apparent.
Legal action began with a writ issued on behalf of the contractor seeking orders
that the developer place retention moneys in a separate trust. The developer
counter-claimed damages arising from the defects. The contractor admitted
that many defects existed, but said the cause of the defects was a combination
of bad design and bad inspection by the architect (who was not joined in the
action). Judge Bowsher QC, Official Referee, said:

it is alleged by [the contractors] that if there were any defects in work-

manship on their part, those defects must have been apparent to the
architect. Without spelling out the submission in explicit detail, [the
contractors] appear to be saying that the architects had a duty to super-
vise their work and maintain quality control, and if the architects failed to
maintain quality control, [the contractors] were to be excused from any
defective performance of their duties under the contract. If that is their
submission, it is wholly misconceived. The architects in this case were
not under a duty to supervise, and even if they had been, their duty to
supervise would have been owed to the employers, not to the builders,
and if there had been a breach of a duty to supervise, that would not
have excused the builders from maintaining their own system of
quality control . . .
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 2: How have the courts defined the architect’s duties to inspect? 37

What duties does the architect owe to the contractor in connection with
methods of working?
The question has been considered in a number of cases. In Clayton v. Woodman
and Son (Builders) Ltd (1962) the contract works included the construction of a
new lift motor room, which was to abut a Victorian hospital clock tower. The
new concrete floor of the motor room was to be housed into a chase to be
cut into the wall of the clock tower. A bricklayer suggested to the architect
that it would be difficult to form a waterproof junction between the new lift
motor room roof and the existing clock tower, and that it would therefore be
better to demolish the clock tower and form the motor room of entirely new
work. The architect disagreed, and the work proceeded unchanged.
The builder cut the chase, but neglected to shore up the wall above. The wall fell
and injured the bricklayer. The bricklayer sued the contractor, the employer and
the architect – arguing that if the architect had allowed the bricklayer to demolish
the tower as the bricklayer had suggested the bricklayer would not have been
injured.
On appeal to the House of Lords it was found that the wall would not have fallen
had the contractor taken proper precautions to ensure that the work would be
carried out safely, and that the contractor alone was responsible for such
matters. The judgment was summed up by Lord Pearson, who said:
The architect does not undertake (as I understand the position) to advise
the builder as to what safety precautions should be taken or, in particular,
as to how he should carry out his building operations. It is the function
and the right of the builder to carry out his own building operations as he
thinks fit, and, of course, in doing so, to comply with his obligations to
the workman . . .
. . . it cannot be right, in my view, to impose on the architect two
conflicting duties in this situation: his duty to the owner to insist on
the performance of the contract, and some other duty supposed to be
owed to the builder or the builder’s workman to make a variation to
the specification in the circumstances of the case.
Secondly, it might be suggested that the fault of the architect was in not
advising the builder, through his existing representative on site, the
plaintiff, as to how the work required by the specification should be
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

38 Inspecting Works

executed. If he had done so, the architect would have been stepping out
of his own province and into the province of the builder. It is not right to
require anyone to do that, and it is not in the interests of the builder’s
workpeople that there should be a confusion of functions as between
the builder on the one hand and the architect on the other. I would
hold that it was plainly not the architect’s duty to do that. It will be
observed that he had at any rate no pre-existing duty to do that. He
was not asked to give any such advice and he did not profess to give
any such advice, and I cannot see that it can be regarded as fault on
his part that he did not step out of his province and advise the builder
in what manner the builder should carry out his own building operations.

Thirdly, it might be suggested that the architect should have given a

warning to the builder’s workman . . . as to how the work should be
done or that there was some risk involved in doing it in a particular
way. But there, also, it seems to me that that would have been stepping
out of his own province and entering that of the builder. He was
entitled to assume that the work would be carried out properly, that
the builder knew his own business and would properly perform his
own operations.

Fourthly, it might be suggested that the architect should have stopped

the progress of the work. There again there was no need to do that
unless he could assume that the builder did not know his own business
and was not going to do his own work in the right way.

Lord Pearson finished by implying that had the work been inherently impossible
to carry out safely, or had the architect expressly agreed to take responsibility for
safety precautions, it is likely he would have been found negligent.

In Clayton v. Woodman the architect quite correctly refused the contractor’s

request to vary the works. In contrast, the architect in another case, Clay v. A J
Crump & Sons Ltd (1964), was rash in his willingness to vary the works in compli-
ance with a request from his client.

With a view to extending his premises, an owner acquired property adjoining the
site of his garage business. An architect was employed. On the newly acquired
part of the site it was proposed to demolish a number of existing buildings,
carry out excavations to reduce levels, and then erect new buildings. To save
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 2: How have the courts defined the architect’s duties to inspect? 39

time the demolition and excavation work was let under a separate contract to be
carried out before the main building works. Demolition and main building
contractors were appointed. The architect’s demolition and excavation contract
drawings required the demolition contractor to leave in place 5-ft wide retaining
banks of earth at the base of various walls that were to be retained, and which
would otherwise be undermined.
While work was underway, the garage owner became concerned that the
demolition of a particular wall, which had just been started, would allow
anyone who wandered onto the site to gain unauthorised access to his existing
premises. The owner approached the demolition contractor’s foreman and told
him to stop demolishing the wall. The owner then telephoned the architect,
who undertook to deal with the matter formally.
The architect asked the demolition contractor by telephone whether it was safe
to leave the wall standing. The demolition contractor said he thought it was. The
architect instructed that the wall be left in place, but did not inspect the condi-
tion of the wall at the time, make any specific enquiries as to how far excavation
had proceeded, or instruct that a 5 ft retaining strip be left at the base of the wall
to match that at the base of other walls to be kept.
Later, the architect went to site but did not bother to check that the wall was safe:
the wall had been left standing on a precipice about 2 m high and was not
bonded to abutting walls.
Six weeks after demolition of the wall had been stopped, and some time after the
demolition contractor had left site, the building contractor erected within 2 ft of
the base of the wall a hut to be used for the storage of tools, and as a place for the
people working on site to eat meals. The wall collapsed on the hut, killing two
men and injuring another. The injured man sued the architect, the demolition
contractor and the building contractor. The court found all three liable. Blame
was apportioned as 42 per cent to the architect, and lesser amounts each to
the demolition and building contractors.
The case involved poor design and poor inspection, and is a tragic illustration of
the potential dangers inherent in making, at the request of others, heat-of-the-
moment variations to a design during construction.
Judge Stabb QC in a third case, Oldschool v. Gleeson Construction Ltd (1976),
considered comprehensively the question of the consultant’s duties with
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

40 Inspecting Works

respect to methods of work. Although the case concerned an engineer, the

principles of the judgment apply equally to architects.
A party wall collapsed during demolition and excavation works. The employer
sued first the contractor and second the engineer. The contractor instituted
third party proceedings against the engineer, claiming that the wall had
collapsed because the engineer’s design was impossible to build without the
wall collapsing, and that the engineer’s supervision of the works was inadequate,
such that the wall would have collapsed even if the design had not been
impossible to build. The judge considered the views of the contractor’s and
engineer’s expert witnesses as follows:

[The engineer’s expert] was insistent that the manner of the execution of
the works is a matter for the contractors. He considered that the
consulting engineer is in no position, for instance, to require the contrac-
tors to comply with any particular sequence of works; he has no right, let
alone duty, to involve himself in the work of the contractors. Of course he
would interest himself in their work, would offer advice to assist the job
to go better and would certainly not turn his back on a situation that he
could see was likely to give rise to danger to life. Equally he would
intervene if he could see imminent damage to property. Those are
matters of common sense; but that is a very different matter from
assuming responsibility for the method of work to be adopted by the
contractors.

In my judgement [the engineer’s expert’s] view is the right one. I do not

think that the consulting engineer has any duty to tell the contractors
how to do their work. He can and no doubt will offer advice to con-
tractors as to various aspects of the work, but the ultimate responsibility
for achieving the consulting engineer’s design remains with the contrac-
tors . . . If the contractors had said, for example, that they planned to
excavate first down to footing level along the whole length of the
party wall and thereafter to excavate the rest of No 31, the consulting
engineer might well have pointed out the undesirability or even the
danger of adopting that course; but I do not think that he was under a
duty to direct the contractors, for instance, to excavate in strips up to
the party wall. It was the responsibility of the contractors to decide
upon the method and sequence of excavation so as to achieve the
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 2: How have the courts defined the architect’s duties to inspect? 41

consulting engineer’s design; but if, for example, they planned to exca-
vate the hoist pit without any temporary support, and so informed the
consulting engineer, then as a matter of common sense the consulting
engineer would intervene to prevent that which was described as ‘an
act of incredible folly’.
From the evidence which I have heard and from the contemporaneous
documents I am satisfied that the second defendants adequately fulfilled
their duty of supervision. [The engineer] persistently drew [the site
agent’s] attention to the inadequacy of the shoring, although he was
not, in my view, duty bound to do so. He warned him of the risk that
he was running. He emphasised the necessity to blind the excavated
ground by the party wall at the earliest opportunity. He told [the site
agent] . . . before any excavation of the hoist pit had started, to put in
the sheeting or strutting, in the form of precast concrete planks, which
were on the site, and not to excavate further until this was done. In
the circumstances he had no reason to foresee that further excavation
would be carried out until this was done. He personally visited the site
seven times in the six weeks period [before the date of collapse] and
in spite of [the site agent’s] evidence to the contrary, I believe that [the
engineer] advised and warned [the site agent] in the manner which he
described . . . [The contracts manager] and indeed [the contractor’s
expert] agreed that, if the contractor had any doubts about how the
excavation should be done or how the temporary support should be
set or how the underpinning should be carried out, then they should
have asked the consulting engineer, but this they never seem to have
done.
. . . What is said [by the contractor’s expert], however, is that when the
consulting engineer knows or ought to know that the contractors are
heading into danger whereby damage to property is likely to result,
then he owes the contractors a duty of care to prevent such damage
occurring. If he sees the contractors not taking special precautions
without which a risk of damage to property is likely to arise, then he
the consulting engineer cannot sit back and do nothing. I am not sure
that the consulting engineer’s duty extends quite that far but, even if
it does, I do not believe that he is under a duty to do more than warn
the contractors to take the precautions necessary . . .
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

42 Inspecting Works

The judge continued:

It seems abundantly plain that the duty of care of an architect or of a
consulting engineer in no way extends into the area of how the work is
carried out. Not only has he no duty to instruct the builder how to do
the work or what safety precautions to take but he has no right to do so,
nor is he under any duty to the builder
to detect faults during the progress of
‘‘the duty of care of an the work. The architect, in that respect,
architect . . . in no way may be in breach of his duty to his
extends into the area of client, the building owner, but this does
not excuse the builder for faulty work.
how the work is carried
I take the view that the duty of care
out’’ which an architect or a consulting engin-
eer owes to a third party is limited by the
assumption that the contractor who executes the works acts at all times as a
competent contractor. The contractor cannot seek to pass the blame for
incompetent work onto the consulting engineer on the grounds that he
failed to intervene to prevent it.

To what extent is the architect liable for the performance of the clerk
of works?
An early case that addressed the relative responsibilities of consultant and clerk of
works is Saunders and Collard v. Broadstairs Local Board (1890). The case involved
engineers who were employed by a local authority in connection with the
design and construction of a drainage scheme. The local authority was to
appoint a clerk of works. The engineers apparently raised doubts about the com-
petence of the clerk of works put forward by the local authority – but he was
nevertheless employed. Upon completion the local authority alleged, among
other defects, that a section of drain had been laid to incorrect levels such that
it permanently contained sewage and water. The local authority blamed the engin-
eers for not checking levels during construction. The engineers said that it was the
job of the clerk of works to check the levels, that they had explained to him how to
do it, and that if any levels were wrong it was due only to his incompetence.
The judge, Mr Ridley, an Official Referee, took the view that the engineers were
negligent in respect of the matter on two counts:
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 2: How have the courts defined the architect’s duties to inspect? 43

. they relied on the clerk of works to check levels when they suspected he was
incompetent
. they should in any case have themselves checked something as important as
the levels.
In another early case, Lee v. Bateman (1893), a firm of surveyors was employed in
connection with the renovation and restoration of a kitchen wing following a fire
in a mansion owned by Lord Bateman. A clerk of works was appointed by Lord
Bateman.
Upon completion it was found that some beams were rotten, and it was alleged
that the rot should have been spotted by the surveyors in time for replacement
to be carried out during the course of the main building works. While work was in
progress the surveyors had asked the clerk of works to check whether or not the
beams needed to be renewed. The clerk of works had advised that replacement
was not necessary – but the surveyors had not themselves bothered to check.
The judge, Mr Justice Cave, directed the jury that such an important question
was a matter for the surveyors and should not have been delegated to the
clerk of works.
A further case of interest is Leicester Guardians v. Trollope (1911). A firm was
appointed to carry out architectural services in connection with the design and
construction of a large addition to an infirmary. A clerk of works was appointed
by the architect’s client.
Instead of constructing the ground floor as specified, the contractor drove
wooden stakes into the ground, suspended timber joists from the stakes, laid a
poor-quality felt below the joists, and poured concrete to the level of the tops
of the joists, without bothering to compact it. Dry rot developed in the stakes
at ground level, and spread from them via the joists to other parts of the building.
It was discovered a few years after the building was occupied.
The client sued the architect. The architect blamed the clerk of works. The judge,
Justice Channell, said:
It was clearly the duty of the clerk of the works to attend to the laying
of concrete in accordance with the design, but does that relieve the
[architect]? To my mind there is little difficulty in deciding the point.
The position of the architect and of the clerk of the works was made
quite clear. The architect could not be at the works all the time, and it
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

44 Inspecting Works

was for that reason that the clerk of the works was employed to protect
the building owner. But what is a matter of detail? The laying of this
concrete was, in my view, a very important matter in relation to the
building. It requires no expert to tell one that when a floor is put
down on earth there must be protection against damp. Here the plan
devised was not uncommon, and was an essential part of the design.
The architect admits that he took no steps to find out whether it was
carried out or whether it was not. A large area had to be covered. In
some parts the concrete as laid was fairly good, but over the greater
part it was all rotten. If the architect had taken steps to see that the
first block was all right, and had then told the clerk of the works that
the work in the others was to be carried out in the same way, I would
have been inclined to hold that the architect had done his duty; but in
fact he did nothing to see that the design was complied with. In my
view this was not a matter of detail which could be left to the clerk of
works.

Much more recently, in Kensington A H A v. Wettern Composites, the judge said:

the appointment of a clerk of works, whilst a factor to be taken into

account, does not reduce the architect’s liability to use reasonable skill
and care to ensure conformity with design, as opposed to mere detail.
The distinction may not always be easy.

The judge went on to quote Justice Channell in Leicester Guardians v. Trollope,

and concluded that the architects in Kensington v. Wettern failed to carry out
their inspection duties as they should have done.

The judge ended his judgment with a consideration of the possibility of con-
tributory negligence on the part of the structural engineer and the clerk of
works. The judge said:

The position of the clerk of works calls for different considerations. He is

not ordinarily professionally qualified, but has practical knowledge of the
building trade. He has been aptly described as the Regimental Sergeant-
Major. It is accepted that he acts as the eyes and the ears of the architects,
and has a responsibility to keep the architects informed as to what is or is
not happening on site. He is also described as employed ‘to act solely as
inspector on behalf of the employer under the direction of the architect’.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 2: How have the courts defined the architect’s duties to inspect? 45

The judge, finding the clerk of works had indeed been negligent, homed in on
the question of vicarious liability:
Counsel were not able to refer to any decision in the common law world
where consideration has been given to vicarious liability for the negli-
gence of a clerk of works employed by a building owner yet under the
architect’s direction and control . . .
If the plaintiffs had intended to abrogate the relationship of master and
servant as between themselves and the clerk of works then one would
have expected the terms of appointment to have made that plain . . .
There is no such evidence in this case. In my view the plaintiffs are
vicariously liable for the negligence of the clerk of works.
I have reached the conclusion that the clerk of works’ negligence whilst
more than minimal is very much less than that of the architects. If I
may adapt the military terminology: it was the negligence of the Chief
Petty Officer as compared with that of the Captain of the ship. I assess
the responsibility as to clerk of works 20 per cent, as to the architects
80 per cent.
In simple terms:
. The employment of a clerk of works can reduce the architect’s liability in
relation to inspecting matters of detail, but cannot reduce the architect’s
liability in relation to ‘important matters’.
. The architect will not be held liable for the negligence of the clerk of works
unless the clerk of works is employed by the architect, or it can somehow
otherwise be proved that all control of the clerk of works has been divested
to the architect or that the clerk of works is the architect’s servant in law.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

46 Inspecting Works

SUMMARY

. Where an architect undertakes to grant certificates upon which a con-

tractor should be paid, by these certificates the architect certifies that
the work done has been done according to the contract.
. The architect’s duty to inspect is owed to the building owner, and not to
the contractor. Failure by an architect to detect faults during the progress
of the work does not excuse the builder for the faulty work.
. The standard against which the quality of the work is to be assessed is the
standard set out in the contract documents as agreed between the
employer and the contractor.
. The architect should not use the word ‘supervision’ in relation to his or
her inspection duties.
. The architect must make specific inspections of important parts of the
works before they are hidden from view, but will not be expected to
spot every single minor defect.
. The degree of inspection required must partly be governed by the archi-
tect’s confidence in the contractor. If and when something occurs which
indicates a lack of competence in the contractor, then the standard of
inspection should be raised.
. Work that would be speedily covered up in the course of erection calls for
closer inspection.
. The standard of inspection should be raised where poor workmanship
can result in physical danger.
. The architect cannot rely on the contractor to advise him or her of when
inspections should be carried out.
. Inspection not being very profitable, or the site being a long way from
the architect’s office, cannot be allowed to affect the architect’s duty in
respect of inspection.
. Access not being safe is not an excuse for failing to inspect; the architect
is entitled to require the contractor to provide safe access.
. The architect is not required to tell the contractor how the building work
is to be carried out.
. An architect does not have a duty to prevent deliberate wrongdoing
by a contractor – provided the wrongdoing cannot reasonably be
foreseen.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 2: How have the courts defined the architect’s duties to inspect? 47

. The architect does not undertake to advise the builder as to what safety
precautions should be taken, neither does the architect have a duty to
warn the builder that there is some risk involved in doing the work in a
particular way – unless as a matter of common sense the architect
should intervene to prevent ‘an act of folly’.
. Important matters should be inspected by the architect; matters of detail
can be left to the clerk of works.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 3
Practice management
matters
In this Section:
. How can the architect contribute to the achievement of high-quality work on
building sites?
. The architect’s appointment
. Should the architect offer to carry out reduced or partial site inspection services?
. Time allowance
. Who should do the inspecting? Should there be a practice site inspector?
. Other consultants’ appointments
. The tender documents
. Is a clerk of works or site architect required? Finding a clerk of works

How can the architect contribute to the achievement of high-quality

work on building sites?
The biggest contribution the architect can make to the achievement of high-
quality building work is not by inspecting work in progress but by ensuring
that the builder is provided on time with clear, complete and properly co-
ordinated production information. If information is poor, unfinished, provided
at the last minute or late the contractor will:
. spend time chasing the architect for information or clarification, instead of
carrying out the contractor’s own inspections of work in progress
. be unable to foresee and resolve technical problems before work starts
. be unable to organise subcontractors and materials most efficiently
. be tempted to guess or make assumptions about construction details
. become frustrated and demotivated.

49
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

50 Inspecting Works

‘‘The quality of production Any of the above will inevitably lead to a

lowering of construction quality, to poor
information has a greater cost control and to potential delays. Further-
influence on building more, it is likely that the architect will be so
busy answering the contractor’s queries or
quality than does the sorting out matters of detail design that
inspection of work in there will be inadequate time for carrying
out the inspection duties for which he or
progress’’ she may have been appointed. The quality
of production information therefore has a greater influence on building quality
than does the inspection of work in progress.
Nevertheless, even given adequate production information, there is no doubt that:
. the complexity of building operations
. the potential for misinterpretation of even the best production information,
and
. human fallibility
will mean that, in all but the most exceptional cases, inspection services properly
carried out by the architect, alone or with others under the direction of the archi-
tect, will significantly increase the quality of the completed building.

The architect’s appointment

Under past standard forms of appointment the architect was not required to
inspect every part of a building as it was being built, and would not normally
have been paid fees to enable him or her to do so. The architect should therefore
have:
. checked essential parts of the design as they were carried out
. carried out periodic and spot checks of the construction generally
. during the course of the above, compared progress on site with contract
completion dates and construction programmes, and checked that progress
was regular
. checked that the contractor was maintaining adequate arrangements for
supervision and quality control.
The wide variety of contemporary procurement regimes has made it impossible,
in the standard forms of appointment most recently published by the RIBA, to
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 3: Practice management matters 51

define standard inspection services. It is therefore necessary to consider sepa-

rately for each project the particular inspection services to be performed. If the
services cannot adequately be defined by completing the standard form of
appointment being used, a description of the services should be set out on a
separate sheet attached to the standard form, or in a covering letter.
Such a situation is potentially dangerous for the architect because without
standard definitions of services, prepared with the assistance of legal experts,
the architect is vulnerable to accepting more liability than was bargained for.
Architects may, for example, think that they have agreed to attend site
infrequently, or occasionally, just to answer contractor’s queries, and may
accordingly accept fees commensurate with a minimal amount of time being
spent on site. However, they may later find that because of unfortunate
wording – or lack of wording – in their appointment document, they have
almost the same liability as if they had undertaken to provide full inspection
services.
Architects must therefore ensure that within their appointment documents the
inspection services to be performed are defined with the utmost care, taking
all potential liabilities into account – including liabilities to third parties such as
funders, and future owners or tenants.
Current and previously published standard ‘‘Architects must ensure
forms of appointment, and the Architect’s
Job Book, will undoubtedly offer some
that the inspection
guidance, but their use cannot guarantee services to be performed
the avoidance of all pitfalls. Legal advice in
any but the simplest of situations should
are defined with the
therefore be considered. utmost care’’
In practice, before finalising his or her appointment, the architect should discuss
with the client the options for inspection services, advise the client of the
advantages and disadvantages of each, and then agree with the client the
services to be provided. The architect should record in writing all that was said
during discussions, and incorporate into the formal appointment documents as
complete and clear a description of the services to be provided as possible –
taking legal advice as necessary.
If the architect has been appointed for services that do not include site
inspection, the architect’s appointment documents should make it clear that
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

52 Inspecting Works

the architect will not attend site, even in response to queries from the contractor.
In such a case the architect should, of course, ensure that he or she does not
attend site to deal in any way with the contractor, and is best advised to avoid
the site completely until all building work is finished.

Should the architect offer to carry out reduced or partial site

inspection services?
It may be tempting for a client to try to reduce expenditure on fees by asking his
or her architect not to visit site as often as the architect advises. The architect
should be wary of agreeing to such an arrangement, as:
. it is inconsistent with a duty to certify
‘‘if an architect were to payments: if an architect were to
certify payment for work certify payment for work that had not
that had not been been properly inspected it would probably
constitute professional negligence – what-
properly inspected it ever was agreed with the client. In any
would probably constitute case, certificates based on inadequate
inspections are of little value to a client.
professional negligence’’ . even if an architect had no responsibility

to certify payments it is likely that redu-

cing the number of visits would give the architect much less time on site in
which to spot errors in construction – for which it is likely the architect
would still be partially blamed. In defence against such accusations it would
be difficult to distinguish between which defects, in the light of the reduced
services, the architect could be excused from noticing, and which he or she
would still be obliged to discover.
Such arrangements should be avoided. If they are not avoided, difficulties will be
experienced in reducing the architect’s liabilities.

Time allowance
The amount of time that is required or which should be allowed for properly
inspecting work in progress depends very much upon the nature of the job
in question. It is certain, however, that if the architect is sued for negligent
inspection it would be no defence to argue simply that the fee was not
enough to cover the costs of carrying out inspection duties adequately.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 3: Practice management matters 53

It is therefore essential that, before agreeing fees with a client, the architect gives
careful consideration to the time required to inspect the works. Factors that
should be taken into account include:

. the expected contract period

. the size and complexity of the job
. the resources available in the architect’s office
. whether or not site staff are to be employed, by whom, and the amount of time
that site staff will be spending on site
. whether or not the contractor and the architect have worked together before
. the capabilities of the contractor, as demonstrated both before and during the
contract period
. the extent of innovation in the design
. the standard of quality required by the contract documents
. other relevant terms of the contract, such as the frequency with which certifi-
cates for payment are to be issued
. the health and safety implications of the design
. the time required to carry out other construction stage activities, such as:
attending and writing minutes of meetings; answering queries; preparing and issu-
ing additional production information, instructions and certificates; coordinating
the work of other consultants; reporting to the client; and general administration.

A record of all allowances made for site visits should be kept on file, both for the
purpose of monitoring time spent, and for use as justification of additional fees
for necessary site visits that could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time
of the architect’s appointment.

The situation should be monitored throughout the design stages of the job.
Should the amount of time required for site inspections increase as a result of
client variations to the design, or other circumstances, additional fees should
be negotiated. In addition, great care should be taken not to use up too much
time in the design and production information stages of the job, leaving insuffi-
cient fees to carry out construction stage duties properly. (Times have changed
dramatically since Lord Kyllachy in Jameson v. Simon referred to the architect
‘undertaking and being handsomely paid for supervision’.) Once on site, as
with every other stage of a job, the architect should continue to monitor costs
and take action as necessary to ensure that his or her work is carried out as
efficiently as possible.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

54 Inspecting Works

Who should do the inspecting?

Properly inspecting work in progress requires knowledge and experience, and is
not a job to be delegated to junior staff with insufficiency of either – whether to
save money or because senior staff are too
‘‘Properly inspecting work busy. However, junior staff must be given
plenty of opportunities to attend site inspec-
in progress requires tions in order to learn the necessary skills for
knowledge and experience’’ the future. Job architects should, before and
after visiting site, report to the project prin-
cipal, who should discuss with the job architect matters of importance. All of
the above should be taken into account when estimating the time required
and the fees to be charged.

Should there be a practice site inspector?

In general, it is better not to devolve all site inspection work to a practice site
inspector.

It may be argued that within a practice all site inspections should be carried out
by a single architect – or, within a larger office, by a team of architects – and that
benefits would be derived from the specialist experience that would be gained
by such an architect or team. However, in the overwhelming majority of circum-
stances it is likely that such divorcing of inspection from design, drawing and
specification processes would result in a significant risk that important design
intentions – both technical and aesthetic – would be overlooked, or that their
importance would be undervalued, leading to disappointing or even defective
work on site.

Furthermore, from the point of view of the architect doing the design and
production information work, the essential experience of seeing the implications
of his or her drawings at first hand on site would, under such a system, be lost.

In any case, site experience gained by each member of a practice can and should
be shared with the practice as a whole. It can be done, for example, by holding
occasional lunchtime discussions, or by compiling a book of points to look out
for. Circumstances under which a specialist inspector or team of inspectors
may be of benefit are when a relatively large number of similar, system-built
buildings or parts of buildings are to be constructed in succession – such as
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 3: Practice management matters 55

fitted kitchens, conservatories, temporary accommodation, prefabricated pods or

certain types of industrial building.

Other consultants’ appointments

Before entering into an agreement to provide site inspection services, the
architect should advise the client on the need to appoint other consultants to
inspect elements of the works that are beyond the scope of the architect’s
knowledge. All but the simplest of structural and building services work is
likely to require inspection by consultant engineers.

The tender documents

The tender documents play a critical role in the achievement of high-quality work
on building sites. They should, of course, make clear, in objective terms, the
quality and standards of work required.
However, during the preparation of tender ‘‘tender documents play a
documents proper consideration should be
given to a number of matters that can
critical role in the
indirectly influence both the quality of achievement of
building work and the effectiveness and high-quality work on
efficiency with which the architect can carry
out inspection duties. In particular: building sites’’
. Checking that the contractor is attending properly to its own quality control
responsibilities can make an important contribution to the quality of the
finished product. Such checking can be made easier if the contractor is
required by the tender documents to provide:
– with the tender – or at the latest before starting on site – a statement
describing the organisation and resources by which the contractor proposes
to control the quality of the work
– during the course of the work, records of inspections, tests and actions taken
following the discovery of defective work.
On larger jobs the contract documents should require the contractor to submit
to the architect routine reports on the contractor’s quality control activities,
and on the progress of the works. The reports could be submitted as part of
the contractor’s report at each site progress meeting. The contractor should
also be required to provide documentary evidence of the quality of materials
and goods being incorporated into the work.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

56 Inspecting Works

. The contractor should be expressly required by the tender documents to

provide:
– a competent person-in-charge
– competent trade supervisors
– operatives appropriately skilled and experienced for the type of work they
are carrying out
– proper protection of stored materials and finished work (which should be
explicitly described in relation both to vulnerable or valuable individual
items, and to protection generally)
– welfare facilities of high quality, which are to be kept properly working and
clean
– adequate measures to maintain the security of the site (with any special
requirements made clear)
– a site kept tidy and clear of all debris.
. The monitoring of progress (and the assessment of claims associated with
delays) can only be carried out properly if the contractor provides:
– a programme that shows the periods allowed for: planning and mobilisation;
subcontract works; ordering of long lead-in materials and components;
preparation of production information to be provided by the contractor
or subcontractors, including allowances for checking and commenting by
consultants, revising and reissuing for acceptance; testing and commis-
sioning; and work in connection with provisional sums
– a record of progress, displayed on a copy of the programme kept on site
– weekly records of the number and description of all persons employed on or
in connection with the works
– weekly records of the number, type and capacity of all mechanical and
power-operated plant employed on the works
– a weekly record of materials delivered to site
– an accurate record of daily maximum and minimum air temperatures, and
the number of hours per day in which work is prevented by adverse weather.
A requirement to provide the above should be explicit within the tender
documents. Consideration should be given to including a proviso that the
employer will not enter into contractual arrangements until a satisfactory
contractor’s programme is provided.
. One of the best ways of controlling the quality of materials and assembled
elements in buildings is by the use of samples and mock-ups. They should
be used to:
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 3: Practice management matters 57

– check materials supplied by the contractor by comparison with samples of

known quality
– finalise matters of appearance by comparing on-site sample panels showing,
for example, the effects of different brickwork mortar colours or external
render textures
– provide a control sample of a building element – such as brickwork, a
flooring finish, or visual concrete – against which work in progress can be
checked
– allow technical and visual problems to be brought to light and resolved by
the construction of a mock-up – of a cladding assembly, or complex masonry
detail or roof structure, for example – before carrying out work on the
building itself.
The provision of such samples and mock-ups costs money and takes time, so it
is important to ensure adequate provision is made for them in tender docu-
ments. If a building has repetitive elements it may be possible to use the
first element for control purposes. Such an element may even be a completely
finished room – in a hospital, school or hotel, for example. Control samples and
mock-ups should be kept on site for reference until the relevant building work
is finished.
. The power to instruct opening up and tests as necessary to carry out spot
checks of work covered up can significantly contribute to the architect’s ability
to control quality. The provision of such power can, in itself, serve to increase
the contractor’s vigilance. The exercise of such power does, however, have cost
and time implications, so it is essential that the tender documents require the
contractor to make appropriate allowances.
. The inspecting architect’s life can be made easier if the tender documents
require the contractor to give reasonable notice to the architect before:
– scaffolding or other access is removed
– important tests and inspections are carried out (although the architect
should not rely on the contractor to give such notice).
. Financial control will be improved if the contractor is required by the tender
documents to provide reasonable notice to the architect and quantity surveyor
of the start of any work for which daywork sheets are to be submitted, and to
provide an accurate record of time spent and materials and plant used.
. Consideration should also be given to requiring the contractor to provide personal
protective equipment, such as hard hats, high-visibility vests, safety boots, etc.
in sufficient numbers and of suitable sizes for use by client and consultants.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

58 Inspecting Works

Is a clerk of works or site architect required?

The architect is usually required to make only periodic – rather than frequent or
constant – inspections of work in progress. However, the size and complexity of a
project, the speed of construction, the type of contract or other factors may
demand more inspection work than can be carried out by an architect visiting
site periodically. Alternatively, the distance between the architect’s office and
the site may make journeys between the two at sufficiently frequent intervals
impractical. Under such circumstances the architect should advise the client to
appoint site inspectors.
In simple terms, the job of site inspectors is to look, and report to the architect what
they see. Under conventional building contracts site inspectors have no power to
issue instructions to the contractor, to approve any of the work, to issue certificates
or to carry out any of the other administrative duties that fall to the architect.
The appointment of site inspectors allows more of the work to be checked, and
allows it to be checked in greater detail, but does not relieve the architect of his
or her own periodic inspection duties. Further-
‘‘The appointment of site more, if a clerk of works or other inspector is
employed by the architect rather than by
inspectors does not relieve the client the architect will be liable for the
the architect of his or her inspector’s negligence, and may unwittingly
have made him- or herself liable for duties
own inspection duties’’ beyond mere periodic inspection. The archi-
tect should therefore resist either employing, appointing or paying site inspectors
such as clerks of works, or appointing a member of his or her own staff as a full- or
part-time site architect. All such matters are best left entirely to the client.
Site inspectors may comprise one or more of the following:
. a ‘traditional’ clerk or clerks of works
. a specialist clerk of works
. a site inspector, who is not a clerk of works but who will carry out a job similar
to either of the above
. a site architect
. a site services or structural engineer.
As with most matters, the appropriate arrangement will depend on the nature of
the project.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 3: Practice management matters 59

The size of a job may itself demand more inspection than can be provided by the
architect carrying out periodic visits. If such a job involves largely traditional
building trades carried out under a conventional form of contract it is likely, up
to a certain size, that the appointment of a traditional clerk of works alone will
suffice. If the job involves state-of-the-art construction methods for which a
clerk of works with the necessary specialist expertise cannot be found, then
the services of a site architect or other inspector will be required. A clerk of
works may also be appointed.

In other cases it may be the speed of construction that necessitates the employ-
ment of a site inspector, or the presence of site staff may be explicitly required by
particular types of contract or warranty.

If the site is too far from the architect’s office for the architect to visit as often as is
necessary to inspect the works properly – but the job is not big enough to justify
the employment of a full-time site inspector – a local part-time clerk of works or
other site inspector will need to be appointed. Suitable arrangements may
include the appointment of a local architect or surveyor to carry out part-time
or periodic inspection duties.

Of increasing importance is the need to ensure that mechanical and electrical

installations are inspected by those suitably qualified to do so. Even small
residential refurbishments now commonly involve the installation of:
. air conditioning
. boosted water supplies
. unvented domestic hot water systems
. sealed central heating systems
. pumped showers
. fire and security alarm and detection systems
. built-in hi-fi systems
. lighting control systems
. integrated telephone and door entry phone systems
. multiple telephone line services providing for TV, computer, alarm and
telephone systems.

Other work is likely to include even more complex systems. If an architect is

certifying payments for work that includes the installation of such systems he
or she must ensure that adequate inspections are carried out. It is likely that in
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

60 Inspecting Works

most cases the architect will have no more specialist knowledge of such systems
than the client. The architect’s professional indemnity insurance may also not
cover the inspection of such work. If, under such circumstances, the appoint-
ments of other consultants on the design team do not allow for adequate
inspection of such specialist work the architect should advise the client to
employ suitably qualified staff to carry out the necessary inspections.
Similar considerations should also be given to complex structural work.
In view of the above, the architect should always give thought to whether or not
site staff are needed, and ensure that advice on the matter is given to his or her
client as required by the architect’s conditions
‘‘By failing to advise the of engagement. Such advice should be given
client when site staff early enough to leave plenty of time for suit-
able people to be found and appointed. By
should be employed, the failing to advise the client when site staff
architect may should be employed, the architect may inad-
inadvertently be taking vertently be taking responsibility for addi-
tional or specialist inspection duties. If, in
responsibility for spite of the architect’s advice, the client
additional or specialist decides against the appointment of necessary
site inspectors, the architect should ensure
inspection duties’’ that the client has been warned of the asso-
ciated risks – and that such warnings are recorded. Even then it is likely that the
architect will have to carry out more frequent inspections him- or herself.
The architect should also ensure that the building contract allows for inspections
by the site inspectors who are to be appointed.

Finding a clerk of works

There are a number of ways to find a clerk of works or site inspector, including:
. contact from a previous job
. introduction by the client or another consultant on the design team
. advice from local consultants, clients or contractors
. directories published by the Institute of Clerks of Works and other professional
institutes
. advertising in local or trade press
. a combination of the above.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 3: Practice management matters 61

Before a prospective clerk of works or site inspector is employed, both the archi-
tect and the client must be satisfied that the clerk of works or site inspector is
suitably qualified and able to do the job. Personality is as important as the
right kind of experience. A clerk of works who is likely repeatedly to irritate the
contractor or who is unsympathetic to the priorities of the project should not
be employed. Unless a suitable and willing candidate is already known, it will
be necessary to interview several. The architect should be present at the
interviews.
The clerk of works and other site inspectors should be appointed as soon as
possible before starting on site to enable them to:
. assist in the finalising of production information by providing insights derived
from specialist or local knowledge
. familiarise themselves fully with the contract documents
. get to know the personalities and procedures associated with the project.
The appointment of the clerk of works or site inspector should be thought
through and carried out with great care. In doing so the architect should refer
to the latest editions of the Architect’s Job Book and the Clerk of Works and Site
Inspector Handbook, both published by RIBA Publications. The client should
confirm working hours, holidays, payment for time spent travelling and for
expenses, and other terms of employment.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

62 Inspecting Works

SUMMARY

. The biggest contribution the architect can make to the achievement of

high-quality building work is by ensuring the builder is provided on
time with clear, complete and properly coordinated production informa-
tion.
. The tender documents play a critical role in the achievement of high-
quality building work.
. Before finalising his or her appointment, the architect should agree with
the client the specific inspection services to be provided. A complete and
clear description should be incorporated in the formal appointment
documents.
. Architects should avoid arrangements whereby clients try to reduce
expenditure on fees by asking architects not to visit site as often as
would be advisable.
. It is essential that, before agreeing fees with a client, the architect gives
careful consideration to the time and resources required to inspect the
works.
. Before entering into an agreement to provide site inspection services
the architect should advise the client on the need to appoint other
consultants to inspect elements of the works that are beyond the
scope of the architect’s knowledge.
. The architect should advise the client to appoint site inspectors as
appropriate.
. Site inspectors have no power to issue instructions to the contractor, to
approve any of the work, to issue certificates or to carry out other duties
that fall to the architect; the appointment of site inspectors allows more
of the work to be checked, and allows it to be checked in greater detail,
but does not relieve the architect of his or her own inspection duties.
. Employing, appointing and paying site inspectors is best left to the client.
. Before a prospective site inspector is employed, the architect must be
satisfied they are suitably qualified and able to do the job.
. Site inspectors should be appointed as soon as possible before starting
work on site.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 4
As work is about
to start
In this Section:
. Importance of pre-planning and prioritising
. Categories of inspection
. Importance of the contract documents
. Time monitoring
. Advising the client
. Other consultants
. Briefing site inspectors
. Initial project team meeting
. The contractor’s programme
. First meeting with the site agent

Importance of pre-planning and prioritising

It is vitally important that, before work starts, proper consideration be given to
inspection.

The safest approach is to study the production information and prepare a list of
all the parts of the design it is essential be inspected. A plan should be set up
showing when on the basis of the contractor’s programme it is expected the
listed parts will be built, when they should be inspected and when checks of
the construction generally should be carried out. To minimise the risk of expen-
sive and time-consuming abortive work by the contractor, checks on materials
and construction should be timed to take place soon after each trade has
started on site – not as they are about to finish.

63
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

64 Inspecting Works

The list of essential items to inspect should include:

. fundamental items such as the setting out of the building on the site, the set-
ting out of walls and columns within the building, and levels
. details of particular aesthetic importance such as masonry bonding and the
setting out of light fittings and tiling
. parts of the building to which access will later be impossible, such as high-level
external wall cladding, below-ground drainage and screeds
. technically important elements that would be particularly expensive to rectify,
such as reinforced concrete foundations, mortar strength, vapour control
layers, air leakage barriers, insulation, wall ties and damp-proof courses
. details that may cause danger to those occupying or maintaining the com-
pleted building, or to the public – such as: electrical cross-bonding; flues to
gas appliances; the fixing of high-level copings, masonry or cladding; and
the cleaning of voids in infection-controlled areas
. temporary protection of existing features, and of completed work
. innovative or ‘risky’ details and forms of construction
. tests, such as drainage tests, at which the architect should be present
. ordering of long lead-in materials and components – which may include struc-
tural steelwork, masonry units, metal windows, joinery and kitchen units, stone
and proprietary worktop materials, and specialist finishes.
The contents and length of the list will obviously depend on the nature of the
job, and can be derived only from a thorough knowledge or careful study of
the contract drawings and specification.
It is likely that the inspection plan will have to be updated as building work
proceeds, but records of the original (and all subsequent versions) are evidence
that the architect has done his or her job properly, and should be kept in the job
files in case they are needed in defence against a claim of negligence.

Categories of inspection
The architect’s inspections will fall into three categories:
. predictive inspections
. periodic inspections
. spot checks.
Predictive inspections are inspections planned in advance to ensure that impor-
tant hidden elements of construction are inspected before they are covered up.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 4: As work is about to start 65

The architect will need to liaise closely with the contractor to ensure such
inspections are made before the items to be inspected are covered up as the
work progresses. The contract may require – or it may in any case be
worthwhile to ask – the contractor to give notice before such covering up is to
take place. To be useful, notice should be given at least 24 hours before
covering up.
Periodic inspections are inspections carried out at regular intervals to:
. check work executed since the previous visit (so far as it has not been covered
up, or is to be opened up for inspection)
. monitor progress in relation to
– the contractor’s programme
– the date for completion
– any other contractual dates
. determine whether or not progress is regular.
The frequency of periodic visits should depend entirely on the requirements of
the job, and could vary from every day for a very fast-track job with lots going
on, to once a fortnight for a large, repetitive job. The frequency may also vary
from one stage of a job to another.
Spot checks are occasional unannounced visits or tests to discourage the
contractor from lapsing into poorer practices between the architect’s regular
visits. They should take place whenever particularly important work is in progress,
when the architect has suspicions concerning the contractor’s work, perhaps
when a new trade has just started on site, or simply when the architect thinks
such an inspection is due. Spot checking could range from arranging laboratory
tests to establish the crushing strength of concrete or brickwork, to instructing
the dismantling of a small area of fenestration or cladding to inspect the
fixings. Adequate allowance for such tests and inspections should of course be
included in the tender documents.

Importance of the contract documents

The contract documents are the single most important source of guidance to the
inspecting architect. The contract documents define:
. the inspecting architect’s authority and power
. the inspecting architect’s duties
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

66 Inspecting Works

. the standards of workmanship, quality of materials and quantity of work to be

provided by the contractor.
Any attempts to vary the above during the course of construction will almost
certainly affect timing or costs – or both. The inspecting architect must therefore
have a thorough knowledge of the contract documents before carrying out site
inspections.
As for the building work itself, the drawings and specification are of most impor-
tance. If the architect carrying out the inspection has prepared the documents
him- or herself, as is often the case on a smaller job, he or she will be starting
pre-inspection preparation with an advantage. However, even on the smallest
of projects months can go by between completing and issuing production infor-
mation when tenders are invited, and actually starting on site – during which
time easily overlooked but vital features of details, setting out or other important
matters can be forgotten. It is therefore essential that the architect, even if he or
she has personally prepared all the production information, refreshes his or her
memory on the subject before building work starts.
If the architect carrying out the inspection has not prepared the relevant produc-
tion information it will be impossible to carry out inspection duties effectively
unless the time has been taken to study
‘‘it will be impossible to and become thoroughly familiar with the
contract documents. On a large job it will
carry out inspection duties not be possible for a single person to hold
effectively unless the time in mind at any one time every detail of the
has been taken to study job. It will therefore be necessary to study
in depth the information relevant to each
the contract documents’’ stage of the job as the work proceeds.

Time monitoring
Before work starts on site the architect should assess the resources required to
carry out inspection duties, and their associated costs. It is not uncommon –
often for perfectly valid reasons – for a significant amount of production informa-
tion to remain to be prepared after the contractor has started on site. Such a
situation can put an enormous amount of pressure on the architect in terms of
time, resources and stress, and can thereby lead to the architect neglecting to
monitor fees or underestimating the costs of completing the job. The risk of
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 4: As work is about to start 67

running out of fees before the job is finished is thereby increased. Such a
situation demands special care, and should be avoided if possible.

Advising the client

It is important before work starts on site that the architect reminds the client of
the architect’s responsibilities, and of the limits of the architect’s powers, and that
it is the duty of the contractor rather than of
the architect to supervise the work in ‘‘it is the duty of the
progress. The client should be encouraged
to attend or be represented at site progress
contractor rather than of
meetings, and otherwise take an active the architect to supervise
interest in the work – which in itself will the work in progress’’
help to improve quality. The client should,
of course, also be advised to make arrangements with the contractor before
visiting site, and be reminded not to give instructions directly to the contractor.

Other consultants
If acting as lead consultant, the architect should agree with other consultants
how they are to perform their own inspection duties.

Briefing site inspectors

Before briefing the clerk of works or other site inspectors, the architect should
remember that he or she will retain responsibility for checking important
elements of construction and for carrying out spot checks of the construction
generally. If the architect is to rely on site inspectors to carry out some of the
checks, it is essential they be briefed very carefully indeed. In all cases site inspec-
tors should be reminded that their role is to look, and to report to the architect
what they see.
Clerks of works are usually ex-tradesmen, and it should be possible to rely on
them to notice when normal standards of workmanship in traditional construc-
tion are not being achieved. Nevertheless, on all but the very simplest of jobs
it will be necessary to brief site inspectors such that they fully understand and
appreciate:
. the extent and limitation of their powers under the contract
. their duties
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

68 Inspecting Works

. the architect’s and other consultants’ construction details

. the reasons for and the importance of specific construction requirements
. unusual and special features of the design, and their importance
. the need to speak to the architect if in doubt about details, apparent discre-
pancies or any other matters.
The architect must have clearly in mind the parts of the building that must be
inspected at first hand, and the parts that could or should be left to others. Items
of aesthetic and technical importance should
‘‘Items of aesthetic and always be inspected by the architect. Techni-
cally complex elements – which nowadays
technical importance could even include such ‘traditional’ construc-
should always be tion as a fireplace – should also always be
inspected by the architect’’ inspected by the architect, consultant engin-
eer or other suitably qualified person. If such
items are repetitive, the prototype or first to be built should be inspected by the
architect or engineer, who should continue to make spot checks at suitable intervals.
Before briefing site staff, the architect should refer to the guidance in the latest
edition of the Architect’s Job Book published by the RIBA. If appropriate,
site inspectors should spend some time in the architect’s office before work
starts.

Initial project team meeting

The initial project team meeting (or ‘pre-contract’ or ‘pre-start’ meeting) is impor-
tant for many reasons. As far as the architect inspecting the works is concerned it
is essential that during the meeting:
. the architect’s and other consultants’ staff likely to be involved in inspection,
site inspectors, the contractor’s manager and person in charge on site, and
preferably a representative of the client are all present
. the intentions and priorities of the client and consultants, and the thinking
behind the project are relayed to the contractor
. the respective inspection roles of the architect and site inspectors are clearly
explained
. the contractor is made aware of particular details of construction that the
architect wishes to see before they are covered up, and of tests that the
architect wishes to witness
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 4: As work is about to start 69

. it is stressed that, under the contract, supervision and quality control are the
responsibility of the contractor
. the contractor be asked to confirm its proposed arrangements for ensuring
adequate supervision and quality control
. the contractor hands over a copy of its contract programme
. the architect’s and other consultants’ programmes for the preparation of
necessary further production information are discussed
. work by named subcontractors, or other specialist contractors, and the
arrangement of separate meetings with such subcontractors or specialist
contractors as necessary to make clear the allocation of responsibilities
for management, coordination, quality control and inspection are all
discussed
. the contractor is reminded of its duty to understand the provisions within
the design for means of escape and other fire safety measures, with a
view to ensuring that such provisions are not compromised during con-
struction
. the contractor hands over a copy of its health and safety plan
. special health and safety, temporary protection (of both internal and external
and landscape items) and security requirements are discussed and understood
as appropriate
. terms of party wall agreements are discussed and understood
. it is pointed out that, under the contract, the architect has no duty to prepare
‘snagging’ lists towards the end of the job, and that any such lists compiled by
anyone involved in the project should not be considered by the contractor to
be exhaustive or definitive
. it is emphasised that practical completion is a matter for the architect’s
opinion alone, and does not depend on whether or not the employer has
taken possession of the works, or whether or not the contractor considers
that all items on particular ‘snagging’ lists have been addressed.
If the above points have been raised and minuted, a lot of potential argument
during and at the end of the contract can be avoided.
It is also a good idea to give the contractor, for displaying in the site office,
some presentation material showing what the building will look like when it is
finished. A visible goal will help to achieve a finished product of higher quality
by encouraging and giving a greater sense of purpose to the construction
team.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

70 Inspecting Works

The contractor’s programme

Under most building contracts the contractor’s programme is not a contract docu-
ment. The contractor cannot therefore usually be required to carry out the works
exactly as shown on the programme.
‘‘the programme is However, the programme is essential, both
essential, both as a guide as a guide by which to monitor progress
and as a basis on which to assess any claims
by which to monitor for an extension of time – so the contractor
progress and as a basis should not start on site before issuing a
copy to the architect. The architect should
on which to assess any examine the programme carefully and
claims for an extension of discuss any queries with the contractor. The
architect’s comments should be recorded in
time’’ writing, but care should be taken to ensure
that they are not construed as instructions. Under no circumstances should the
programme be approved by the architect.

Things to look out for include:

. dates shown incorrectly

. impracticable sequencing (such as electrical second fixing at the same time
and in the same place as plastering)
. activities that are missing
. clearly inadequate time allowances
. inadequate allowance for ‘hidden’ activities (such as drying-out of plaster or
screeds)
. absence of deadlines for approving the appearance of samples (such as brick
panels on which the ordering of bricks may depend)
. subcontract and specialist contract programmes and lead-in times for
materials and components not integrated into the overall programme
. inadequate allowance made for contingencies (such as, for example, work that
may be required in connection with existing services or structure below ground).

The same checks should be made if the programme is revised and reissued at any
stage during the job.

Sometimes, in order to please impatient clients, contractors are asked to carry out
work unrealistically quickly. Contractors may agree to such timescales, confident
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 4: As work is about to start 71

that grounds for claims for extensions of time and exorbitant loss and expense
payments will arise – or can be cooked up. The architect should avoid such
situations.

First meeting with the site agent

An excellent start can be made by immediately before or during the early stages
of the contract holding a meeting with the site agent to explain the drawings and
specification. The meeting should be informal, attended only by the architect and
the site agent, and should be separate from the formal initial contract or ‘pre-
start’ meeting.

The site agent is, without doubt, the most important person on the site, and the
success of the job very much depends on the relationship between the site agent
and the job architect. An early, businesslike meeting between the two will create
a good impression and help to establish a productive relationship.

Once the job is under way it is inevitable – even with the best of contractors, and
with all production information available and complete – that work not in accor-
dance with the drawings and specification
will be found. Apart from sheer carelessness ‘‘it is inevitable that work
– which it is impossible to eliminate entirely
– the main causes will be that the architect’s
not in accordance with
details are simply not understood, that the drawings and
specific requirements are, despite the best
of intentions, overlooked, or that the
specification will be found’’
reasons for certain construction requirements are not appreciated, leading to
their being misinterpreted or simply ignored in favour of alternatives that are
more expedient to the contractor or operative.

The initial meeting with the site agent should help to minimise the occurrence of
such faulty work by:
. providing an opportunity for the architect to emphasise important con-
struction details
. allowing for the resolution of any immediate queries that the contractor may
have
. consequently bringing to light any obvious gaps in the production infor-
mation.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

72 Inspecting Works

The meeting is also a good opportunity for the architect to remind the site agent
of the particular details of construction that the architect wishes to see before
they are covered up, and of tests that the architect wishes to witness.
During such meetings the architect should bear in mind that, contrary to the
contractor’s assurances that for weeks before starting on site the site agent has
been assiduously studying the contract documents, it is possible that the site
agent left his or her previous job on the Friday before starting on site on the
Monday, and was given the drawings for the new job only in time for them to
be opened briefly during the weekend.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 4: As work is about to start 73

SUMMARY

. The architect should study the production information and prepare a list
of all parts of the design it is essential be inspected.
. A plan should be set up showing when, on the basis of the contractor’s
programme, it is expected the listed parts will be built, when they should
be inspected and when checks of the construction generally should be
carried out.
. It is likely the inspection plan will have to be updated as building work
proceeds.
. The architect’s inspections will comprise predictive inspections, periodic
inspections and spot checks.
. The risk of running out of fees before the job is finished should be
avoided.
. The client should be reminded of the architect’s responsibilities and the
limits of the architect’s powers.
. The client should be advised to make arrangements with the contractor
before visiting site.
. If acting as lead consultant, the architect should agree with other
consultants how they are to perform their own inspection duties.
. It will be necessary for the architect to brief site inspectors.
. It is important that matters affecting inspecting of the works be discussed
at the initial project team meeting.
. The architect should examine and comment on the contractor’s
programme.
. A good start can be made by holding a meeting with the site agent to
explain the drawings and specification.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 5
While work is in
progress
In this Section:
. The timing of inspections; Use of checklists
. Priorities for inspection; Once on site; Contractual provisions
. Storage and protection; Inspecting work off site
. The contractor’s quality control procedures; Contractor’s records
. What should the architect do if defective work is found?
. Health and safety; Site security; Welfare facilities; Site tidiness
. Monitoring progress; Dayworks sheets
. The clerk of works and other site inspectors; Other consultants
. Inspection records; Completion; At the end of the contract

The timing of inspections

Before work has started, the architect should have prepared a plan, based on the
contractor’s programme, showing when inspections are to be made. The plan
should be updated as necessary to reflect actual progress on site. Inspections
should be carried out in accordance with the plan.
Special attention will be required to the timing of predictive inspections and to
visits to witness the carrying-out of tests. It will be necessary to keep in close
contact with the contractor to avoid visits being made too late, or having to
instruct the postponement of work that would cover up work to be inspected.
It may have been agreed, or the contract may require, that the contractor
should give notice before particular items of work are ready for inspection
(although failure of the contractor to give such notice would not excuse the
architect from inspecting work before it is covered up).

75
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

76 Inspecting Works

‘‘There may be periods The timing of periodic visits is not so critical;

they need simply to take place regularly,
during which it would be except that their frequency should be
worthwhile for the architect increased or decreased as necessary to
suit the requirements of each stage of the
to visit site every day’’ job. There may even be periods during
which it would be worthwhile for the architect to visit site every day – even if
just to make the point that construction quality really does matter.
Spot checks need be made as and when appropriate.
An inspection should always be made shortly before issuing a certificate for
payment.

Use of checklists
Before each visit to site it is essential that the architect reviews the drawings,
specification and inspection plan in relation to the stage that work has
reached, and prepares a list of specific items to be checked. Checklists taken
from a book or article, or an office standard checklist, will include the more
obvious and commonly found defects and can be useful, but such lists must
be adapted to suit the particular project, its priorities, the contractor, the way
the job has gone so far and the architect’s experience of similar jobs in the past.
It is good practice to set out each checklist on a standard site inspection form
that provides plenty of space for comments to be added during, or immediately
after, the architect’s visit to site, against or below each item to be inspected (see
Figure 5.1). The architect must take the checklist with him or her when inspecting
work, as the numerous distractions on site could otherwise cause items from the
list to be forgotten.
Where the contract documents refer to British Standards, Agrément Certificates,
industry codes of practice or similar publications it is advisable to check their
contents before leaving the office – or to ask the contractor to make them
readily available on site.

Priorities for inspection

It is never possible, even with a full-time site architect and clerk of works, to check
every item of work carried out. It is therefore necessary to ensure that inspection
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 5: While work is in progress 77

FIGURE 5.1: Site visit report

SITE VISIT REPORT

Job: Date:
Job no.: Visit by:
No. of visits scheduled: Visit no.:
Purpose of visit: Page of

Items to be checked Observations Actions

Storage and protection

Health and safety
Contractor’s supervision
Trades and no. of operatives on site
Progress in relation to programme
Delays and causes
Information required

Checked Records

Samples: Photos:
Tests: Video:
Vouchers: Other:
Contractor’s records:
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

78 Inspecting Works

efforts are concentrated so as to make the most effective use of time and
resources. Items given priority for inspection should include:
. setting out of the building on the site
. protective coatings to structural steelwork
. cavity wall construction
. special tolerances
. roof details
. details designed to prevent the penetration of water or damp
. setting out of partitions, and setting out and dimensions of internal and exter-
nal openings
. storage and protection of masonry units, cladding components, windows,
doors and joinery units
. setting out and fixing of services before plastering
. fire-stopping at services penetrations, and other elements of fire-resisting con-
struction
. screeds
. fixing of glazing in frames
. the work of any trade that has started since the architect’s last visit to site
. boundary conditions with respect to the terms of party wall agreements, and
statutory and other consents and approvals
. other elements of work shown on the architect’s inspection plan.
The list will vary from job to job.

Once on site

When on site to carry out inspections there are a number of general principles
that the architect must bear in mind:
. The architect must always report to the contractor’s person in charge
immediately on arrival, and must not visit the site outside working hours
when the contractor’s staff is absent.
. The architect must actually inspect. Inspection means looking at specific ele-
ments of work to find out whether or not they comply with the requirements
of the building contract. Inspection does not mean making assumptions based
on general impressions gained by wandering around the site.
. The specific elements will either comply or not comply; it is not part of the
architect’s job to decide whether or not work probably complies.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 5: While work is in progress 79

. The function of inspecting should not be

confused with the functions of visiting
‘‘Inspection means looking
site to attend meetings or to deal with at specific elements of
queries. (Once on site it is common for work to find out whether
the architect to find that all his or her
time is being spent answering large num- or not they comply with
bers of questions from the contractor and the requirements of the
trades foremen, or discussing particularly
tricky problems that have arisen since the
building contract’’
architect’s previous visit. Although such matters are obviously important,
inspecting should be kept separate from other activities, and sufficient time
must be dedicated to it.)
. It is vital that the architect distances him- or herself from the turmoil and looks
carefully at the particular elements of the building construction that he or she
has come to site to inspect. This is best done alone, without distraction from
contractor, client or anyone else.
. Inspection must be done thoughtfully and methodically, comparing the build-
ing work on site with the construction drawings and specification. The archi-
tect must think through the implications of what has been built and what
has not been built, and bear in mind the principles behind particular details
being inspected.
. It can be helpful to follow a set route that starts with the parts of the building
which are the most advanced, takes in all parts of the site in sequence, and
finishes with the least advanced parts of the building. With a new building it
will probably mean starting at the bottom and working up, but with a refurb-
ishment or conversion it may mean starting at the roof and working down.
Such a method assists the monitoring of progress and minimises the risk of
inadvertently neglecting to inspect parts of the site.
. The storage of materials and the protection of finished work can be as
important as work in progress.
. Packaging – either of materials stored ready for use, or of those discarded after
use – can be helpful in determining whether or not the right materials have
been used.
. Watching operations in progress may bring obvious errors of workmanship to
the architect’s attention, but the architect should be aware that the work being
carried out might not be representative of what goes on during his or her
absence.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

80 Inspecting Works

. Giving a new trade special attention will help to set standards, resolve initial
difficulties and spot mistakes before they are repeated.
. The architect must inspect everything on the checklist, but also take time to
step back and look at things in general, taking a critical overview of the site
as a whole. He or she must be alert to the possibility of discovering the unex-
pected.
. It should not be forgotten that the authority and powers of the architect on
site extend only as far as the contract documents permit. Any attempts by
the architect on site to extend his or her powers or impose requirements
not included within the documents will almost inevitably lead to the incurring
of delays, or additional costs to the client – or both.
. The architect should be firm with the contractor about what should be done,
but should resist any temptation to tell the contractor how to do it. Instructing
the contractor on how work should be carried out could leave the architect
liable for additional costs, damage to property or, in the worst cases, injury
or death.
. The architect should not give instructions directly to operatives – even if they
are doing things wrongly – unless health or safety is immediately at risk. To do
so can lead to misunderstandings and undermine site management.
. The architect should not be deterred from inspecting work because access is
difficult or unsafe, but should insist that adequate safe access be provided.
Lack of access is not an excuse for over-certifying.
. When preparing valuations, the quantity surveyor will measure all work that is
evident. However, it is not part of the quantity surveyor’s job to take a view on
whether or not work complies with the requirements of the contract docu-
ments. The architect must therefore ensure that the quantity surveyor is
informed of all defective work, and that payment is certified only in respect
of work properly executed.

Contractual provisions
Building contracts can give to the architect specific powers intended to facilitate
checks on materials and workmanship.

Clause 3.17 of the JCT’s Standard Building Contract (SBC 2005) provides that:

The Architect . . . may issue instructions requiring the Contractor to open

up for inspection any work covered up or to arrange for or carry out any
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 5: While work is in progress 81

test of any materials or goods (whether or not already incorporated in

the Works) or of any executed work. The cost of such opening up or
testing (including the cost of making good) shall be added to the
Contract Sum unless provided for in the Contract Bills or unless the
inspection or test shows that the materials, goods or work are not in
accordance with this Contract.
Clause 3.14 of the JCT’s Intermediate Building Contract (IC 2005) contains similar
provisions.
Such a provision is invaluable, as some defective work can be detected only by
opening up. It is therefore worth including in the contract documents, for any
but the smallest of jobs, a provision for opening up and testing so that, once
on site, the architect can instruct any necessary opening up without adding to
the contract sum.
The architect’s powers to request opening up or testing must be used selectively,
but they must be used. Elements of work that it might be appropriate to inspect
by opening up or testing – or both – could include:
. hidden damp-proofing details where the contractor may have been tempted
into doing a quick, shoddy job rather than a proper one
. repetitive elements, where standards may have been allowed to slip
. depth and mix of screeds
. depth and quality of asphalt
. crushing strength and porosity of masonry units
. wall construction and mortar mix
. moisture content of timber
. water tightness of plumbing and drainage
. air tightness of flues
. fixing of windows, cladding or other components.
It is important that the architect instructs the opening up or testing before
following trades – for example, floor finishes on screeds – commence.

Storage and protection

Components and materials can become stained, chipped, scratched, dented or
otherwise damaged if they are badly stored or poorly protected. There may
not be time to reorder damaged stored components, or it may be physically
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

82 Inspecting Works

‘‘Making good damaged impracticable to replace components or

materials damaged after they have been
work is never entirely incorporated into the works. Making good
satisfactory, and the need damaged work is never entirely satisfactory,
and the need for it should be avoided. Open-
for it should be avoided’’ ings being used for access during construc-
tion are especially vulnerable, as is finished work next to routes through or
around the building.

Door jambs and heads, door leaves, window sills, stair treads and strings, nosings,
balustrades, floor finishes, sanitary ware, and any form of pre-finished compo-
nent, from a cladding panel to a light fitting, are likely to require careful attention.

The architect should see that they are properly protected both before and after
they are fixed, that they are not fixed too early and that, where possible, the
contractor avoids potential damage to vulnerable parts of the building by
using alternative or temporary means of access. Similarly, the contractor
should not permit site staff to use WCs, unless express permission has been
granted, and should not sanction the washing of paintbrushes in basins or
sinks or the use of vanity unit tops as workbenches. It may be best to remove
fitted components temporarily, protect them in a secure part of the site, and
refit them shortly before completion.

Equal care should be taken of existing features to be retained. If work involves a

listed building, the consequences of failing properly to protect existing features,
finishes, fittings and building fabric generally can be particularly onerous. Exter-
nally, the architect must pay special attention to the protection of trees or other
hard or soft landscape elements to be preserved.

The architect should also be aware, particularly when certifying payment, that the
ownership of materials stored on site may not have passed from the supplier to
the contractor.

Inspecting work off site

There are occasions when it is of benefit for the architect to inspect elements of
work off site, although specialist experience or advice may be needed to make
such inspections properly effective. Visiting a workshop during the making of
an important piece of metalwork or joinery can help to ensure that standards
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 5: While work is in progress 83

of workmanship are adequate and that details of construction have been

understood, or it may be necessary to choose a veneer. Visiting a quarry while
work is in progress can ensure the consistency of stone supplied to site.
Inspecting pre-fabricated buildings or manufactured buildings or parts of build-
ings during the course of production is essential.
Visits should be timed to be neither too early for anything worthwhile to be
seen, nor too late to avoid risking significant abortive work if things are not as
they should be. Such visits are often provided
for in the contract documents – and the visits ‘‘inspecting work off site
should be made. In the absence of express
provisions, the contractor’s agreement
may be important for the
should be obtained. Although inspecting purpose of quality control’’
work off site may be important for the purpose of quality control, it is likely
that ownership of the work will not have been passed to the contractor. The
architect should therefore be extremely reluctant to certify payment to the
contractor for such work.

The contractor’s quality control procedures

As well as the architect inspecting the work him- or herself it is important to
check that the contractor’s own quality control procedures are being properly
implemented. The architect’s client is paying for the contractor to control
quality, and the contractor should not be relying on the architect’s inspections
instead.
The procedures to be put into effect by the contractor will have been determined
by the specific requirements of the contract documents and the proposals
agreed during the initial project meeting. The contractor may have been required
to provide a method statement.
An essential element is the permanent presence on site of a competent person
who can and does supervise the work on a day-to-day basis. Such a provision
should be an express requirement of all building contracts. The failure of a
contractor to satisfy such a requirement should be treated extremely seriously
by the architect. Trades foremen must also be competent, and present on site
as necessary to ensure that prescribed standards of workmanship and progress
are achieved. The operatives themselves must be appropriately skilled and
experienced for the type of work they are doing.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

84 Inspecting Works

It is of equal importance that management and workers on site have the correct
production information, and are using it. The architect should check that the right
information is being used, and may also –
‘‘The architect should with the contractor’s permission – help to
avoid defects by explaining to site manage-
check that the right ment the aesthetic, practical and technical
information is being used’’ reasoning behind the design and its details.
This may be done during an initial informal
meeting with the site agent, or stage by stage with key personnel as the job
progresses – or a combination of both methods.
The contractor is often required by specifications to have on site copies of all
standards and codes of practice to which the specification refers. On a small
domestic job such a requirement is probably unrealistic and unlikely to be satis-
fied, but on larger jobs the architect may insist that standards are obtained and
that the contractor refers to them.
Management environments within which good-quality building work is
produced are likely to feature:
. meetings between main contractor and subcontractors well before subcon-
tractors are due to start on site (the purpose of such meetings being to
ensure that before the subcontractor starts work it is clear what is to be
done and with whom queries are to be raised, that the main contractor
knows what to provide in terms of access, builder’s work and materials, and
that when the subcontractor arrives a clear uninterrupted run of work can
be expected)
. managers who clearly understand their position and function
. site managers who are competent and sufficient in number to allow time to
coordinate, supervise and check the work of all trades
. good welfare facilities for operatives
. regular minuted meetings to solve problems, with contributions welcomed
from a wide range of people.

Contractor’s records
On all but the smallest of jobs the contract documents should require the
contractor to keep on site records of the contractor’s quality control activities
and matters affecting progress.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 5: While work is in progress 85

Records of quality control activities should clearly identify the subject of

each individual record by element, item, batch, lot and location in the works as
applicable. Such records should include:
. dates, details and results of the contractor’s own inspections and tests
. documentary evidence of the quality of materials and goods being incorpo-
rated into the work
. details and extent of any work found not to be in accordance with the contract
documents
. details of corrective action taken.
Records of matters affecting progress should include:
. a continuously updated record of the progress of the works, shown on a copy
of the programme
. daily records of the number and description of all main and subcontractor’s
personnel on site, including site management
. daily records of the number, type and capacity of all mechanical and power-
operated plant on site
. maximum and minimum temperatures in each 24-hour period
. the number of hours per day in which work is prevented by adverse weather.
The architect should not only check that records as required by the contract
documents are being kept, but should also carry out occasional spot checks of
their accuracy.

What should the architect do if defective work is found?

If the architect finds work on site that is not in accordance with the contract docu-
ments, it should be immediately reported to the contractor’s site management.
The architect should not directly ask the operatives carrying out the work
either to stop the work or to alter their working practices. If the architect has
questions about what is being or has been done they should be asked
through the contractor’s site manager – or at least in the manager’s presence.
Many contracts include provisions for use in the event of defective work being
found. Clause 3.18 of the JCT’s Standard Building Contract (SBC 2005) provides
that:
If any work, materials or goods are not in accordance with this Contract
the Architect . . . , in addition to his other powers, may:
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

86 Inspecting Works

1 issue instructions in regard to the removal from the site of all or any of
such work, materials or goods;
2 after consultation with the Contractor and with the agreement of the
Employer, allow all or any of such work, materials or goods to remain
(except those which are part of the Contractor’s Design Portion), in
which event he shall confirm this in writing to the Contractor but
that shall not be construed as a Variation and an appropriate deduc-
tion shall be made from the Contract Sum;
3 after consultation with the Contractor issue such instructions requiring
a Variation as are reasonably necessary as a consequence of any
instructions under clause 3.18.1 and/or any confirmation under
clause 3.18.2 (but to the extent that such instructions are reasonably
necessary, no addition shall be made to the Contract Sum and no
extension of time shall be given); and/or
4 having due regard to the Code of Practice set out in Schedule 4, issue
such instructions under clause 3.17 to open up for inspection or to
test as are reasonable in all the circumstances to establish to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Architect . . . the likelihood or extent,
as appropriate to the circumstances, of any further similar non-
compliance. To the extent that such instructions are reasonable,
whatever the results of the opening up, no addition shall be made
to the Contract Sum . . .

There are a number of points worth noting in connection with the clause:

. The architect is not restricted to choosing only one of the four options – any
combination of the options may also be employed.
. There is no provision for the architect to instruct that the defect be corrected: it
can only be, in whole or part, removed from site, accepted or accommodated
by means of a variation.
. Accepting or accommodating defects under such a clause should be done only at
the request of the architect’s client, and even then the architect should first con-
sider responsibilities to owners, occupiers and third parties, and act accordingly.
. The provisions for opening up and tests under clause 3.18 are different from
the provisions under clause 3.17.

Under clause 3.17 the architect can instruct the opening up or testing of work
without evidence of a defect. However, the employer will pay for the opening
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 5: While work is in progress 87

up or testing and consequent making good (and the architect will have to grant
an extension of time for any associated delay to completion) unless work not in
accordance with the contract is revealed.

In contrast, clause 3.18 does not entitle the architect to instruct any opening up
or testing unless defective work has first been found (perhaps, but by no means
necessarily, as a result of previous opening up or testing under clause 3.17). In
such a case, whatever the results of the opening up or testing, and provided
the architect’s instructions to open up or test were reasonable, the employer
will not have to pay the costs (although, if the opening up or testing reveals
no further defective work, the architect will have to grant an extension of time
for any associated delay to completion).

The provisions in the JCT’s Intermediate Building Contract (IC 2005) are some-
what different. If defective work is discovered, the contractor is required –
without instruction or request from the architect – to comply with clause
3.15.1, which states:

If during the carrying out of the Works any work, materials or goods are
found not to be in accordance with this Contract, the Contractor shall
forthwith state in writing to the Architect . . . the action which the
Contractor proposes immediately to take at no cost to the Employer to
establish that there is no similar failure in work already executed or
materials or goods already supplied (whether or not incorporated in
the Works). If the Architect . . . :

. has not received such statement within 7 days of the finding; or

. is not satisfied with the action proposed by the Contractor; or
. because of considerations of safety or statutory obligations, is unable
to wait for the Contractor’s written proposals,

he . . . may issue instructions requiring the Contractor at no cost to the

Employer to open up for inspection any work covered up or to
arrange for or carry out any test of any materials or goods (whether or
not already incorporated in the Works) or any executed work to establish
that there is no similar failure, including making good thereafter. The
Contractor shall forthwith comply with any such instruction.

The following points are interesting to note:

Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

88 Inspecting Works

. Neither the contractor nor the architect can exercise discretion as to whether
or not the contractor’s proposals must be submitted to the architect.
(However, if the contractor objects to an instruction issued by the architect
under clause 3.15.1, clause 3.15.2 grants the right to appeal in writing to the
architect within ten days of the date of issue of the instruction. If, within
seven days of the date of issue of the contractor’s appeal, the architect has
not withdrawn or modified the instruction to the contractor’s satisfaction,
the matter is left to be decided under the dispute resolution procedure
applicable under the contract.)
. The contractor is theoretically required to write to the architect after every dis-
covery of a defect, which would inevitably include a large number of minor
defects that could be rectified very simply. The architect and the contractor
should therefore use common sense in operating the clause and, if practicable,
during the initial project meeting agree how the clause is to be used.
. The architect must give an extension of time for any delays to completion
caused by opening up or testing under clause 3.15.1, unless defects are found.

Clause 3.16.1 of IC 2005 gives the architect powers roughly equivalent to those
given by clause 3.18 of SBC 2005.

The architect must exercise care in operating clauses such as those referred to
above, so as to avoid inadvertently adding to the contract sum. In particular,
the architect must be wary of using the provisions of the clauses to improve
dubious details. For example, the architect may instruct the opening up of a
cavity wall and find that fewer wall ties have been used than were specified. If
the architect then instructs the contractor to rebuild the wall with the specified
number of wall ties the contractor must do so at its own expense. However, if the
architect instructs the contractor to rebuild the wall with more wall ties than were
specified at the time the wall was first built – or with higher-quality wall ties – it is
likely that the contractor will have a good case for claiming that more than the
cost of the additional or higher quality wall ties should be added to the contract
sum: the instruction will effectively have become a variation.

Whatever the contractual provisions, it is important that the architect operates

them strictly, firmly and promptly. The removal from site of defective work and
its replacement with work in accordance with the contract documents can
cause significant delay and can prove expensive for the contractor. The architect
can therefore find him- or herself under considerable pressure from the
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 5: While work is in progress 89

contractor – or even the client – to accept work that is inadequate or botched.

The architect has no authority to accept such work, and to do so would leave
the architect open to accusations from the client and possibly from third
parties. The safest course is to have the work removed and rebuilt correctly.
The worst thing to do is endlessly to prevaricate.
However, if for any reason it appears preferable to accept work not in accordance
with the contract documents, the potential consequences must be given the
most careful consideration before a firm decision is made. Apparently harmless
changes during the course of building operations can have far-reaching and
serious consequences that are difficult to predict while in the middle of a stressful
construction programme when important reasoning behind the design of
original details may not immediately return to mind. Matters to which special
thought should be given include:
. function
. technical performance
. finished appearance
. durability
. effects on safety, fire protection and means of escape.
If the client disagrees with the architect’s conclusions, the architect should write
to the client recording the facts and disclaiming responsibility, taking into
account duties to third parties.
Details of defective work, whether found by observation or by opening up,
should be recorded by the architect in writing and – except perhaps for isolated
minor items – by photograph.

Finally, the architect should remember that a defect in construction is a failure

of the contractor’s quality control system. Following the discovery of defects,
the architect should insist that the contractor’s supervision of the work is
improved.

Health and safety

Site safety is the responsibility of the contractor. The architect has no duty
either to devise or to approve safe methods of work, and is neither trained nor
paid to do so. To avoid contributing to, or being held liable for, an accident,
the architect should be extremely careful to avoid involvement in such
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

90 Inspecting Works

matters. However, if the contract documents require the contractor to submit a

health and safety plan or method statement the architect should carry out checks
on its implementation.
If, while carrying out the architect’s inspection duties, the architect thinks that
any work or other activities taking place on site appear unsafe, he or she
should immediately raise the matter with the contractor. A failure to do so
may lead to an accusation of tacit approval. If the architect remains concerned,
and the contractor refuses to do anything about it, the architect should immedi-
ately contact the Health and Safety Executive. If third party property or members
of the public may be in danger, the architect should call the local building control
officer or even the police, as appropriate. Failure by the architect to act in such
circumstances could lead to the architect being held liable. If a contractor does
not cooperate in connection with health and safety matters, payment for any
affected work should not be certified, on the basis it is not being properly
executed.
Obvious things to look out for include safety rails and toe boards fitted to
scaffolding, proper fixing of ladders, adequate hoardings and screens to
protect neighbours and the public, and safe access generally in, out of and
around the site. The architect should refer for further guidance to Health and
Safety in Construction published by the HSE.
All action taken in connection with health and safety should be recorded in
writing.

Site security

Site security is also a matter for the contractor. However, as with safety, if the
architect thinks something is not right he or
‘‘Security requirements she should express such concerns to the
contractor. Neglecting to do so may be
should have been clearly interpreted as tacit approval. Security
set out in the tender requirements should have been clearly set
out in the tender documents, but it may be
documents’’ necessary to increase security provisions
beyond those specifically required at tender stage. The architect should remain
alert to such matters. A written record of all action taken should be made and
kept.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 5: While work is in progress 91

Welfare facilities
The quality of welfare facilities provided by the contractor for operatives plays an
essential role in:
. attracting the best subcontractors and individual tradesmen
. keeping up the morale of those on site
. thereby increasing the quality of the finished job.
The contract documents should therefore require the contractor to provide and
maintain, in fully working and clean condition, welfare facilities of a high stan-
dard. The employer under the building contract will consequently be paying
for such provision and maintenance, and the architect should make sure the
contractor provides them.

Site tidiness
Tidiness of the site is a matter of efficiency and safety. A site strewn with
randomly stored and inaccessible materials, littered with debris and rubbish, is
not conducive to the production of high-quality work, and is simply not safe.
Such a site should not be permitted by the contract documents and should
not be tolerated by the architect.

Monitoring progress
An architect administering a contract needs to monitor:
. actual progress being made on site
. events that may have a bearing on potential claims.
The purpose of such monitoring is to keep the client informed of likely delays and
additional costs. It is best done by:
. comparing actual progress on site with the contractor’s programme
. checking the ordering and fabrication of long lead-in materials and compo-
nents
. asking the contractor for advice on matters that may cause or are causing
delays or disruption
. keeping an eye out for potential problems.
Monitoring should be done regularly and frequently to ensure that potential
delays are discovered at the earliest opportunity. The architect must not simply
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

92 Inspecting Works

rely on the marked-up programme in the contractor’s office or on assurances

from the contractor that progress is as it should be, but must carry out his or
her own checks and assess the situation personally.
Matters that commonly cause delay include:
. late production information
. inadequate forward planning by the contractor
. components or materials ordered too late, or subject to increased delivery
periods
. scaffolding, or other means of access around or into the site, not being
available on time
. subcontractors not arriving on site when due, being prevented by other
commitments from returning to site promptly after postponing visits because
of earlier delays, or not proceeding regularly and diligently
. insufficient or poorly skilled people deployed on site
. problems arising from discrepancies in production information, or the imprac-
ticability of details
. the need to make good defective work
. variations
. statutory consents not obtained, or conditions not satisfied sufficiently in
advance of affected work
. work by statutory undertakers not completed when required
. delays by the client in supplying materials or components
. delays or disruption caused by client’s specialist contractors
. prolonged frost, severe rain or snow.

The architect should be alert to the potential occurrence of any such events. If it
appears that any of the above events is likely to occur, the architect should
promptly take up the matter with the contractor with a view to evasive action
being taken. The architect must report to the client as necessary.

Daywork sheets
An inspecting architect should not sign daywork sheets unless he or she has
authority to do so, has been given adequate notice of the commencement of
the work, has been given a reasonable opportunity to verify the accuracy of
the facts recorded, and has been presented with the sheets no later than the
end of the week after the work was carried out.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 5: While work is in progress 93

The contractor should also be reminded that the signing of daywork sheets does
not:
. in itself constitute an instruction
. confirm acceptance of cost implications
. mean that the work will necessarily be valued on a daywork basis.

On a large job it may be worth obtaining and using a rubber stamp worded with
such a reminder.

The clerk of works and other site inspectors

The architect is responsible for the direction of the clerk of works and other site
inspectors. The architect should therefore keep in close contact with them and, as
work on site proceeds:
. explain priorities for inspection
. explain complex or important details, the reasoning behind them and the
intended results – from both aesthetic and technical points of view
. ensure that site inspectors have adequate facilities, supplies of forms, etc.
. ensure that procedures are followed, and that records are completed correctly,
returned on time and properly filed (clear records of competent inspections by
site staff could be invaluable in the event of a dispute)
. ensure that site inspectors are not exceeding the limits of their authority by
advising or instructing the contractor, trades foremen or operatives – or by
other means
. ensure, by the quality of the architect’s and other consultants’ own production
information, that there is no need for site inspectors to waste time interpreting
and completing it for the contractor’s benefit
. provide support and back-up to site inspectors, and ensure they are not under-
mined (for example, by the architect being lenient to the contractor over a
matter on which a site inspector had been firm).

The architect must remember that the duties of site inspectors are to check,
inspect and report – and no more. The purpose of site inspectors is to provide
more frequent and detailed inspection services in addition to, not instead of,
those to be provided by the architect. Unless the architect’s appointment
contains express provisions to the contrary, site inspectors’ services are not a
substitute for the architect’s inspection services.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

94 Inspecting Works

The architect, therefore, must not delegate to site inspectors duties that are the
responsibility of the architect. All important aspects of the project must be
inspected by the architect. Where a project includes a number of repeated
elements, the architect should inspect the first to be built, should periodically
check elements subsequently built and, provided no defects are found, may
otherwise delegate inspection to the clerk of works or other site inspector.
When delegating inspection to a site inspector it is essential that the inspector
should receive detailed instructions on what to look at, what to look for, and why.
Should the architect find that a site inspector is unreliable in any way, the archi-
tect should immediately take up the matter with the site inspector’s employer. If
the situation is not improved it may be necessary for the architect to increase the
length and frequency of his or her own inspections. Under no circumstances
should an architect continue to delegate matters of any importance to a site
inspector whom the architect believes to be unreliable or incompetent.

Other consultants
If acting as lead consultant the architect should ensure that other consultants
perform their own inspection duties, notify the architect of any defective work
found and submit to the architect written inspection reports. To help avoid
over-certification the architect must ensure that the quantity surveyor is kept
fully updated and informed on all matters concerning defective work inspected
by other consultants so that it may be excluded from the quantity surveyor’s
valuations.

Inspection records
During or immediately after each visit to site, records must be made – and kept –
of all items of work inspected and observations noted. (If records are completed
while on site it is essential that writing is legible. Some architects use a tape
recorder and, in addition to writing up notes when they return to the office,
may keep the tape.) Although inspection notes need only be brief, they must
be sufficiently comprehensive to enable others to understand them long after
the visit has taken place. A good policy is to use a simple office standard form,
such as that illustrated in the Architect’s Job Book, which should be carefully
completed and properly filed. Some architects issue copies of their site inspection
records to the contractor and other parties as a reminder of actions to be carried
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 5: While work is in progress 95

out. Such a practice is not necessary and probably best avoided but, if followed, it
is essential that copies of site records issued as reminders are not confused with
architect’s instructions.

Photographs and video tapes are invaluable in recording defects and progress.
Such records should be made regularly at appropriate intervals throughout the
course of a job. Prints and tapes should, of course, be dated, labelled as necessary
to identify the subject of each shot or tape
and filed with the written records of the ‘‘Photographs and video
visit during which they were taken. The rate
of progress may best be recorded by
tapes are invaluable in
annotating, hatching or otherwise marking recording defects and
up a drawing, or a copy of the contractor’s progress’’
programme – or both.

While completing records the architect should bear in mind their potential use as:
. a reminder of any questions that need to be answered when the architect
returns to the office
. a reminder of anything that the architect needs to re-inspect when next visit-
ing site
. a reminder of work not properly executed of which the quantity surveyor
should be advised so as to give the quantity surveyor the opportunity of
excluding it from his or her valuations
. a record of progress to assist in assessing potential claims for extension of time
or reimbursement of loss and expense
. a record for use in justifying additional fees for necessary visits to site which,
at the time of the architect’s appointment, could not reasonably have been
foreseen
. a vital record for use as evidence in defence against a claim of negligent
inspection.

Matters to be recorded should include details of:

. work, samples and stored materials inspected
. tests witnessed
. vouchers, contractor’s records and other paperwork checked
. defective work and rectification required
. action taken to check previously executed work on discovery of defects
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

96 Inspecting Works

. queries raised by the contractor

. contractor’s notices of work being ready for inspection
. delays – including periods of time, items affected and causes
. the number and description of operatives and plant on site, with comments on
the effectiveness of their deployment.
Other consultants should be asked to provide copies of their own site inspection
records, which should be carefully filed by the architect.
In conclusion, it is worth noting two important points of principle:
. Records forming a litany of unreasonable levels of defective work found on
visit after visit may show that the architect has been very good at observing
and recording, but that he or she is not doing all that should be done to
achieve the raising of standards.
. In spite of the importance of records, it must not be forgotten that the archi-
tect’s time is best spent actually inspecting the works, and should not be
wasted on superfluous paperwork.

Completion
Inspecting work during the final stages of a job can be a frustrating experience for
the architect. Theoretically, as the work nears completion, the contractor should
carry out inspections as necessary to ensure that, by the time the building is due
to be handed over, there are no defects in the work of finishing or other trades.
However, it is rare for a contractor to take on the responsibility of carrying out
such inspections properly. It is more likely that a contractor will either, before
completion, ask the architect for a ‘snagging’ list of everything that still needs
to be done, or simply present as complete to the architect work which close
inspection reveals to be far from ready. Such a situation can be made more frus-
trating if the architect’s client is under urgent pressure to take possession.
Whatever the circumstances, the architect must ensure that his or her own posi-
tion remains strong. Under the standard forms of contract the contractor has no
right to demand a snagging list from the architect. If the contractor asks the archi-
tect to prepare a snagging list, the architect should resist doing so. The architect
is not normally paid by the client to prepare such lists for the contractor, and to
do so can waste a great deal of the architect’s time. Furthermore, if the architect
provides such a list, the contractor will be tempted to raise objections if, after the
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 5: While work is in progress 97

list has been issued, the architect asks the contractor to attend to matters that, for
one reason or another, were not included in the issued list.
To avoid potential misunderstandings the architect must, at the initial project
meeting, confirm to the contractor – and as the work approaches completion
remind the contractor – that it is the con-
tractor’s job to ensure that work is properly ‘‘the architect must
completed and ready to hand over, and
that the architect will not be providing
confirm to the contractor
snagging lists. that the architect will not
Notwithstanding the above, the architect be providing snagging
may find that the preparation and issue of lists’’
such lists are the only way of getting the
job finished. A practical approach is for the architect to advise the contractor
that if, when work is presented to the architect for final inspection, more than
a certain number of defects are found, the architect will immediately stop
inspecting and will not continue until the work has been properly completed.
If it becomes necessary to suspend an inspection in this manner, the architect
should not return to re-inspect until reasonably confident that the work has
been properly completed – however long it takes. In the meantime, the architect
should ensure that the value of all outstanding and defective work remains
uncertified, and that a practical completion certificate is not issued until, at the
earliest, there are no visible defects and only a small number of minor items
remain outstanding. The architect thus protects the client’s interests, avoids
having to type and issue long lists of defects and gives the contractor every
incentive to complete the job both properly and promptly.

The strategy is most effective when the employer under the building contract is
able to resist taking possession until the contractor properly completes the work
– even if the contractor is late. The employer is then able to continue to hold all of
the contractor’s retention money until the contractor finishes the job properly,
and may also be able to levy liquidated damages for late completion – thus
giving the contractor every incentive to finish well.
Even if the employer, by agreement with the contractor, decides to take
possession in spite of the work not being properly finished, the architect
should under no circumstances issue a certificate of practical completion until
the work is properly completed, and should ensure that there remains enough
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

98 Inspecting Works

money uncertified to account for all outstanding or defective work. In the worst
cases it will be necessary for the architect to invoke the relevant contract
provisions and arrange for another contractor to complete the work. Enough
money should remain uncertified to pay the second contractor.
Although, during the final stages of work on site, the architect should not be
providing the contractor with snagging lists, the architect should nevertheless
continue to make records of inspections as has been done throughout the job.
Such records may well include lists of defects or outstanding items of work –
for the architect’s or other inspector’s own use as an aid to memory when moni-
toring progress. As the job approaches completion it is likely that the frequency
of the architect’s inspections will need to be increased to allow the architect to
monitor progress properly and to keep the client fully informed.
The architect should ensure that other consultants carry out and report to the
architect on their own final inspections.

At the end of the contract

If the contractor’s performance has been good, the architect should, at an appro-
priate point after work has been completed, write a letter of thanks to the
contractor, offering to act as a referee and acknowledging the achievements of
any particularly deserving individuals within the contractor’s organisation.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 5: While work is in progress 99

SUMMARY

. The architect’s inspection plan should be updated to reflect progress on

site. Inspections should be carried out in accordance with the plan.
. The architect should keep in close touch with the contractor to avoid
visits being made too late.
. An inspection should always be made shortly before issuing a certificate
for payment.
. Before each visit to site it is essential that the architect reviews the
drawings, specification and inspection plan in relation to the construction
stage reached and prepares a list of items to be checked.
. The architect must report to the contractor’s person in charge upon
arrival on site and before leaving.
. Inspecting means that the architect must look at specific elements of
work to find out whether or not they comply with the requirements of
the building contract; the function of inspecting should not be confused
with the functions of visiting site to attend meetings or to deal with
queries.
. Inspecting is best done alone.
. A new trade should be given special attention.
. The architect should not be deterred from inspecting work because
access is difficult or unsafe, but should insist that adequate safe access
be provided.
. The architect must ensure that the quantity surveyor is informed of all
defective work, and that payment is certified only in respect of work
properly executed.
. The architect should be aware that the ownership of materials stored on
site may not have passed from the supplier to the contractor; and be
reluctant to certify payment to the contractor for work off site.
. The permanent presence on site of a competent person who can and
does supervise the work on behalf of the contractor is essential.
. The architect has no authority to accept defective work.
. Apparently harmless changes during the course of building operations
can have serious consequences.
. Site safety is the responsibility of the contractor, but if the contract
documents require the contractor to submit a health and safety plan
CONTINUED"
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

100 Inspecting Works

SUMMARY CONTINUED"

or method statement the architect should carry out checks on its

implementation.
. The contract documents should require the contractor to provide and
maintain welfare facilities of a high standard. The architect should
make sure the contractor provides them.
. Tidiness of the site is a matter of efficiency and safety.
. An architect administering a contract needs to monitor progress being
made, and events that may have a bearing on claims.
. The architect must not delegate to site inspectors duties that are the
responsibility of the architect.
. If acting as lead consultant the architect should ensure other consultants
perform their own inspection duties.
. During or immediately after each visit to site records must be made of
work inspected and observations noted.
. The architect should resist preparing snagging lists for the contractor.
. If, when work is presented to the architect for final inspection, more
than a certain number of defects are found, the architect should stop
inspecting and continue only when the work has been properly
completed.
. The architect should not issue a practical completion certificate until at
the earliest there are no visible defects and only a small number of
minor items remain outstanding.
. Even if the employer decides to take possession in spite of the work not
being properly finished, the architect should not issue a certificate of
practical completion until the work is properly completed, and should
ensure that there remains enough money uncertified to account for all
outstanding or defective work.
. In the worst cases it will be necessary for the architect to invoke the
relevant contract provisions and arrange for another contractor to
complete the work. Enough money should remain uncertified to pay
the second contractor.
. If the contractor’s performance has been good the architect should write
to thank the contractor, and acknowledge the achievements of any
particularly deserving individuals within the contractor’s organisation.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 6
Practical matters
In this Section:

. What should the architect wear on site? What else should the architect take on
site? How should the architect conduct him- or herself on site?
. Safety on site; Personal possessions
. What should the architect do if contractor’s personnel behave in an uncoopera-
tive, obstructive or intimidating manner?
. Building up knowledge
. How should the architect deal with queries raised by the contractor on site?
. Can the architect do too much inspection?
. What should the architect do if the contractor tries to persuade the architect
to accept defective work; if the contractor is slow in making good defective
work; if it is suspected that the contractor has covered up incomplete or defective
work?

What should the architect wear on site?

The choice of clothing to wear on site should be determined largely by common
sense. Footwear is particularly important. Shoes should be flat, strong and have
tough, well-gripping soles. Leather soles are not suitable for climbing ladders or
steeply sloping surfaces. Thin-soled or training shoes should not be worn. On
some sites it will be necessary to wear boots or Wellington boots with steel-
protected toe caps and soles. Such boots are normally provided by the
contractor. If the architect is to visit site regularly he or she should make sure
that the contractor obtains and makes available boots of the right size.

Clothing generally should be smart but practical. The architect should not be
deterred from inspecting properly for fear of spoiling a new suit, but neither
should he or she appear scruffy. A good rule is not to appear less formally

101
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

102 Inspecting Works

dressed than the site agent. A tough waterproof overcoat can protect more
vulnerable clothes from most building site hazards.
Personal protective equipment, such as a hard hat, high-visibility vest and safety
boots, should always be worn as required by the contractor, and otherwise as
appropriate.

What else should the architect take on site?

When on site it is difficult to remember all the details of the parts of the building
that are to be inspected. It should be possible to check details by reference to the
contractor’s drawings, but it is sometimes the case that they are not up to date, or
that the relevant drawing has been removed from the site agent’s clip and cannot
quickly be found. It is therefore useful to take onto site copies of all drawings
relating to the parts of the building to be inspected – either held together
with bulldog clips and rolled up, or reduced to A4 or A3 size and contained in
a plastic envelope. The architect can then be certain of having to hand all the
production information needed, and can easily point out to the site agent any
drawings missing from the contractor’s site set (which the contractor should
be told to rectify).
Other essential equipment includes a steel tape measure – the 5 m size is best, as
when extended it is rigid enough to allow most vertical and horizontal dimen-
sions to be checked without needing someone to hold the other end; and, of
course, something to write on. A torch, a pocket spirit level and a plumb bob
can also be useful. A camera will be needed when photographs or video record-
ings are to be taken. If the architect will need to climb ladders or other potentially
hazardous obstacles while carrying any of the above equipment it is essential to
have either sufficiently large pockets or a bag that can be carried on the back so
as to ensure that both hands are completely free for holding on.

How should the architect conduct himself or herself on site?

The success of an architect inspecting work in progress will depend very much on
the relationships between the architect and the people with whom he or she
comes into contact on site. Inevitably, relationships between people are deter-
mined in part by the personalities involved, and every architect will develop a
personal style for dealing with people on site. However, productive relationships
are more easily maintained if a number of basic general guidelines are followed.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 6: Practical matters 103

The architect will achieve most by remaining at all times polite, courteous and
tactful. At times the architect will need to be firm, but will never get the best
from the contractor and subcontractors unless he or she is also approachable,
encouraging, appreciative and helpful. The architect should take the trouble to
learn the names of those with whom he or she comes into contact. Humour
can be invaluable.

It is most important that basic etiquette relating to safety is followed: the archi-
tect should never visit site when the contractor is absent, should always report to
the contractor’s person in charge immedi-
ately upon arrival, and should not walk ‘‘It is most important that
onto the site without appropriate protective
clothing such as a hard hat or boots. It would basic etiquette relating to
be potentially dangerous and extremely ill- safety is followed’’
mannered for the architect simply to arrive
on site and start wandering around without first letting the contractor know
where he or she will be and what he or she will be doing. The contractor
should also be advised when the architect is about to leave the site. Failure to
follow such basic rules will cause the architect to appear unprofessional, and
will embarrass both the contractor and the architect when the contractor has
to ask the architect to correct his or her behaviour.

If a clerk of works or other site inspector is appointed, the architect should meet
and discuss progress with the inspector in private before beginning inspections
or attending to matters raised by the contractor. The architect and site inspector
should then return to the site agent and agree how the architect is to proceed
with the visit. Not to meet the inspector first would be discourteous to the
inspector, undermine the inspector’s authority and leave the architect ignorant
of valuable insights that the inspector may have.

During part of the visit the architect must inspect the work alone, or accompa-
nied only by a site inspector. It will also be necessary to visit at least parts of
the site with the site agent to discuss matters noted by the architect, and to
answer queries raised by the contractor. A workable procedure might be for
the architect first to inspect the site alone, and then to go round with the site
agent: when the architect may ask questions, point out matters requiring the
contractor’s attention and discuss the contractor’s own queries. The architect
must discuss his or her findings with the contractor while still on site – rather
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

104 Inspecting Works

than going away without saying anything and later hitting the contractor with a
long e-mail.
It is important that the architect does nothing on site that may compromise lines
of authority or communication. When the architect is carrying out inspections
alone he or she should politely greet
‘‘It is important that the everyone he or she meets but should avoid
entering into discussions with tradesman or
architect does nothing on foremen about the work in progress. If site
site that may compromise etiquette is to be strictly followed, the archi-
tect should not discuss such matters directly
lines of authority or with tradesman or foremen even when
communication’’ walking around the site with the site agent,
but should address all remarks to the site
agent. The site agent should then turn to the tradesman, confer as necessary,
and turn back to the architect with a response. However, such a procedure can
be unnecessarily formal, and it is likely to be appropriate for the architect to ask
questions directly of operatives provided the site agent is present. Indeed, intelli-
gent questions asked of tradesmen can lead to helpful and informative answers,
add to the architect’s knowledge of construction techniques generally, and
improve the architect’s relationship with the contractor’s site team as a whole.
Under no circumstances should an architect address criticism of work or any
other form of censure directly to an operative – or even a trade supervisor. If
the architect sees evidence of bad practice or work that is not in accordance
with the contract he or she should first make sure of his or her grounds by
careful inspection, and then take up the matter as discreetly as possible with
the site agent. It is for the site agent to decide who to involve in any discussion
with the architect.
The architect should always make a point of complimenting good work or
progress. If etiquette is to be strictly followed, praise, like criticism, should be
directed to the site agent – but if possible should be done within earshot of
the tradesmen responsible for the work. The architect should then praise the
tradesmen directly.
If, in exceptional circumstances, work is discussed with an operative or subcon-
tractor in the site agent’s absence, the gist of the discussion must be reported
to the site agent as soon as possible.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 6: Practical matters 105

When walking around the site with a clerk of works or other inspector, and the
site agent, the architect should maintain the inspector’s authority by addressing
queries, as appropriate, to the inspector in preference to the site agent or
operatives.
The architect should be sensitive to the relationships between the wide range of
people under the control of the contractor. Such people will include main and
subcontractor’s office- and site-based managers, foremen, supervisors and
operatives. All communications with people on site are best made in the
presence of the contractor’s person in charge.
Neither the architect nor site inspectors should mark with chalk or markers or
otherwise deface defective work. They probably have no right to do so, it is
unnecessary and it will needlessly annoy the contractor.
The relationship between the inspecting architect and the site agent is most
important, and should be one of mutual respect. The site agent should respect
the authority of the architect as the representative of the architect’s client; the
architect should respect the authority of the site agent as the contractor’s
person in charge. A balance should be struck between strained formality and
overfamiliarity. The inspecting architect and site agent should meet on an
equal footing, and should feel free to consult each other about queries and
potential problems.
The architect should appear grateful to the contractor for raising genuine queries,
and should thank the contractor for pointing out any errors in the architect’s
drawings or specification, or potential problems with the practicability of the
architect’s design. An alert and intelligent contractor who is made to feel
appreciated can often save the architect from the consequences of potentially
embarrassing oversights or errors.
Under no circumstances should the architect put him- or herself into a position in
which he or she could be accused of being too friendly with the contractor. The
architect should not socialise with the contractor, either before or during the
contract, except for occasional formal events such as a Christmas lunch. On
such occasions the architect’s client should also be invited.
An amicable relationship with the site agent or anyone else on site is of no
value if it is maintained by the architect’s being lenient at the expense of the
client.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

106 Inspecting Works

The architect will lose respect if he or she appears unfair, inconsistent, untrust-
worthy or dishonest. The architect should ensure that the situation never arises
where he or she may have to go back on his or her word, or makes promises
that prove impossible to keep. The architect should not be seen to try to
blame others for his or her own mistakes, or otherwise wriggle out of a personal
responsibility.

Under no circumstances should the architect complain about the client in front of
the contractor.

Safety on site
As well as complying with basic health and safety etiquette it is absolutely
essential that the architect should pay strict attention to any additional rules
laid down by the contractor in connection with health and safety.

However, the architect must also take responsibility for his or her own personal
safety. The architect should ensure, before climbing a ladder, that it is properly
secured, and that scaffolding it is properly completed before use. When climbing
ladders or walking on scaffolding the architect should always have both hands
free. If in any doubt whatsoever about the safety of any means of access the archi-
tect should check with the contractor before using it. Under no circumstances
should the architect use an unsafe means of access. If safe access to an
element of work that requires inspection is not available, the architect should
insist that the contractor makes safe access available.

When moving about the site, the architect should always look where he or she is
going, even if moving only a few steps, paying attention both to where he or she
is stepping and to the available handholds. It is extremely dangerous to walk
around any part of a building site while looking at the building work, at drawings
or at a checklist. The architect should never lean on scaffolding handrails or
misuse any means of access or safety equipment.

Personal possessions
People working on building sites are no more dishonest than people working
elsewhere. However, by their nature building sites can offer tempting opportu-
nities to the casual thief, perhaps passing him- or herself off as a delivery
driver or other legitimate visitor to site. Money and other items of value
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 6: Practical matters 107

should therefore never be left unattended on site. Such items will need to be
kept either in the pockets of clothes or in a backpack worn while walking
around the site. The architect should never leave valuables in a coat or bag
draped over a chair in the site office. Valuable possessions not related to the
site visit should be left in the architect’s office or at home.

What should the architect do if contractor’s personnel behave in an

uncooperative, obstructive or intimidating manner?
If the contractor has been carefully chosen it is highly likely that everyone with
whom the architect comes into contact on site will be both cooperative and
pleasant to work with. However, if the architect comes across uncooperative or
obstructive conduct he or she should nevertheless continue to act in accordance
with the guidelines on conduct outlined above. If the problem persists, such that
the quality of the building work or the ability of the architect to do his or her job
is affected, the architect should consider asking the contractor to remove from
site those causing the offence.
It is highly unlikely that the architect will be subjected to intimidation of any sort,
but it does happen on rare occasions. Any situation beyond one that can be easily
deflected by the judicious use of humour must not be tolerated. The architect
must immediately take up any such matter with the contractor and, if necessary,
insist that the offending person be removed from site. In extreme cases it may
even be necessary to involve the police.
In most cases the people with whom the architect comes into contact on site are
helpful, informative and extremely enjoyable people with whom to work, making
inspecting work in progress a most interesting and satisfying part of the
architect’s job.

Building up knowledge
The architect can be most effective in dealing with the contractor on site if the
architect knows what he or she is talking about. The architect does not need
an encyclopaedic knowledge of all the building trades, but does need a
general knowledge of basic construction techniques and trade skills. Before
visiting site the architect should be familiar with the relevant parts of the contract
documents, and must check up on matters for which he or she should look out,
including – as appropriate – referring to literature from manufacturers or advisory
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

108 Inspecting Works

organisations. However, matters will arise on site that require knowledge,

understanding or experience that the architect cannot be expected to have. In
such cases the architect should gain as much insight as possible by asking
questions of the site agent and tradesmen. The architect should then consider
checking the contractor’s advice by referring to published guidance, building
product manufacturers, trade organisations, colleagues and any other appropriate
source of guidance. In addition to solving the problem in hand, the architect will
thereby also have improved his or her background knowledge.

How should the architect deal with queries raised by the contractor
on site?
It is inevitable that during the course of the inspecting architect’s visits to site the
contractor will raise with the architect queries in connection with construction
technicalities, apparent discrepancies within the contract documents, unforeseen
site conditions that appear to make design details impracticable and other
matters. The answers to many of the contractor’s questions will be obvious to
the architect, who in such cases will be able to answer immediately.
However, there will be other questions to which answers may not be immediately
clear. The architect must be extremely careful when answering such questions.
The complexity of even the smallest of building projects is such that an
apparently harmless change can have a costly effect on a following trade, infringe
Building Regulations or other statutory controls, or conflict with the client’s brief.
The architect cannot reasonably be expected to have in mind the reasoning
behind every design decision made during the earlier stages of the job, but
may nevertheless feel put under pressure to answer quickly – either by the
contractor, or by the architect’s own desire to appear competent and decisive.
In practice there are few questions in building that need immediate answers –
whatever the contractor may say. To answer questions too quickly in order to
appear in control could lead to the architect’s authority being undermined
rather than strengthened, to the project being delayed and to additional costs
to the architect’s client. The professional way to deal with such a situation is:
. do not panic
. consider the question carefully while still on site
. ask the contractor and trade operatives for their suggestions, and discuss with
them any immediate points arising
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 6: Practical matters 109

. tell the contractor that it is necessary to give the question some consideration
in the office, after which it will be promptly answered
. return to the office, ascertain all the facts, look at all the relevant contract
information and think through the question and its possible answers, taking
into account all possible implications
. discuss and check conclusions with colleagues
. formulate an answer and pass it on to the contractor without delay.

Can the architect do too much inspection?

If the architect or a site inspector carries out thorough and frequent site
inspections there is always a risk that the contractor will be tempted to
neglect its own quality control activities, relying on the architect or site inspector
to notice defects. It could therefore be argued that reducing the frequency of
inspections by the architect or site staff would actually increase the vigilance
of the contractor. The argument may be reasonable in theory. However, the
architect in practice would be taking a high risk if, in response to a contractor’s
failure to perform its quality control responsibilities, the architect simply
reduced the frequency of his or her own inspections. In any case, the contractor
should not only be picking up defects but should be preventing them from
happening in the first place.
The best way of dealing with such a situation is for the architect to:
. carry out checks at random so that it is not possible for the contractor to
predict when or where the architect will carry out inspections
. if defective work is found, instruct the contractor both to make it good, and to
check for and make good any similar defective work
. carry out further spot checks to ensure that the contractor really is making
good as necessary, including opening up and testing as appropriate, until it
can be reasonably assumed that no further defective work remains
. increase monitoring of the contractor’s quality control activities and take
action as necessary in the event of failures.

What should the architect do if the contractor tries to persuade the

architect to accept defective work?
When defective work is found, the contractor may attempt to persuade the
architect to accept the work or to accept an unsatisfactory remedial proposal.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

110 Inspecting Works

The architect may, out of sympathy for the contractor, or because of his or her
own lack of courage in the face of potential conflict, feel tempted to accept
the work as proposed by the contractor. The architect has no power to accept
such work, and to do so without properly advising his or her client would be
professional negligence. The architect must insist that defective work be made
good. To do otherwise would:
. suggest to the contractor that lower standards will be acceptable generally
. undermine the architect’s authority
. risk either a compromise in quality, or a building failure as a direct or knock-on
effect of the defective work
. invite legal action from the architect’s client.

What should the architect do if the contractor suggests replacing a

specified material or work process with an alternative?
The architect must treat such suggestions with extreme caution. As advised
above (see page 89), changes to designs and specifications during construction
can have serious consequences that are not easy to foresee. Furthermore, to
minimise the risks involved it is likely that the architect will need to spend a
significant amount of time, at his or her own expense, checking the contractor’s
proposals. It is therefore best, unless the contractor is proposing a very obviously
like-for-like substitute for an item of minor importance, or the architect’s original
proposals are shown to be flawed, for the architect politely to reject the contrac-
tor’s proposals.

What should the architect do if the contractor is slow in making good

defective work?
The contractor may deliberately delay the making good of defective work in the
hope that the architect will either become tired of repeatedly asking about it or
will forget it, or that, if it remains in place for long enough, it will eventually be
too late to put it right. Occasionally the contractor may, with similar hopes, ignore
the architect and continue to complete work that the architect has reported to be
defective. In either case the architect must be adamant, must persistently bring
the matter up during visits and meetings and make sure it is included in minutes,
must ensure that payment for the work is not made, must issue to the contractor
any relevant notices for which the contract provides, and must ultimately
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 6: Practical matters 111

consider, together with the client, arranging for another contractor to attend to
the defective work, deducting the associated costs from the first contractor’s final
account.

What should the architect do if it is suspected that the contractor has

covered up incomplete or defective work?
The architect should try to avoid such situations by timing inspections so that
important work is seen before it is covered up. However, if the architect thinks
that, despite his or her efforts, defective work has been covered up, the
problem is simply resolved by instructing the contractor to open up as necessary
to enable the architect to carry out a spot check. Adequate provision to allow for
the cost of such opening up and any consequent effects on progress should have
been made in the contract documents. If defective work is found, the architect
should use the relevant powers provided by the contract to ensure to his or
her reasonable satisfaction that all such work is been made good.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

112 Inspecting Works

SUMMARY

. Suitable footwear and clothing should be worn on site.

. Personal protective equipment should be worn as appropriate.
. It is useful to take onto site copies of drawings relating to the parts of the
building to be inspected.
. Essential equipment to take onto site includes a steel tape measure and a
camera.
. As well as complying with basic health and safety etiquette it is essential
the architect pays strict attention to any additional rules laid down by the
contractor in connection with health and safety.
. The architect should take responsibility for his or her own personal safety.
. The architect should look after his or her own personal possessions.
. The architect should meet the clerk of works or other site inspector in
private before beginning inspections or attending to matters raised by
the contractor.
. The architect should resist entering into discussions with operatives or
subcontractors about the work in progress unless the main contractor’s
person in charge is present.
. An architect should not address criticism of work directly to the person
carrying it out, but should report defects immediately to the main
contractor’s site management.
. The architect should compliment good work or progress.
. The architect should appear grateful to the contractor for raising genuine
queries, and for pointing out any errors in the architect’s drawings or
specification.
. The architect should not put him- or herself in a position in which he or
she could be accused of being too friendly with the contractor.
. Few questions raised on building sites need immediate answers.
. It is best, unless the architect’s original proposals are shown to be flawed,
for the architect politely to reject any proposals to replace a specified
material or work process with an alternative which the contractor may
put forward.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7
Inspecting the work
In this Section:
. Inspecting generally
. Preliminaries; Demolition and site stripping; Setting out
. Substructure, below-ground drainage and structural concrete
. Structural steelwork; Timber structure; Masonry
. Roof finishes; External wall finishes
. Windows and doors
. Services
. Internal finishes; Painting and decorating
. External works
. Practical completion

Inspecting generally
Before visiting site to carry out inspections the architect must prepare a list of the
matters that he or she proposes to check. Such checklists must be compiled by
referring to the contract production information. Published checklists may help,
but it must be borne in mind that they can provide only:
. general guidance as to the kind of thing for which the architect should look
out
. confirmation or clarification of the standards of workmanship that an architect
can generally expect of a contractor
. a reminder of anything obvious that the architect may have forgotten.
The architect does not need to check everything but must form a considered
opinion on what it is essential to check and what may be given lower priority.
Such considerations should be made carefully: the architect may later have to
justify his or her decisions in the case of a dispute.

113
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

114 Inspecting Works

Some matters can be checked by a quick glance. The inspection of others will
require more effort. If the architect feels uncertain about how to go about
checking something he or she should consider asking the contractor to demon-
strate compliance. The contractor should be carrying out checks anyway, and
should not object to doing them in the presence of the architect or, within
reason, repeating them for the architect’s benefit.

Regard should be had to special tolerances.

Preliminaries
Once on site, the architect should consider checking that:
. the building control officer and other officials have been notified as appro-
priate
. the contractor’s site management team or person in charge is on site
. welfare facilities are set up, are of a high standard, and are being used
. the site is tidy and materials are logically and accessibly stored
. there are sufficient operatives on site to make adequate progress
. site security, safety provisions and temporary protection are as specified
. hoardings and other temporary structures are fixed or anchored securely
enough to deter intruders and resist high winds
. a schedule of conditions has been prepared by or with the contractor.

Demolition and site stripping

The architect should ensure that the consultant structural engineer inspects
demolition work as appropriate.

During demolition and site stripping the architect should be wary of potential
claims by the contractor for additional payment (on the basis, for example,
that because existing ground levels are higher than shown by tender infor-
mation more excavation is required). The architect should check and record
the evidence presented in support of such claims before it is removed or
covered up.

The architect should consider checking that:

. existing services have been surveyed and tested as appropriate
. the work is being properly supervised
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 115

. sufficient opening up of existing buildings has been carried out to ascertain the
scope of structural repairs, timber treatment, plaster replacement and other
necessary remedial work
. the contractor clearly understands what is to be demolished, what is to be
retained, and what is to be protected (The architect should consider paying
an extra visit or two to check.)
. topsoil is being removed to a depth of 150 mm – or lower if necessary – but if
to be kept for reuse is not being dug up and contaminated with soil from other
strata (Topsoil for reuse should not be stored in piles higher than 1,500 mm,
and should be protected to avoid contamination.)
. trees are adequately protected – from impact damage to trunks and branches,
and from root damage (by excavations or overloading of soil above).

Setting out
The architect should be satisfied that the setting out of the building on the site has
been done correctly. The best procedure is for the architect to ask the contractor to
demonstrate how the setting out has been done. The contractor should:
. show that the building is correctly related to site boundaries, building lines and
other relevant features of the site
. lay tapes against profiles and lines so that the architect can see that dimen-
sions are correct
. demonstrate with reference to diagonals that the building is square.
Throughout the construction period the architect should check that boundary
conditions are not being infringed either horizontally or vertically (by digging
too deep or building too high).

Substructure, below-ground drainage and structural concrete

Generally
The person best qualified to check structural work on behalf of the architect’s
client is the consultant structural engineer. The architect should therefore
ensure that the engineer carries out inspections as appropriate. However, the
architect should not simply turn a blind eye to structural matters but must
carry out his or her own inspections (although the architect cannot be expected
to do so with the same expert eye as the engineer).
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

116 Inspecting Works

Piling
Piling should be properly supervised by the contractor, using an experienced and
properly qualified specialist supervisor. It should be inspected by the consultant
structural engineer. The architect should ask the contractor to demonstrate that
the piles are accurately positioned.

Excavations
The depths of excavations for foundations are designed to ensure that the
foundations bear on stable ground and are below frost level. Best practice is
for the contractor to dig the trench down to the last 50–150 mm, call the building
control officer to inspect it, remove the last layer just before the building control
officer arrives, and pour the concrete immediately after he or she leaves. Architect
and engineer should time their inspections accordingly. Excavations should not
be left open for more than a day or so.
The architect should consider checking that:
. adjoining structures are not being undermined (If there is any risk of collapse
the contractor should be instructed to stop work and take appropriate
remedial action. The structural engineer should be consulted immediately.)
. any voids discovered on a boundary with adjoining land are dealt with under
proper party wall agreements (and not tacitly filled with new concrete or other
material so as to constitute a trespass)
. trench support appears to be properly carried out and adequate to ensure
safety of operatives and adjoining structures – consulting the structural
engineer as necessary
. excavations are protected so as to avoid deterioration of faces and risk of spoil
falling from sides into concrete
. excavations are not surcharged by plant, spoil or materials being placed too
close
. centres of foundation trenches align with centres of walls
. depths of foundations are correct (If the contractor has dug too deep, or needs
to dig too deep because the ground at the correct level has been allowed to
become muddy or wet, the architect should consult the structural engineer
before allowing the contractor to proceed.)
. bottoms of trenches are uniform, firm, level and free from lumps, foreign
matter, mud and water
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 117

. sides of trenches and any steps in the bottoms have straight and vertical faces
(Upper strata or dark streaks dipping below the bottom of the trench, or the
presence of tree roots, should be discussed with the structural engineer
before concrete is poured.)
. steel pegs should be securely fixed to the bottom of trenches and levelled to
ensure that foundations are of the correct thickness and level (Wooden pegs
should not be cast in, as they will rot.)
. special precautions as required by the structural engineer have been taken
where heights of steps exceed the depth of concrete
. the contractor is not pumping water into drains that may become silted up.

Below-ground drainage
Below-ground drainage must be thoughtfully specified. Materials, bedding,
surrounds and details at building entries and chambers are likely to be of
different types according to the distance of pipes from or below the surface or
buildings. The architect should inspect with careful reference to the specification,
and should witness tests – which should be carried out strictly in accordance with
the specification. Whether or not the architect is present, he or she should ask the
contractor to provide full records of every test, including details of section tested,
date, type of test and personnel carrying out and witnessing the test.

Before pipework is tested the architect should consider checking that:

. above-ground drainage connection sockets are in the right place

. falls are as specified (generally 1:40 for a 100 mm pipe, 1:60 for a 150 mm
pipe), and in the right direction
. bedding or trench bottoms evenly support pipes
. bedding is of specified depth, width and material, and does not contain large
lumps of soil
. concrete beds are of specified depth and width
. where specified, compressible board is fitted at the upstream face of sockets,
and extends through the full cross-section of the concrete bed and surround
. pipes are not deviating from line beyond specified tolerances
. open ends are sealed before backfilling
. flexible joints are fitted within 300 mm of chamber walls, and adaptable
couplings rather than rigid joints are used at connections to existing
pipework
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

118 Inspecting Works

. building entries are as specified, including, as applicable, clearance around

pipes, masking to prevent entry of vermin or fill, flexible joints located
within 150 mm of wall faces on both sides, rocker pipes no longer than
600 mm
. rest bends are supported as specified.

After pipework is tested the architect should consider checking that:

. side fill is placed to extend the full width of the trench, and is compacted in
layers of 100 mm; and at least 150 mm of compacted top cover is applied
. gullies and rest bends are backfilled with granular fill or encased in concrete as
specified and gullies are at the right level
. drains are kept free of rubbish until practical completion.

In connection with inspection chambers and manholes the architect should

consider checking that:
. prefabricated chamber sizes and backfill are as specified
. concrete bases are at least 150 mm thick
. brickwork joints are fully filled, flush pointed and not greater than 6 mm; bricks
are class B engineering bricks or otherwise as specified; and mortar is 1: 14 :3
cement:lime:sand
. precast concrete chamber sections are bedded and surrounded as specified
. channels are of specified material and section to suit angle of entry, laid to
specified falls, bedded and fully pointed in 1:3 cement:sand mortar, and
fixed with branches entering chamber at half-pipe level of main channel
. benching rises vertically from main channel to height not lower than soffit of
outlet pipe, then slopes at about 1 in 12 to walls, and is finished with steel
floated 1:3 cement:sand mortar within three hours of forming
. cover frames are bedded in 1:3 cement:sand mortar and double-seal covers
are fitted internally.

Hardcore
The purpose of hardcore is to provide a base that is of continuous and consis-
tent firmness. It is therefore important that it be free from rubbish that can
cause dry rot or that can deteriorate to leave voids, and that it comprises
material of uniform size so that it can be properly compacted. Nevertheless,
the contractor may be tempted to incorporate rubbish or use demolition
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 119

waste materials – to avoid spending money on removing them from site and
importing new hardcore.
The architect should consider checking that hardcore is:
. not frozen and the ground not frozen when hardcore is laid
. of material of the specified size (normally to pass through a 75 mm sieve)
. completely free from timber or timber products, roots or other organic matter,
plasterboard, metals, big lumps of concrete, other unsuitable rubbish and
cavities
. mechanically compacted between layers – normally of maximum thickness
150 mm below slabs and 225 mm at the bottom of foundation trenches –
strictly in accordance with the specification, including the use of a roller or
compactor of the correct type and weight
. of the correct overall thickness (usually between 100 mm and 600 mm)
. blinded as specified, with no protrusions.

Damp-proof membranes and insulation below slabs

The architect should consider checking that:
. blinding is compacted and levelled
. membranes are:
* of the correct gauge of polythene or correct thickness of other material or
coating
* laid with joints lapped by at least 150 mm and sealed
* not punctured
* lapped and sealed at penetrations
*
properly fitted into corners and at upstands, with enough slack material to
prevent stretching when concrete is poured
*
laid with enough additional material at edges to lap with wall damp-proof
courses
*
kept clean, and treated with respect by the contractor – not stamped on,
kicked or scuffed with heavy boots
. insulation is:
* tightly butted at joints with no gaps
* effectively supported at edges
* cut tightly around penetrations
. insulation and membrane are not damaged while placing and finishing concrete.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

120 Inspecting Works

Reinforcement
Poor workmanship in connection with concrete reinforcement is unfortunately
common. The architect should consider checking that reinforcement is:

. adequately stored to avoid deformation before fixing

. not bent crudely, nor without the use of a proper machine, nor in temperatures
below 58C
. fixed accurately in the correct plane (at the bottom of a simply supported slab,
but at the top of a cantilevered slab, for example) and correctly orientated with
the right bars outermost so that the stronger bars have the maximum possible
load-bearing effect
. of bars of the correct type of steel – by consulting with the structural engineer
(High bond stress, high yield steel has bobbles; low bond stress, high yield
steel is twisted; mild steel is just a straight bar.)
. not fixed with bars so close together that aggregate cannot pass between
them
. fixed with adequate or specified laps (for welded fabric, typically 40  main
bar diameter for end laps and 30  transverse bar diameter for side laps; for
bars, at least 34  bar diameter for tension bars and 27  diameter for
compression bars) properly secured with adequate ties, with wire or clips
projecting inwards
. fitted with cover spacers or chairs of purpose-made steel, plastic or concrete
not spaced too far apart (normally not more than either 50  the bar diameter
for slabs, or 1,000 mm centres for slabs and beams)
. generally located, supported, spaced and secured such that the reinforcement
is in the right position and that cover to all faces is adequate (at least 75 mm
where concrete is against the side of an excavation), and that displacement will
not occur when concrete is poured or vibrated
. immediately before concrete is poured, free from loose rust or other scale,
mud, mould-oil or grease that would prevent adhesion of the concrete.

Formwork
Wet concrete is very heavy indeed, and needs to retain water to cure. Shuttering
must therefore be capable of supporting very heavy loads without deflection and
must be tightly constructed. Shuttering must be especially strong if the concrete
is to be vibrated.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 121

It is likely that shuttering for visual concrete will need to be specially designed
and specified, and special care should be taken during its inspection. Considera-
tion should be given to seeking the advice of a specialist consultant.
The architect should consider checking that shuttering:
. boards are treated as specified before reuse, and are not reused too many
times
. is set out correctly, is at the right levels and is accurate within specified
tolerances
. appears adequately strong with joints closely fitted or sealed (Soffits should be
well propped but special attention is needed to sides – which, if not very firmly
supported, will bulge and shear as soon as concrete is poured.)
. inserts for cut-outs, holes or chases and temporary joint fillers for movement
joints are in place and properly secured
. is free of sawdust, chippings, nails, wire, mud, water and rubbish before
concrete is poured
. is clean, and evenly and thinly coated with release agent of uniform or
specified type immediately before concrete is poured.

Concreting
During the construction of concrete frames special attention should be paid to
critical tolerances. Where the subsequent fixing of cladding or other elements
depends on the achievement of special tolerances, the architect should ask the
contractor before pouring concrete to demonstrate that the tolerances will be
achieved. Tolerances should be checked after shuttering has been removed.
Setting out and levels generally should also be checked.
For most applications concrete is delivered to site ready-mixed, although small
quantities may be mixed on site. The architect should ask the contractor to
provide, for each delivery of ready-mixed concrete, a certificate giving actual
weights of aggregate, cement and water used. (Delivery notes can also be
used to check slab thicknesses by dividing the volume of concrete delivered
by the area of the slab.)
The architect should consider checking that:
. materials are stored correctly (Bagged cement should be stored in a dry,
frost-free shed or building – if too fresh, and therefore hot, use should be
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

122 Inspecting Works

postponed, and if lumpy or not used by the date on the bag it should be
condemned. New deliveries should be placed behind old deliveries. Different
aggregates should be physically separated, be stored on hard, clean, free-
draining bases and be covered adequately to give protection from frost and
contamination.)
. construction and daywork joints are located strictly as agreed with the
structural engineer and vertical stop boards are provided
. overlap at steps is, for strip foundations, more than 300 mm and not less than
the depth of the concrete, and for trench fill foundations more than 500 mm
and not less than twice the depth of concrete, with proper shuttering used
. any timber pegs are removed before pouring foundations or slabs
. hardcore or blinding with which concrete is to come into direct contact is
wetted immediately before concreting, or preferably covered with 1,200
gauge polythene underlay, lapped 250 mm at edges, to prevent premature
loss of water
. concrete is poured when conditions are neither too hot nor too cold (If
concrete is poured when it is too cold, the chemical reaction by which the
concrete cures will not take place, and the concrete when it solidifies will
have no strength. Frost-damaged concrete will spall and disintegrate at
edges and faces, and should be broken out immediately. If concrete is
poured when it is too hot, the water within the concrete will evaporate too
quickly to allow the concrete to cure fully and thereby gain its full strength.
Engineers’ specifications typically permit concrete to be poured in cold
conditions only when the temperature is 58C and rising – which is likely to
be late morning, before temperatures start falling in the afternoon; and in
hot conditions only when the temperature is below 308C. The architect
should check that thermometers by which temperatures are being moni-
tored are kept out of direct sunlight.)
. the mix is tested as advised by the structural engineer or as specified (If
concrete is being mixed on site, the quality of aggregates and water, the
processes by which the quantities of materials in the mix are measured and
the process of mixing should all be checked. If concrete contains too much
water it will not be strong enough, but if it contains insufficient water it
cannot be efficiently compacted around reinforcement and in corners. The
amount of water will depend on the shape of the aggregate and the function
of the concrete: aggregates with sharp, rough edges need more water than
smooth, round aggregates; heavily reinforced work where compaction is
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 123

difficult needs more water than mass concrete. If a spade stands up on its own
in concrete for a ground-bearing slab the amount of water is probably about
right. Slump tests should be carried out and test cubes taken as advised by the
engineer or as specified. Constant water and cement content are critical to
consistent appearance of visual concrete.)
. concrete is poured promptly – typically within half an hour of delivery or
mixing on site (The architect should inspect preparations the day before
pouring to enable the carrying out of any necessary remedial works before
concrete is ready.)
. the risk of segregation is minimised by transporting concrete across the site
smoothly and discharging it from the dumper, barrow or chute directly into
its placing position, without dropping it from a height – even into deep
trenches or columns (where pumped concrete should be used)
. concrete is placed in one continuous operation between construction joints
. compacting with vibrators is carried out with the type specified
. deep pours are made in layers of specified depth, typically 300 mm,
compacting between layers, ensuring that each layer merges with the layer
below but avoiding segregation, and taking special precautions to ensure
that joints will not be visible where concrete is to be exposed fair faced
. concrete is adequately compacted around reinforcement, cast-in accessories
and into corners – but not compacted to such an extent that aggregate is
separated from grout (Compaction is usually adequate when air bubbles
stop rising to the surface. Concrete which is seriously honeycombed because
it has not been properly compacted must be condemned – its strength and
ability to protect reinforcement and resist sulphate attack will be significantly
affected.)
. reinforcement, damp-proof membranes and formwork are not displaced
during pouring, and that spoil from the side of excavations does not fall into
the concrete – any of which will require breaking out of the concrete
. boards are removed and aggregate exposed at construction joints within 24
hours of casting, and the surface is well wetted and grouted immediately
before recommencing concreting
. concrete is adequately cured using methods – usually by covering with poly-
thene sheeting – and for periods as specified (Polythene should be laid as soon
as practicable after concrete is placed and compacted, should be removed only
to complete finishing operations and should then be immediately replaced.
Surfaces that will be exposed to frost, and floor and pavement wearing
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

124 Inspecting Works

surfaces, are likely to require curing for at least 10 days; other surfaces are likely
to require at least 5 days.)
. in cold weather, concrete is adequately insulated from frost using methods and
for periods as specified by the structural engineer
. at no time is hard concrete cut away without the structural engineer’s authority
. shuttering is not struck sooner than advised by the structural engineer (It may
need to be kept in place for as long as 28 days, with shuttering to the soffits of
beams left in place for longer periods than shuttering to the sides.)
. tie holes and blow holes are filled and finished as specified
. newly laid concrete is protected from site traffic for at least four days, and
longer in cold weather
. green concrete is protected from weather, dirt, physical damage, indentation,
shock and extremes of temperature
. in cold weather, voids cast into concrete are protected from water to avoid
frost damage
. sealants are applied as specified
. elements have been built within specified tolerances.

Basements
Basement waterproofing systems should be very carefully specified; and must be
inspected equally carefully, with close reference to the specification. Generally,
the architect must check that:
. surfaces are prepared as specified
. chases and service entries are properly prepared
. waterproofing systems are applied strictly as specified.

Precast concrete floors

While inspecting precast concrete floors the architect should consider checking
that:
. units are transported and stored the right way up
. bearing surfaces are level and flat
. bearings are adequate (typically for beams at least 90 mm on walls and 55 mm
on steel, and for blocks at least 10 mm on beams)
. wall cavities are kept clear of protruding beams and fill between beams is solid
. blocks are not damaged or cracked
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 125

. fine concrete infill is applied between adjacent joists and planks as specified,
and grouting is properly applied to blocks
. restraint straps are fitted as specified
. floor voids and ventilation below ground floors are as specified
. provision has been made for all necessary services penetrations.

Damp-proof membranes and insulation above concrete floors

The architect should consider checking that:
. the floor surface is flat and clear of mortar droppings and other debris
. membranes are:
* of the correct gauge of polythene, or thickness of other material or coating
* laid with joints lapped by at least 150 mm and sealed
* not punctured
* lapped and sealed at penetrations
* properly fitted into corners and at upstands, with enough slack material to
prevent stretching when concrete is poured
* laid with enough additional material at edges to lap with wall damp-proof
courses
* kept clean, and treated with respect by the contractor – not stamped on,
kicked or scuffed with heavy boots
. battens are provided as specified to support flooring at doors or below points
of concentrated load
. insulation is:
* fixed with no gaps between insulation boards, and that joints have been
treated as specified to prevent migration of screed
*
effectively supported at edges
*
cut tightly around penetrations and turned up at perimeters as specified
*
protected with suitable boards to prevent damage by barrows and boots
when screed mix is being transported and placed.

Screeds
As preparation and minimum thicknesses vary according to function and type,
screeds should be carefully specified. The architect should consider checking
that:
. sub-base levels are correct
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

126 Inspecting Works

. preparation is carried out strictly as specified, including any surface treatment

and the removal of all dirt and dust
. bay sizes are as specified
. movement joints are located as specified, and movement joints in the base are
extended through the screed
. gas pipes are properly protected and services generally are run in conduit or
accessible ducts secured to the base as specified, residual depth over services
is at least the minimum specified, and reinforcement above services is central
in the depth of the screed
. reinforcement is of the specified mesh, positioned centrally in the depth of the
screed, with adequate laps (typically 150 mm) (Chicken wire should not be
substituted for the specified reinforcement.)
. the correct sand is used (Sand for screeds is normally coarse sharp sand, which
is paler than the soft sand used for mortar, and is very gritty to touch.)
. materials are properly weigh-batched, allowing for any wetness of the sand,
and mixing is properly carried out with a suitable forced-action mechanical
mixer (Free-falling drum mixers are not recommended.)
. the mixer is cleaned so that solid material is not allowed to form on blades or
paddles
. the material is laid as dry as possible, but not so dry that compaction is difficult.
(It should not be possible to squeeze water out of a handful of the mix, and
under no circumstances whatsoever should any water be forming puddles
on the surface of the finished screed.) Screed is laid before the mix starts to
stiffen – which can be within minutes when laying proprietary quick drying
screeds in hot weather
. depth is as specified – controlled using screeding battens or levels while laying
. joints are located as specified, with edges of bays at joint positions flat and
vertical
. screeds are very thoroughly compacted over their entire area, in layers of equal
thickness, with the surface of the lower layer roughened before immediately
laying the upper layer
. screeds are cured as and for the period specified (typically by covering with
polythene, well lapped, and held well down at the edges with boards to
protect against draughts) and protected with hardboard or other suitable
material to prevent damage
. screeds are finished to suit the following floor finish: flat as specified, level and
without crumbling, cracking or curling
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 127

. there are no areas of partially or fully bonded screed that sound hollow in
comparison with other areas when tapped with a stick (If such areas are
found they should be taken up and re-laid.)

Structural steelwork
Generally
As with other structural elements the architect should make certain that
structural steelwork is properly inspected by the structural engineer. After
steelwork is initially erected there remains for the contractor a significant
amount of work in checking setting out and levels, plumbing, levelling,
tightening of bolts and testing. The architect should ensure, when certifying
payment for steelwork, that enough money remains uncertified to account for
the cost of all such work that remains to be done.

Special attention should be paid to protective coatings, and to critical tolerances.

The architect should consider checking that:

. fabrication of special or critical components in the workshop has been carried
out correctly
. fixing holes are pre-drilled before galvanising, and galvanising is as specified,
particularly at joints and at tight corners
. shop- and site-applied protective coatings are strictly as specified, including
preparation, use of the right materials, and dry film thicknesses (The architect
should arrange for tests to be carried out if in any doubt. Site priming should
be applied immediately after preparation. Coating should not be carried out in
adverse weather conditions. Damaged priming coats should be repaired
before applying subsequent coats.)
. members are straight, untwisted and have smooth ends as necessary to spread
load evenly, and to receive protective coatings where applicable
. the appearance of welds to exposed steelwork is as specified
. friction grip bolt bearing surfaces and surfaces of steelwork to be encased in
concrete are left unpainted
. steelwork is stored on site so as to avoid risk of distortion or damage to
coatings
. concrete bases are at the correct level
. steelwork is set out as drawings, with beams at the right level
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

128 Inspecting Works

. stanchions are correctly orientated

. members are of correct sizes
. bearing positions and lengths on padstones or other supports are as specified
. plumbing and levelling is properly carried out and checked by the erector
before base plates are packed (The architect should consider asking the
contractor for a certificate to the effect that setting out of columns on grid-
lines, plumbing and levelling of columns, levels of beams and tolerances
generally have been checked by the fabricator. If appropriate, the architect
should consider personally spot checking that columns are plumb by using
a bob. Where the subsequent fixing of cladding or other elements depends
on the achievement of special tolerances, the architect should ask the
contractor to demonstrate that the tolerances have been achieved. In all
cases the architect should stand back and look at the alignment of columns
with other columns, or with other existing vertical references.)
. holding-down bolts are at right angles to base plates, of length to suit the level
of the concrete base, with at least a full turn of thread visible above the nut,
with the base plate packed off the base with steel packers, leaving a gap of
about 50 mm between base plate and base, packed with dry 1:1 cement:sand
after plumbing and checking levels
. other bolts are square in their holes, long enough and properly tightened, and
that any tests have been carried out and certificates received as specified by
the structural engineer
. fire protection is applied strictly as specified.

Timber structure
Generally
The architect should ask the contractor for preservative treatment certificates
both for new timber treated off site and for existing timber treated in-situ, and
should consider checking that:

. timber is free from large dead knots, significant wane or shakes, and is straight
and square
. timber is kept dry
. all cut ends are preservative-treated
. in-situ treatment of existing timber has been carried out as specified, with the
building watertight and clear of rubble and materials to ensure that access to
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 129

all parts to be treated is easily available, and with all infected timber
immediately removed from site.

Suspended timber floors and ceilings

The architect should consider checking that:
. joists are fixed at the correct levels
. joist spacing is as specified
. double joists are provided where required and bolted as specified, with
washers behind nuts and bolts
. trimming around openings and projections is strictly as specified, including
sizes and joints
. joists bear at least 90 mm on masonry and 45 mm on steel, and sit squarely on
masonry, a wall plate, or a hanger and do not protrude into external wall cavities
. wall plates are bedded dead level
. ground floor wall plates are bedded on a properly lapped damp-proof course,
with joists cut back 25 mm from external wall inner faces, with floor voids and
ventilation as specified, including free flow of air between partitions, sleeper
walls and structural cross-walls, with ventilation routes not obstructed or
blocked by debris
. built-in joists are treated and wrapped as specified, with the spaces between
joists solidly filled with masonry
. joist hangers are supported directly by masonry units or other construction
without being packed up or bedded in mortar, and are of suitable strength
and size to suit joists; bottoms of joists are not excessively notched to fit
hangers; joists are fitted to hangers with less than 5 mm between the end of
each joist and the back of each hanger, with hangers securely fitted tight
against the supporting wall, with a suitable nail in every hole, and with the
tops of all joists level
. end joists are positioned about 50 mm from masonry walls
. strutting or blocking is strictly as specified, with folding wedges between end
joists and walls
. notching and drilling of joists and other members is strictly in accordance with
specified limitations
. thermal insulation is supported and secured as specified, packed around
services at penetrations and completed – including between joists and walls
– with no gaps
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

130 Inspecting Works

. below-floor pipework is insulated

. restraint straps are fixed without being cranked or accidentally bent, at speci-
fied spacings, with fixings as specified (typically 50 mm no. 10 wood screws or
75 mm no. 8 round nails), notched into joists precisely to the thickness of the
straps, connected to at least three joists, with noggings between joists, and
folding wedges between end joists and walls
. noggings or other supports needed for the fixing of WCs, etc. are provided
. acoustic insulation is fixed strictly as specified
. boards are of the specified material and thickness
. tongued and grooved strip boards are fixed with heading joints centred on
joists or battens with joints tightly butted, at least two board widths apart
on any one joist; and are cramped before nailing, with two nails per board
per joist using nails of two and a half times the board thickness
. panel boards are laid with all edges continuously supported, with edge treat-
ment, fixings and fixing centres as specified
. boards are fixed flat and with expansion gaps at perimeter and at penetrations
as specified
. holes around services penetrations are sealed
. boards are protected from the weather and subsequent trades.

Timber framing and studwork

The architect should consider checking that:
. timber framing is assembled and sheathing fixed using fixings as specified,
with sheathing boards of the specified material tightly butted
. timber panels are stacked vertically, out of contact with the ground,
supported to prevent distortion, and covered to ensure that they are kept
dry
. during erection, panels are adequately supported
. sole plates are properly located, bedded, packed and securely held down with
specified fixings (Bedding should be not more than 12 mm thick, continuous
and the full width of the plate. Packing should be of durable, non-compressible
material.)
. panels are vertical
. head binders overlap vertical joints in panels
. immediately after erection, sheathing is protected from the weather with
breather membrane as appropriate
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 131

. unauthorised alterations to panels, and notches to studs for services are not
carried out
. holes for services are located on the neutral axis, are not of diameter greater
than one-quarter of the width of the stud, and are located between 0.25
and 0.4 times the height of the stud
. all junctions between structural members are tightly butted, with no
studs too short, and no gaps between wall plates and floor or ceiling
structure
. timber lintels are supported on cripple studs, or by being splayed half-housed
into studs, and multiple lintels are fixed together as specified
. supports are provided for radiators, and for any heavy fittings or other objects
that need to be fixed to the wall after finishing
. cavity barriers are of specified size, are fixed securely with continuity at joints
and intersections as specified, and are fitted with damp-proof courses as
specified
. breather membranes are as specified including location, material, fixings,
horizontal and vertical laps, with horizontal laps arranged so that water
drains outwards
. insulation is tightly butted, continuous, and properly secured and prevented
from slumping as specified
. vapour control layers are as specified including location, material, fixings, joint
support, laps, continuity and sealing to penetrations.

Roofs
The architect should consider checking that:
. wall plates are centred on inner leaves, fully bedded in mortar, half-lapped
100 mm at joints, and dead level and parallel
. jointing in individual members is only where allowed, and strictly as specified
. trussed rafters or other prefabricated components are strictly as specified, free
of unauthorised adaptations and damage, and stored to ensure they remain
undamaged
. rafters or trusses are parallel, spaced at specified centres, plumb and free of
bowing
. joints between members and wall plates, and between members, are strictly as
specified
. diagonal bracing is installed and fixed to trusses strictly as specified
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

132 Inspecting Works

. binders at ridge and tie levels tightly abut gable and separating walls at both
ends (by using overlapping lengths), and are not subjected to unauthorised
alterations (for example to clear a flue)
. lateral restraint straps are fitted at 2 m maximum centres along walls parallel to
rafters, fixed to at least three rafters, with noggings between rafters and
folding wedges between end rafters and walls, with fixings as specified
(typically 3.35 mm  65 mm round wire nails or at least four 8 gauge  50 mm
countersunk head plated steel wood screws), with downturn tight against
cavity face of inner leaf of wall
. holding-down straps are as specified, including spacing, lengths and fixings
. tank support structures, trimming and bracing around access hatch openings,
and provisions for services penetrations are constructed strictly as specified
. timbers are not located within 200 mm of a flue or within 40 mm of the outer
surface of a masonry chimney.

Stairs
The architect should consider checking that:
. the rise is correct when thicknesses of floor finishes are taken into account
. timbers are of specified thicknesses
. risers and treads are housed and glued together at top and bottom of each
riser; are provided with three or more glued blocks under nosings, and three
long steel countersunk screws at the internal angles of treads and risers; are
glued and wedged into routed grooves in strings; and are provided with
additional glued blocks below junctions of tread and string – including
below winders
. nosings are as specified
. rough bearers are fixed at top and bottom of stairs as specified, and brackets
are provided as specified
. newels, balusters and handrail are fixed as specified.

Masonry
Generally
With new facing work, sample panels should be prepared as necessary to experi-
ment with the effects of different joint profiles, bonding patterns, mortar colours
and masonry units. Precise details of each of the sample mortar mixes should be
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 133

recorded at the time of mixing. Sample panels should be left for a week or so
before choosing, as the mortar will change colour as it dries out.
A control panel should be built, the quality and appearance of which the work on
the building itself is to match. The panel should comprise at least 100 typical
units, and should establish the quality of the units themselves, the degree to
which chips or blemishes are acceptable, the characteristics of joints, and
quality generally. The panel should be retained and protected until completion.
A similar approach should also be taken to repointing: in an unobtrusive area of
existing masonry trials should be carried out and a control panel established.
The architect should instruct the contractor to take down and rebuild any work
that does not comply with approved samples.
A mock-up should be erected and approved before decorative patterns or other
intricate work is attempted.
Before work starts the architect should advise the contractor that perpend and
any back joints are to be fully filled with mortar. Cavity work and damp-proofing
details to chimneys need careful detailing and special attention from the
architect on site.
Protection of ongoing and finished work against the weather and impact damage
is as important as the bricklaying itself – even light rain on new brickwork can
have a seriously disfiguring effect.
Defects are noticeable from long distances at ground level so it is important that
immediately before scaffolding is struck all new masonry, repointing and other
repairs are inspected methodically and carefully, paying particular attention to
colour and texture.

Materials and storage

The architect should consider checking that:
. masonry units are ordered to be of a consistent colour (Bricks from a single
firing batch should match each other in colour, but may not match bricks
from different batches. Such matters should be discussed with the supplier
when the bricks are specified, and – if necessary – special orders should be
made. Even bricks within the same consignment will vary in colour to a certain
extent owing to the nature of the raw materials and the firing process. It will
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

134 Inspecting Works

therefore usually be necessary to open and work from at least three packs at
once to avoid bands or patches of slightly different colours.)
. masonry units are ordered to arrive on site just before they are needed (to
avoid unnecessary exposure to the weather or risk of impact damage)
. masonry units are properly unloaded as close as possible to where they will be
used, and stored out of contact with the ground (Under no circumstances should
they be simply tipped from a lorry into a pile. To minimise shrinking of concrete
blocks after laying, and to avoid efflorescence in brickwork, masonry units must
be kept dry – even after packs have been opened and bricks are being used.)
. masonry units are as specified and not damaged or defective (Bricks that can be
scratched with a thumbnail, have arrises that can be easily broken off, break
easily when struck against another brick, are cracked or pitted, show unburned
nodules of clay or lime, show gravel or stone, or have areas of partial vitrification
are likely to disintegrate partially or fully and should be condemned. Bricks
should have flat and perpendicular faces and beds, should not be twisted,
should be of the correct dimensions within specified tolerances, should be of
uniform colour unless specified otherwise, should have a clear metallic ring
when struck with another brick, and should reveal a uniformly burned texture
when split in half. Absorption can be tested by thoroughly drying, weighing,
soaking in water for 24 hours, then weighing again. The first delivery of bricks
should be checked and examples of unacceptable bricks kept on site as control
samples. Samples from each subsequent delivery should be checked.)
. cement and sand are obtained from the same original sources throughout the
job (to maintain consistency of mortar colour)
. cement is kept in a weatherproof store with a dry floor
. sand is kept on a free-draining base clear of other aggregates
. pre-mixed lime:sand is protected against drying out or excessive wetting
. rolls of damp-proof course material are stored on end to prevent squashing
and distortion, and are kept in warm conditions in winter
. sealants for movement and other joints are not out of date, and are protected
from frost and excessive heat or humidity.

Workmanship generally
The architect should consider checking that:
. masonry units are not frosted or saturated, and work is not carried out in
temperatures below 38C
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 135

. the wall is set out correctly

. all openings are set out at foundation or ground level to ensure that they are
accommodated by the bond in the best way possible as brickwork rises (It may
be necessary to select bricks of special dimensional consistency for narrow
piers or columns.)
. the mortar mix is as specified, and properly mixed consistently throughout the
job (A failure to measure proportions carefully and consistently can seriously
affect the durability and appearance of the finished brickwork. The correct
sand should be used – it should leave a stain if rubbed between fingers.
Sulphate-resisting cement should be used where specified. Sand and cement
should be measured by volume, using clean and accurate gauge boxes. Allow-
ance for bulking of damp sand should be made. Site mixing should take place
in a proper mixer. The mixture should be placed in the mixer and clean water
added while the mix is turning over. The mortar should be mixed for the
correct amount of time – usually 3–5 minutes. Mortar should never be
mixed directly on paving or the ground. If ready-mixed mortar or ingredients
are used the architect should ask the contractor for copies of delivery notes. On
larger jobs cube tests of mortar should be taken at regular intervals. At the end
of the day all bankers, barrows, mixers and batch boxes must be hosed
completely clean. Mortar left over must not be reused the following day.)
. additives are only used strictly as specified, and are properly measured and
gauged with the water before the mortar is mixed (Mortar with air-entraining
additives should not be mixed for longer than recommended by the manu-
facturer – normally for no more than 5 minutes. Under no circumstances
should neat additives be squirted into the mortar as or after it is mixed, as
the additives will not be evenly distributed within the mortar and the strength
of the brickwork will be affected.)
. bricks are kept completely dry when stacked out on boards at ground level or
on scaffolding
. facing work is kept free of mortar and clean
. perpend and back joints as well as bed joints are properly filled by fully
buttering faces when laying, and bricks are laid with frogs or deeper frogs
upwards
. the bond is as specified
. the joint profile is as specified – consistently throughout the job (To avoid a
patchy appearance bricklayers working on the same site should all be using
the same joint profiling technique.)
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

136 Inspecting Works

. damp-proof courses are of the specified type and fixed strictly as specified,
including overlap with damp-proof membrane, mortar bedding, laps, detail
at face of wall, and sealing at laps where resistance to downward movement
of water is required
. perpends are aligned vertically (or at every fifth perpend with even variation in
between so as to avoid a wavy effect)
. bed joints are horizontal and gauge rods are used to ensure that courses rise
consistently throughout the height of the wall
. the brickwork is vertical generally, and at external angles and reveals (using, as
appropriate, a long spirit level, a plumb bob or by simply standing back from
the work and looking)
. brickwork is racked back rather than toothed when raising corners, and at
temporary terminations
. brickwork is not built in single lifts greater than 1,500 mm
. joints between new walls, new and existing walls, and walls and partitions are
carried out as specified
. an adequate gap to allow differential movement is left below oversailing
timber-frame-supported structures at eaves and verges, and below window
sills of timber-framed buildings
. openings are plumb, square and of the correct size
. reinforcement is provided as specified
. lintels are fixed the right way up, level, properly bedded in mortar, with speci-
fied bearing length, on bearings of adequate integrity as specified
. separating walls are extended into roof spaces, with joints between wall and
roof filled as specified
. slip ties are fixed at movement joints as specified
. compression joints and head restraints are formed as specified at heads of
non-load-bearing partitions and brickwork cladding panels
. cladding panels and other brickwork panels are tied to structural frames as
specified
. movement and fillet joint widths and depths are as specified, with sides flush
and parallel (Surfaces should be free of frost, dust, oil, grease, water and dirt
before priming, and adjacent non-porous surfaces should be masked with
tape – but porous surfaces should not. Surfaces should be fully primed,
without excess, and backing of uncompressed width between 125 and 150
per cent of joint width, and thickness of greater than 50 per cent of joint
width, should be fitted untwisted at even depth. Sealant should be mixed
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 137

by the correct mixer at the correct speed and applied in temperatures between
58C and 408C, be correctly spread, and be separately tooled to produce a
smooth, even, flat or slightly concave surface without sealant on adjacent
surfaces. Triangular fillets should maintain contact of 6 mm to non-porous
surfaces and 10 mm to porous surfaces, with backing where the gap to be
sealed is more than 5 mm. Any masking tape should be removed as soon as
tooling is completed.)
. raking out for repointing is at least 20 mm (checking more than once during
the course of the work).

Cavity work
The architect should consider checking that:
. the overall wall thickness and cavity width are correct
. cavity fill is provided from between 150 mm and 225 mm below the ground
level damp-proof course
. cavity trays are of the specified type, and are bedded in mortar, fully
supported and sealed at laps, extended beyond intrusions, sealed to stop
ends, detailed at face of wall, and otherwise fixed strictly as specified (Cavity
trays must not be omitted over minor intrusions such as meter boxes, or
airbrick or other ducts.)
. damp-proof courses do not project into cavities (except vertical damp-proof
courses at openings)
. weep holes are provided as specified
. wall ties are of the type and at the spacing specified, including additional ties
at openings, movement joints and gables; are bedded as the units are laid at
least 50 mm into each leaf and 25 mm from either face; are fixed to the studs
rather than just the sheathing of timber-framed walls; and are the right way up,
sloping downwards towards the outer leaf (to maintain slope adequately
following shrinkage of frame in timber-framed buildings), with the drips
centred on the residual cavity, and with the specified type of insulation
retaining clip used
. lifting battens are used in cavities (The battens should be raised and mortar
carefully cleared off before fixing the next run of wall ties. Any mortar finding
its way onto wall ties below the batten should be knocked off with a stick. At
intervals of no more than 2 m, bricks – or preferably internal blocks – in the
course immediately above the base of the cavity, and above openings,
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

138 Inspecting Works

should be bedded in sand to allow access for removal of mortar that has fallen
or been knocked off. The mortar should be cleared before it has hardened – at
least once a day. Boards should be used to protect full-fill cavities.)
. insulated cavity walls are built by building the inner leaf up to one course
above the height of the next run of insulation boards, cleaning mortar snots
from the cavity face, lifting and clearing the batten or board, fitting insulation
boards tightly together between ties and securing with clips, building the
outer leaf to the top of the insulation, and repeating until the wall is complete
. insulation is of the type specified; is squarely and neatly cut; is installed with
horizontal joints coursed with wall ties, with vertical joints staggered, and
with each board held firmly by four clips; is neatly cut around openings; and
is tightly butted at corners
. built-in insulated cavity closers are built in with vertical damp-proof course
projecting 25 mm into the cavity – and not pushed in after the wall is
completed
. cavities below door thresholds are protected to prevent them from becoming
filled with rubble and rubbish.

Protection of new brickwork

The architect should consider checking that:
. scaffold boards next to the wall are turned back at night or in wet weather to
stop mud or spilled mortar being splashed onto the finished work
. vulnerable arrises to reveals, sills, arches, corbels, steps, plinths and copings are
protected from impact damage by cladding with clean softwood, plywood or
hardboard – and by notices warning drivers of vulnerable overhead features
(The boards should be fixed where possible by tying wire around them, but
if necessary they can be fixed to the brickwork with nails driven into mortar
joints – which can easily be made good after protection is removed.)
. projecting details such as plinths and corbels are protected from mortar drop-
ping from above (Protection can be provided by building the edge of a poly-
thene sheet about 20 mm into the mortar bed above the projection, with the
sheet draped down over the projection. When the subsequent work is complete,
the sheet should be neatly cut off and the mortar made good as necessary.)
. if rain is threatening – and overnight – tops of walls and recently completed
work generally are covered with heavy polythene sheeting (An air gap must
be formed between the sheeting and the brickwork by loosely laying battens
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 139

between sheeting and brickwork. The sheeting must be long enough to cover
all new brickwork below, and must be adequately weighted with boards or
bricks to ensure that it is not displaced by wind. Any water running off the
protection must be directed away from brickwork below.)
. in wintry conditions, recently completed work is covered to protect it from frost
using layers of dry hessian sacking covered by heavy polythene sheeting – or
preferably purpose-made insulated waterproofing material (The protection
should be adequately weighted down to ensure it is not displaced by wind,
and should remain in place for up to seven days until the mortar is cured.)
. in hot weather, recently completed work is prevented from drying out too
quickly by covering it with layers of damp hessian sacking covered by heavy
polythene sheeting (The hessian should be sprayed with water as necessary
to keep it damp, but should not be over-wetted, which would result in staining.)

Roof finishes
Generally
The functions of a roof are usually to keep water out and to keep heat in – and to
do both as efficiently as possible throughout the design lifetime of the roof.
There are many ways by which the functional requirements of a roof may be
met, some of which will be long established and well understood by the
construction industry, others of which may appear unorthodox and will require
explanation. The architect should ensure that the contractor fully understands
both the overall design principles and the construction details – and that the
message gets through to the roofer. Roofs must be constructed strictly as
designed, and the architect should carry out careful and frequent inspections
as the various elements of the overall roof construction are fixed. In particular,
the architect should check that:
. precautions to prevent condensation are understood and fully implemented
. breather membranes, insulation, vapour-control layers and air leakage barriers
are of the specified material, and are located and fixed as specified
. provisions for ventilation are constructed strictly as specified, and not
subsequently blocked (by insulation, for example)
. junctions with fire-separating walls are as specified, particularly in boxed eaves
and above wall plates (both of which must be inspected before closing up),
and where walls abut the underside of roofing
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

140 Inspecting Works

. cover flashings are of materials, girth and length, are treated, are wedged and
pointed, and clipped or otherwise fixed, and are joined – all as specified (Cover
flashings are essential to roof performance, and their execution can be less
than perfect.)
. rainwater outlets are fitted with guards
. water in contact with copper is not discharged onto aluminium, zinc or galva-
nised steel
. lead is not in contact with aluminium in a marine environment
. on completion, the upper surfaces of roofs are cleared of all fixings, metal
objects and other debris that may damage roofing, and adequate temporary
protection is provided to ensure that damage is not caused by subsequent
trades fixing aerials, gaining access to rooftop plant or carrying out any
other potentially damaging activities.

Tiling and slating

Slates, in particular, are brittle and should under no circumstances be clambered
over once fixed. It is therefore best if all fixing of aerials and other work above
slating is, as far as is practicable, done before fixing slates. Access for fixing flash-
ings must then be effected using proper roof ladders. The architect should
consider checking:
. tile and slate materials and sizes are as specified (On delivery the architect should
compare slates and tiles with samples, look at packaging, ask for delivery
notes, and check for chipping at corners, cracking and other damage. Slates
should ring if tapped by a metal object – a dead slate sounds dull – and
should not show signs of water creeping up the slate if half submerged over-
night in a bucket of water. Tiles, if broken in half, should show no striations, and
should appear evenly burned without a light core and dark edges.)
. slates are sorted into three or four groups of equal thickness, and during
sorting holed from underneath, 20–25 mm from edges to produce a small
countersink on the face without spalling – using a suitable machine
. slates are fixed in broken bond courses with thicker slates in lower courses,
with all slates in each course of equal thickness, with the thicker end of tapered
slates laid at the tail, with tails aligned, with two nails per slate, with nail heads
flush with slate faces, and with no more than 5 mm between slates
. the height of the tilting fillet and any fascia at the eaves is neither too low nor
too high – such that while the bottom edge of the first full course will sit on the
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 141

bottom edge of the eaves course without a gap, the upper face of the tilting
fillet will nevertheless fall outwards towards the gutter
. counter-batten size and fixing
. tension of underlay
. underlay lap support, arrangement, size (typically 100 mm for side laps and for
head laps to roofs pitched over 358, 150 mm for head laps to roofs under 358
and at hips, and 300 mm past centre lines of valleys) and sealing are as
specified
. underlay is turned up by at least 50 mm and sealed at penetrations, around
openings and at perimeters
. underlay at eaves is fully supported by a tilting fillet and overlaps any fascia
(typically by 50 mm) sufficiently to shed water into the gutter completely
clear of the tilting fillet and fascia
. underlay detail at ridges, valleys and hips
. batten size, gauge, fixing, support at ends and location of joints are as specified
. levels of valley boards, and counter-batten and batten details at valleys and
above openings are such that if any water finds its way onto the underlay it
is able to flow freely to the eaves, where it can discharge into a gutter
. provisions for ventilation are as specified
. lengths, laps, fixings and top saddles to lead valley linings are as specified
. details at abutments and around openings, chimneys and penetrations are as
specified
. tile and slate fixings generally are as specified
. at ridges, hips, valleys and verges tile and slate sizes, fixing, bedding and
pointing are as specified (Whole or one and a half size tiles and slates
should be used. Slates should not be cut less than 150 mm wide.)
. distances between tiles and slates across the widths of valleys are as specified
. end ridge tiles and hip tiles are mechanically fixed, and bedded and pointed
. roof ladders are used to gain access after slating.

Profiled metal or fibre reinforced cement roofing

The architect should check that:
. sheets are inspected for damage on delivery, and are carefully stored and
handled so as to ensure they cannot be damaged in any way (Potential hazards
range from grit between coated metal sheets scratching the finish, to impact
damage.)
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

142 Inspecting Works

. supports are of materials, are treated, are located and are fixed strictly as
specified
. claddings are fixed with laps or joints, fixings, washers, seals and junctions with
other parts of the external envelope strictly as specified – with no fixings,
washers or caps missing
. provisions for preventing wind uplift are constructed strictly as specified
. eaves and ridge closure pieces are tightly fitted.

Fully supported metal roofing

The architect should consider checking that:
. all materials, including felt and wood rolls, are stored dry and under cover
(Lead rolls should be laid flat, and coils of other metals stood on end on flat
bases clear of the ground. Pre-formed profiles should be laid flat and nesting,
or on racks, and be protected from damage.)
. base construction generally, including gutters, is as specified
. falls are as specified (The architect should check before and after laying of
roofing.)
. before laying roofing the base is thoroughly cleaned to remove any projections
– and is kept clean throughout the work
. underlay material and fixing are as specified
. at abutments parallel to roof structure differential movement between roof
and walls is accommodated as specified
. type and thickness of roofing and clips are as specified – checking by compar-
ison with a sample, or otherwise
. fixing of roofing is as specified
. lengths and widths of bays and gutter linings are as specified
. rolls, seams, drips, welts and joints generally are all properly formed as
specified, without cracking of metal
. eaves, abutment, verge, ridge, gutter, penetration and expansion joint details
are as specified
. roofing to receive any traffic whatsoever after fixing is completely covered and
protected from damage.

Built-up and single-ply roofing

The architect should consider checking that:
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 143

. rolls of felt are stored upright on a clean solid surface

. falls, and base construction generally, are as specified
. base preparation including the removal of all projections (to ensure that felts
or membranes are not punctured) is as specified
. base and subsequent layers are dry (to avoid trapping moisture)
. at abutments parallel to roof structure, differential movement between roof
and walls is accommodated as specified
. priming is as specified
. single-ply membrane and built-up layer materials and fixing are as specified
. laps (including size and formation such that water is not directed by falls into
joints) are as specified
. eaves, abutment, verge, ridge, gutter, penetration, expansion joint and
rainwater outlet details are as specified
. surface protection is as specified
. roofing to receive any traffic whatsoever after fixing is completely covered and
protected from damage.

Asphalting
The architect should consider carrying out unannounced spot checks as well as
regular periodic visits during the laying of asphalt. The architect should consider
checking that:
. falls and base construction generally are as specified
. a separating layer is provided as specified
. at abutments parallel to roof structure, differential movement between roof
and walls is accommodated by independent upstands
. asphalt material is as specified – by reading label on blocks
. temperature of asphalt in mixers or cauldrons at no time exceeds 2308C
(Asphalt heated to higher temperatures will fail.)
. the thickness and number of coats to main surfaces are strictly as specified – by
noting the depth of laying battens, by looking at bay edges, and by asking for a
sample to be cut out and measured if in any doubt whatsoever (Asphalt must
always be laid in at least two coats to ensure that performance is not affected
by the slight imperfections that would inevitably be present in a single coat.)
. joints in subsequent coats are staggered by at least 150 mm
. eaves, abutment, verge, gutter, penetration and expansion joint details are as
specified – including primer or metal lathing as applicable; skirting support if
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

144 Inspecting Works

asphalt is laid on insulation; thickness, number and application of coats to

upstands; two coat fillets with face dimension at least 40 mm at 458 at upstand
bases; surface protection; termination of upstands (ensuring chases are
adequately formed); cover flashings; and rain water outlets
. sand rubbing is applied to the final coat (If the asphalt looks shiny it hasn’t
been applied.)
. surface protection is as specified
. roofing to receive any traffic whatsoever after fixing is completely covered and
protected from damage.

External wall finishes

Render
Before rendering is started the architect should ask the contractor to prepare a
number of sample panels to experiment with the effects of different finish
textures and to establish a control panel.
Visible variations in texture or colour of proprietary self-coloured renders are
particularly irritating, and are difficult to spot before scaffolding has been
removed: the architect should ask the contractor to demonstrate how they will
be avoided.
The architect should consider checking that:
. background construction, preparation and treatment are carried out as
specified (Backgrounds should be sound, stable, free from contamination,
unsaturated and keyed or primed as necessary.)
. corrosion-resistant lathing – preferably stainless steel – is fixed over junctions
of dissimilar backgrounds
. beads are corrosion resistant – preferably stainless steel – and fixed with
corrosion-resistant fixings at 600 mm maximum centres
. lathing is as specified (It should be fixed taut, starting from the centre and
working outwards using specified fixings, at least 5 mm off the background
or support, with strands sloping downwards away from finished face of
render. Supported laps should be at least 50 mm, wired together with a
single row of corrosion-resistant wires at 150 mm centres, tied tightly with
ends bent away from the finished face. Unsupported laps should be at least
100 mm, wired with a double row of wires at 100 mm centres. Laps at angles
should be provided.)
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 145

. adequate measures are taken to protect against the effects of cold weather
(Internal work should be protected from air temperatures below 38C. External
work should not be carried out in air temperatures below 58C and falling, or
below 38C and rising.)
. rendering is not carried out in full sun or hot, drying winds
. materials are accurately proportioned – normally in gauge boxes by volume,
taking into account the moisture content of sand – and properly mixed in a
clean mixer (except for very small quantities, which may be mixed on clean
boards)
. coats are of specified thickness, are allowed as specified to cure properly
between coats, and are keyed before applying subsequent coats
. render is carried into all reachable spaces, and is carried up tight to the under-
sides of window sills, and to frames at reveals and soffits
. details above openings in cavity walls and at horizontal damp-proof course
level are as specified
. movement joints extend through the whole render thickness
. finish is accurate as specified (typically not deviating more than 3 mm under a
1.8 m straight edge) and is of consistent appearance to match the control
sample
. finished render is cured as specified (Portland cement gauged render is usually
cured by covering with polythene sheet and spraying with water, or just
spraying – during a minimum period of 3–4 days.)

Tiles
The architect should check that:
. background construction, preparation and treatment are carried out as speci-
fied (Backgrounds should be sound, stable, free from contamination, dry and
keyed or primed as necessary.)
. corrosion-resistant lathing – preferably stainless steel – is fixed over junctions
of dissimilar backgrounds
. adhesives and grouts are of materials and are applied strictly as specified,
including protection from the weather before and after grouting
. setting out is as specified
. movement joints are incorporated where specified, are of the specified width,
extend throughout the tiling and background, are continuous throughout the
tiling, are free of mortar or adhesive and are sealed as specified
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

146 Inspecting Works

. joints are straight and level, free edges are level or plumb as appropriate, and
tiles are laid flat and flush at joints
. joints are fully and evenly grouted and are slightly recessed
. edges are as specified
. tiles are adequately protected after fixing.

Claddings generally
Whatever the wall cladding, the architect should ensure that the contractor fully
understands both the overall design principles and the construction details. In
particular the architect should check that:
. panels are checked for damage on delivery, and are carefully stored and handled
so as to ensure they cannot be damaged in any way (Potential hazards range
from grit between coated metal sheets scratching the finish, to impact damage.)
. precautions to prevent condensation are understood and fully implemented
. breather membranes, insulation, vapour-control layers and air leakage barriers
are of the specified material, and are located and fixed as specified
. provisions for ventilation and drainage are constructed strictly as specified and
are not subsequently blocked (by insulation, for example)
. provisions to accommodate differential and other types of movement are
constructed strictly as specified
. supports are of materials, are treated, are located, and are fixed strictly as
specified
. claddings are fixed with laps or joints, fixings, washers, seals and junctions with
other parts of the external envelope all strictly as specified.

Windows and doors

Components generally
The architect should ask the contractor for a preservative treatment certificate for
joinery, test certificates for fire doors and should consider checking that:
. joinery to be painted is shop-primed, and joinery to be clear finished is shop-
primed to bedding faces, with all other faces sealed
. components are not delivered to site before they are needed
. timber is of the right moisture content (checking with a moisture meter on
delivery and immediately after fixing)
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 147

. timber is free from knots and shakes

. items are stored in a weatherproof enclosure with a dry floor
. drips are formed in sills and thresholds
. some heat is applied to the building before fixing door leaves and other
second fix joinery items – but not so much that excessive drying, shrinkage
and cracking will occur
. all screw holes are fitted with screws of the correct type, driven in square.

Frames and leaves

The architect should consider checking that:
. timber frames are shop-primed as specified
. doors and windows are stored off the ground, under cover and protected
from damage (Doors should be stacked horizontally, adequately supported.
Windows should be stacked either horizontally or vertically with spacers.)
. damp-proof courses are fitted to sills
. any cut faces to timber frames are re-primed
. vertical damp-proof courses and sealant backing tapes are fitted to built-in
frames before installing, and masonry is built lightly to abut installed
frames
. frames to prepared openings cover damp-proof courses
. frames are plumb, square and correctly set out
. fixing blocks and spacers are used to prepared openings as specified
. frames are securely fixed (Frames should be side-fixed at maximum centres of
450 mm for windows and 600 mm for doors, with top and bottom fixings
within 150 mm of head and sill or threshold respectively. Where practicable
frames should also be head-fixed.)
. frames are sealed all round externally and any internal gaps are filled with
expanding foam or similar as necessary to ensure that the installation is airtight
. fixed window frames are not used for access, or as support for scaffolding,
boards, etc.
. gaps between window sashes and frames, between door leaves and frames,
and between meeting stiles are not excessive
. draught stripping to external windows and doors and to roof access hatches is
as specified
. internal door frames are not fitted until immediately before plastering (to mini-
mise the risk of damage from site traffic)
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

148 Inspecting Works

. stops to fire door frames are screw-fixed, seals as specified are fitted to heads
and jambs, and fire-resisting door leaves are provided as specified
. ironmongery is fixed with screws of the right type, length and number, driven
home without burring the edges of the slot
. sinkings for hinges, locks and keeps are neat and tightly fitting, with outer faces
of metal and surrounding timber flush (Packing should not be accepted. Back
plates should be centred as specified, and be parallel with the frame of the
door.)
. door furniture is set out precisely as specified
. window locks are properly adjusted, and casement stays correctly fitted
. all ironmongery is correctly adjusted and lubricated
. doors, windows, frames, glazing, architraves and ironmongery are protected
adequately until practical completion.

Glazing
The architect should consider checking that:

. glass and glazed units are as specified – by looking at markings on glass and
by asking for documentary evidence such as delivery notes or guarantees
. materials and glass are stored in a dry, sheltered place out of direct sunlight,
and are protected from damage
. rebates are primed as specified
. glazing compounds and their application are strictly as specified, including
quantities and thicknesses
. setting blocks, location blocks and distance pieces are of specified material,
and are used strictly as specified, wedging glass tight into sash as
appropriate
. at least 3 mm of non-setting compound or capping sealant is visible between
glass and frame and beads are bedded strictly as specified
. timber glazing beads are fixed with fixings and at spacings as specified,
without splitting beads
. safety glass, fire-resisting glass or other special glasses are fixed in specified
locations
. wherever faces of supporting structure will be visible through glass (such as at
the heads of glazed partitions, or at the tops of rooflight kerbs) they are
properly finished.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 149

Services
Generally
Very early in the contract the architect should check that all existing utilities
have been surveyed, that design capacities required for each service have
been established, that all necessary orders for new or replacement services
have been placed, that all associated work has been properly incorporated
into the contractor’s programme, and that accommodation proposed within
the building for the entry of incoming services is adequate and practicable.
The architect should also ensure that as soon as services installation subcontrac-
tors are appointed they check and confirm that proposed services routes provide
adequate space for all services and are otherwise practicable.

Materials, including ductwork, should be protected from the weather and risk of
physical damage.

Where specialist consultant engineers have been appointed the architect should
ensure they carry out proper inspections. The architect or specialist consultant
should witness tests of drainage systems and ask the contractor for a certificate.
The contractor must provide test certificates for electrical installations.

Finished floor and ceiling levels must be established and checked before services
first fixing is started, to ensure specified floor to ceiling heights will be achieved.

Special attention must be paid to the passing of services through walls, floors and
any other elements of fire-resisting construction. Holes in such structure should
be neatly formed and not oversized. Intumescent collars and other fire-stopping
materials should be carefully and properly installed. Dampers should be present
in ductwork.

Flexible ductwork connecting fans to external terminals (in roof spaces, for
example) must be adequately clamped to the terminals, adequately supported,
cut to the shortest possible length and be free of sharp bends.

Practical completion should not be certified until services manuals have been
completed as specified.

Electrical services
The architect should consider checking that:
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

150 Inspecting Works

. fittings are not installed back to back in separating walls

. vertical chases do not exceed one-third of wall or leaf thickness
. horizontal chases do not exceed one-sixth of wall or leaf thickness
. cables are fixed flat, without twists, and with plenty of slack at bends to allow
for movement of structure
. cables are run in centres of joists and never in notches
. cables in floor and roof voids are fixed to sides of structural members, at least
50 mm from top or bottom, with clips at 1 m maximum centres, supported on
battens where they cross voids (Cables should never be fixed to the tops of
roof space joists.)
. cables run vertically are fixed to studs at 500 mm maximum centres
. cables in plaster are protected as specified
. lighting and power cables are segregated from fire alarm, emergency
lighting, telephone, TV, hi-fi, doorbell, door-answering system and other
cables
. electrical cables generally are segregated from hot water pipes and all other
services that produce heat, smoke or fumes, and from services that cause
condensation
. cables are not run in lift shafts
. cables are not run in insulation (which causes cable to overheat) or in contact
with polystyrene (which degrades PVC cable sheathing)
. the setting out of all fittings is as specified – checking before plastering
. mounting boxes are square, level, at the right height, properly fixed and fitted
with grommets
. fire stopping is installed strictly as specified
. earthing, and main and supplementary equipotential bonding, are all carried
out strictly as specified
. consumer units and distribution boards are properly and neatly labelled
. lightning protection systems are installed as specified
. testing is completed as specified.

External above-ground drainage

The architect should consider checking that:
. temporary arrangements are made as necessary to ensure that new or
existing masonry walls do not become saturated before new down pipes are
fitted
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 151

. pipes and gutters are stored horizontally, clear of the ground, with large
quantities stored in racks
. materials are strictly as specified (uPVC can withstand boiling water but PVC
cannot – so can only be used for rainwater drainage.)
. gutters are fixed with corrosion-resistant screws to brackets at specified
maximum centres (typically 1,000 mm) and to each side of outlets, are set to
specified falls (typically 1:350), are jointed as specified, and have guards as
specified fixed to outlets
. roofing underlay is dressed into gutters
. down pipes are fixed with corrosion-resistant screws and plugs to brackets
at the head (to support the swan neck or hopper), just below collars (to
prevent pipe sections slipping), at the foot (to support the shoe), and other-
wise at specified minimum centres (typically about 2 m) and are jointed as
specified
. soil vent pipes are located at specified distances from windows and roof lights
and are terminated as specified
. horizontal waste pipes are adequately supported
. access eyes are fitted where specified.

Internal above-ground drainage, and heating and hot and cold water services
The architect should see that specified pipework tests are carried out, and should
carry out his or her own checks on segregation, support, lagging and accessibility
before pipework is covered up by floorboards and plasterboard. The architect
should check for damage or incorrect ordering by the contractor of radiators,
sanitary ware, taps, shower fittings, etc. as soon as they are delivered so that
delays are minimised if replacements are needed. The architect should ask the
contractor for records of tests and commissioning.
The architect should consider checking that:
. the water supply pipe outside the building is insulated and at least 750 mm
below ground level
. the supply main below the ground floor of the building and within 750 mm of
the external wall is insulated
. gas pipes embedded in concrete are protected by wrapping, or coating in
bitumen; and are run in a purpose-made duct or sleeve, or are fitted with
5-mm-thick foam pipe lagging or other resilient covering material
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

152 Inspecting Works

. gas and water supply pipes embedded in screed are protected by wrapping, or
coating in bitumen
. pipes are sleeved as specified where passing through walls
. voids containing gas pipes are ventilated as specified and pipe locations
marked where practicable
. balanced flue pipes are located as specified in relation to openings, gutters or
painted surfaces
. flue pipes, where passing through walls, floors or roofs, are sleeved with non-
combustible material maintaining an air gap between flue pipe and sleeve of
at least 25 mm as specified
. conventional flue pipes are not within 25 mm of combustible material,
are installed with sockets uppermost, are supported under every socket,
are otherwise supported at intervals no greater than 1.8 m, have joints
properly sealed as specified, have no sections shallower than 458, and are
terminated as specified in relation to openings, eaves, dormers, parapets
and flat roofs
. copper tubes are properly bent using a machine
. joists are notched only strictly as specified – typically only within 250 mm of
ends – and are fitted with felt pads to prevent noise when pipes expand,
and steel protection saddles
. pipes are fitted with room for pipework expansion (For example, bends should
not be formed tight against joists.)
. capillary joints are properly formed, with pipes cut straight and properly
reamed to remove burrs, and without too much solder or flux
. joints do not leak (particularly at bath and basin tap connections and traps, WC
flush pipe connections to cisterns, and compression joints generally – which
can be checked by feeling with the hand)
. pipework is adequately supported with clips as specified, at specified centres
attached to firm structural support, with adequate space at back for insulation,
and with falls to avoid formation of airlocks and to assist drainage
. hot water cylinders are of the specified size and fitted with immersion heaters
as specified
. pipework, hot water storage cylinders and cold water storage cisterns are
insulated as specified – with special attention to thickness, security of fixing,
continuity at bends and around valves, pipework between boilers and cylin-
ders, and areas susceptible to freezing conditions (including pipes run in
outside walls and unheated spaces)
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 153

. valves are present and accessible as specified (Installations typically include

separate valves to control supplies to whole buildings and to different
demises, valves to control services from cold water and feed and expansion
cisterns, valves immediately before all draw off points, and valves to allow
radiator and other systems to be drained.)
. fire stopping and dampers are installed strictly as specified
. radiators, sanitary ware and fittings are stored and protected to ensure they are
not damaged
. WC cisterns are mounted at the correct height, flush adequately and do not fill
too slowly
. baths are properly seated down on cradles, do not move, and have feet fixed to
spreader plates
. overflows and warning pipes are of specified size, are turned down at least
50 mm below the water line of cisterns, are laid to adequate falls, and are
supported, insulated and terminated as and where specified
. radiators are fixed the right way up, and to slight falls to allow air to rise to
bleed valve positions
. radiator plugs, valves and bleed valves are put in with PTFE tape
. radiators are securely fixed, are not dented, chipped or scratched, and are
adequately protected
. guards are fitted to flue terminals less than 2 m above the ground, a balcony or
a terrace
. systems are tested, flushed out and sterilised, inhibitor added to primary
circuits, and commissioned as specified (In the absence of other requirements
the contractor should be asked to run the heating system continuously for at
least 48 hours, after which the programming controls should be tested. If a
system has stored hot water, the hot water tap should be turned on until all
hot water runs out, and the time taken for it to heat up again should be
checked. Temperatures from hot and cold water taps should be checked.
The architect should check that turning outlets on or off does not affect the
flow from other outlets – particularly showers and taps in bathrooms and
kitchens.)

Internal finishes
Plasterboarding
The architect should consider checking that:
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

154 Inspecting Works

. boards are stored on a flat surface in a dry place, and are handled carefully to
avoid damage (If boards are held off the floor, bearers should be at least
100 mm wide, be laid at 400 mm maximum centres and be level. Boards
should not be stacked more than 1 m high.)
. plasterboarding is not carried out until areas to be plasterboarded are
weatherproof
. backgrounds are reasonably dry and flat
. timber supporting battens, framing and noggings are of specified widths and
depths
. the specified thickness and type of plasterboard is being used
. dabs are applied vertically between continuous beads of adhesive at floor and
ceiling level, around openings, at corners, and around mounting boxes, as
specified, for one board at a time (Boards should be temporarily wedged at
the bottom until dabs have set. Dabs should be about 50 mm thick, 250 mm
long and have 50–75 mm between them.)
. supports for horizontal and vertical edges of boards and joints are provided as
specified
. before fixing plasterboard, supports are provided for radiators or any heavy
features or fittings to be fixed to the wall after plasterboarding
. plasterboards are neatly cut
. holes for services are neatly cut out before boards are fixed
. plasterboards to be decorated are fixed with the ivory papered side (which is
sized) outwards and otherwise with the grey side outwards
. plasterboards are fixed flush and aligned, with bound edges mastering
external corners, with bound edges lightly butting, with exactly 3 mm between
cut edges, with wall boards plumb and tightly fitting against ceiling boards,
and ceiling boards level
. mechanical fixings to plasterboards are of the specified type, material,
diameter and length, at 150 mm maximum centres, and 10 mm or more
from bound edges and 13 mm or more from cut edges
. scrim is being used as specified to joints and internal corners.

Plastering
The architect should consider checking that:
. plaster is stored in a dry weatherproof area with a dry floor, with bags stacked
away from walls
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 155

. temporary protection against plaster splashes to other work is provided as

necessary
. backgrounds are sound, stable, reasonably dry, free from contamination and
prepared as specified
. dubbing-out, for which a claim for additional payment may be made by the
contractor, is measured before the work is done (or, better still, the situation
is avoided by allowing for the work in the contract documents)
. plaster beads are being used and are fixed strictly as specified
. expanded metal lathing is fixed across junctions of dissimilar materials
. expanded metal lathing is fixed taut, with all strands sloping the same way in
horizontal work, and downwards, away from the finished face of the plaster in
vertical work, with type and centres of fixings, laps, and ties at laps all as specified
. the specified type of plaster is being used (but is not being used beyond the
expiry date on the bag)
. plaster is mixed and applied using clean water, tools and equipment
. plastering is not carried out when the substrate is frozen, or during extremely
cold, moist, hot or dry conditions
. each coat is of the specified thickness, and keyed and dried before applying
subsequent coats
. plaster does not bridge damp-proof courses – including chemical damp-proof
courses
. plaster is smooth (Defects may not be obvious to the eye until walls are
decorated and permanent lighting is switched on – by which time it is too
late. Plaster should be checked before decorating by running a hand over
the wall or shining a torch along its surface. Attention should be paid to
areas around junctions between walls and between walls and ceilings, and
above doors and skirtings. The architect should look out for hollows, ripples,
rough areas, flecks of plaster that have fallen from the float onto the finished
plaster, and trowel marks.)
. internal angles between walls, and walls and ceilings should be straight – and
vertical or horizontal as appropriate
. the finished face of the plaster is set flush with door and window frames.

Wall and floor tiling

Before work begins the architect should be satisfied that the contractor under-
stands how tiling is to be set out, and how angles and edges are to be
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

156 Inspecting Works

treated. The architect should check that:

. the background (including dryness), preparation, priming, adhesive and grout
are strictly as specified
. setting out is as specified
. movement joints are incorporated in internal corners and where otherwise
specified, are of the specified width (typically 5 mm), extend throughout
the tile and bed, are continuous throughout the tiling, are free of mortar or
adhesive and are sealed as specified
. joints are straight, level and of uniform specified width, free edges are level or
plumb as appropriate, and tiles are laid flat and flush at joints (The architect
should check by walking on floors and feeling walls by hand.)
. joints are fully and evenly grouted, and are slightly recessed
. edges are as specified – including threshold strips
. natural stone is grouted, cleaned and protected with sealant strictly as
specified
. tiles are adequately protected after laying – with boards (laid with any ink face
up) to trafficked areas.

Timber and sheet flooring

The architect should consider checking that:
. materials are as specified and stored correctly (Hardwood flooring should be
checked immediately on delivery so that delays are minimised if the material
is not acceptable. Quantities of knots, sapwood and quality generally should
be checked. Attention should be paid to maintaining the specified moisture
content.)
. base and preparation are as specified, with particular attention to damp
proofing, levelling, flatness, smoothness, dryness and cleanliness (Flatness
should be tested with a straight edge.)
. setting out is as specified
. adhesives and fixing are as specified
. gaps to perimeters of timber flooring are as specified
. hardwood flooring is filled and sanded as specified
. sealants to timber flooring are applied strictly at the specified rate of coverage,
and are not spread too thinly – to ensure that the required degree of sheen is
achieved
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 157

. all floors are covered up and adequately protected after laying – with boards
(laid with any ink face up) to trafficked areas.

Built-in furniture and fittings

In some cases, such as where high-specification, one-off joinery is being made, it
may be appropriate for the architect to visit the workshop at one or more stages
during construction.
On site, to minimise delays if replacements are needed, the architect should
check for damage as soon as items are delivered.
The architect should consider checking that:
. the contractor has taken measurements correctly and has not, for example,
assumed that rooms of an existing building are necessarily square
. items are not brought onto site too far in advance of when they are needed,
and are properly stored, covered and protected
. materials are as specified, including the extent of knots in timber
. workmanship is as specified – particularly at joints and scribings, and where
components are fitted together
. gaps between doors, between drawers, and between doors and drawers and
carcasses are not excessive
. fixings are of the specified type, material and size, and are fixed at all specified
locations
. the operation of all moving parts is as specified
. the quality of finishes is as specified
. surfaces are free from accidental damage and from tool marks
. junctions with other materials are as specified.

Painting and decorating

Generally
The architect should consider checking that:
. materials in storage and in use are protected from temperatures below 58C and
above 308C, and are not too old
. all surfaces are dry and prepared strictly as specified – including removal of
old paint, filling and levelling holes and depressions with stopper or filler as
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

158 Inspecting Works

appropriate, rubbing down, slight rounding of arrises, and cleaning after

rubbing down (Timber should be rubbed down with the grain. The architect
should inspect surfaces immediately before painting.)
. paint is prepared as specified
. knotting is applied to knots in timber as specified
. all timber, metal, concrete and other surfaces are primed as specified, working
the primer well in, with special attention to the tops and bottoms of doors
and windows, to the end grain of weather boarding, and to joints, angles and
other potentially vulnerable areas (Metal should be primed immediately after
preparation. Special care should be taken to ensure that priming is not too thin.)
. the number of coats is as specified (The architect should consider asking for a
wall to be painted in his or her presence with the specified number of coats –
which can then be used as a control sample.)
. drying, light rubbing down with fine paper, and cleaning between coats are as
specified
. finished work is free of protruding dirt or bits of dried paint, discoloration
caused by bleeding through of underlying substance, blistering, loss of gloss
caused by damp in the atmosphere, brush marks, shrinkage, crazing, tackiness
or softness of surface, efflorescence, flaking, undercoat grinning through
finishing coat, runs and drips, saponification, glossy patches or streaks, and
shrivelling.

External painting
The architect should consider checking that:
. painting is not carried out in direct sunlight, driving rain, fog or frosty weather
. cracks in old render are filled with epoxy filler, or otherwise as specified
. gutter boards are painted before fixing gutters, and other timber that is to be
partially covered up is painted before fixing
. sealing around doors, windows and other openings in external walls is carried
out after painting.

Internal painting
The architect should consider checking that:
. painting does not take place until dust-generating activities have been
completed
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 159

. painting does not take place when temperatures are below 58C or when
condensation is likely to occur before drying
. insides of kitchen units, fitted cupboards, meter cupboards, below-stair
cupboards, behind radiators, tops of doors and other out-of-the-way places
are all painted
. electrical faceplates are removed before painting.

Wall coverings
The architect should check that:
. wall coverings are stored out of direct sunlight
. walls are primed or sized as specified
. rolls with different shade batch numbers are not used in the same room
. lining paper is fixed at right angles to the line of the final wall covering, and
allowed to dry for 24 hours before hanging wall covering
. wallpaper is fixed with the specified adhesive, is properly butted at edges with
the pattern aligning and the right way up, with edges trimmed neatly, with
adequate paste applied to edges, with no lumps or bubbles under the
paper, and with the paper clean and free of stains and tears (Strongly
patterned papers should be hung symmetrically in relation to protrusions or
interruptions such as chimneybreasts and doorways. The architect should
agree with the contractor the precise setting out before the work is started.)

External works
The architect should consider checking that:
. materials are as specified and are stored correctly
. retaining walls are built strictly as specified
. fence post holes are vertical and of specified plan size and depth
. fence posts, straining posts, struts and intermediate posts are as specified
. bases to paving are well compacted to prevent levels dropping and falls being lost
(It is particularly important in small areas of paving immediately north of build-
ings or in basements, where even the slightest ponding will exacerbate percep-
tions of dampness, that paving is laid – and remains laid – to maximum falls.)
. paving units are shuffled as necessary to avoid bands or patches of a single
colour shade (A minimum of three packs may need to be opened and
worked from at once to achieve the desired blending.)
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

160 Inspecting Works

. pavings are laid strictly as specified

. all builder’s rubble and rubbish is removed on completion.

Practical completion
As practical completion approaches the architect should monitor progress
closely. Once it is clear that the contractor has done all its own snagging, and
that there are no items of work obviously outstanding, the architect should
attend site to carry out his or her final inspections. In theory, the contractor
should have done its job properly and the architect will find no defects or
outstanding work. However, in practice, the architect should expect to find a
small number of items in each room. Should the architect find that he or she is
compiling a much longer list of items, inspection should immediately stop and
not continue until the contractor has made adequate further progress.
The architect’s inspection should be made methodically in a set sequence. It is
essential that throughout the inspection the architect remains alert and unhur-
ried. It may therefore be necessary to carry out inspections over a number of
short periods rather than one long one.
It might be logical to start at the top of the building with roofs, then to work
down inside room by room, finishing with circulation spaces, then to proceed
to the exterior of the building, and finally to external works. At each point the
architect must work through an ordered inspection routine. For example, when
in a room the architect may look first at the ceiling finishes, then ceiling lighting
and other services fittings, then wall finishes, then windows, then doors, then
skirtings, then wall-mounted electrical and other services fittings, then sanitary
or culinary fittings, then built-in storage, and then floor finishes. When inspecting
decorations and finishes the architect should assume the attitude of the occupier
– closing the doors to rooms, standing, sitting and even lying where the occupier
would stand, sit and lie (including in the bath and on WCs!) and looking at what
the occupier would be looking at. Built-in joinery and other fittings can be looked
at as exercises in themselves – checking methodically from top to bottom or from
inside out.
Careful notes should be taken – and recorded such that items can be very easily
identified later. Lists should be subdivided by headings relating to rooms or
areas, with further subdivision as necessary – perhaps by trade – to ensure that
individual lists under each heading are not too long.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Section 7: Inspecting the work 161

The architect’s client should be kept informed at each stage. Above all, the archi-
tect should ensure that payment is not made for work that has not been done,
and a certificate of practical completion is not issued until the contractor has
attended to all but a small number of minor items – whatever the opinion of
the contractor, the quantity surveyor or the client. The architect should never
promise that practical completion will be certified by a particular date.
Procedures for commissioning of services should be monitored as appropriate.
Checks during the architect’s final inspections should include seeing that:
. all plant and equipment is removed from site
. all doors and windows open fully and smoothly, and all ironmongery and door
closers are properly fixed, adjusted and lubricated
. the heating, hot water and any other mechanical services systems operate as
specified – WCs flush, taps run, all overflows work (by filling baths, basins and
sinks), plugs are fitted, and all sanitary ware is clean – with all services tested,
insulated and labelled as appropriate
. radiators are secure, and there is no rubbish behind them
. manholes and gullies are clear, with the correct grilles and covers fitted
. all electrical services work, there are no missing or faulty light bulbs, no light
fittings are held together with masking tape, fan overruns operate correctly,
faceplates are securely fixed and level, and all testing, labelling and earth
bonding has been carried out as specified
. no floorboards creak
. plaster, tiles and other applied finishes are firmly fixed
. there are no chips, marks or other defects to decorations or finishes
. there are no paint spots on windows, mirrors, worktops or floors
. fixtures and fittings are all complete and working
. signage is complete
. fire fighting equipment is complete
. the building is thoroughly clean, with no rubbish in cupboards
. all temporary protection and wrappings are removed
. all keys are handed over, and fit the locks
. the building manual is strictly as specified, including all test certificates,
record drawings, operation and maintenance instructions, building product
manufacturer’s guarantees, Building Regulations completion certificates and
notices of other statutory approvals
. other consultants have completed their own inspections.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Notes

1. The question was examined in the case of Department of National Heritage

v. Steensen Varming Mulcahy & Others (1998) CILL 1422. The terms of its
appointment required an electrical services consultant to ‘make visits of
inspection to ensure that the Works are being properly supervised and
executed in accordance with the design and specifications’.
It was alleged that the word ‘ensure’ should be strictly interpreted, and that
therefore any electrical defect was in itself evidence of negligence on the
part of the consultant. Judge Bowsher QC, an Official Referee, disagreed –
on the grounds that the consultant had been given neither power of enforce-
ment over the electrical contractor, nor payment for taking responsibility for
the electrical contractor’s performance. In the context of its appointment,
the judge said the consultant’s duties were limited ‘to taking steps which
would discourage bad work and if possible discover it after it had been done’.
2. Judges have also used such guidance even when descriptions of site inspec-
tion services have been specified.
3. Defects discovered included:
. inadequate vertical support to 85 per cent of the mullions due to damaged
concrete corbels, loose metal corbels or ill-fitting panels
. inadequate horizontal support to 25 per cent of mullions due to no cramps
being fitted, cramps being bolted to the structural frame rather than fitted
into abbey slots, the absence of dowels, or inadequate length or position-
ing of dowels such that dowels were not engaged in mullion holes
. mortar left in horizontal joints preventing relative movement between
mullions.
4. The judge also criticised the architect for:

163
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

164 Inspecting Works

the complete absence of any records . . . of what he saw and what he

said during his inspections. An inspection can only be effective if the
inspector clearly identifies what defects he has seen and what he
wants done about them. If there is no record of the matters noted
and the directions given, it will almost inevitably create conflict
months later, over precisely what was said and when . . .
A point which the judge emphasised by saying:
It appears from the range of building defects . . . that [the contractor]
did not always give this project the care and attention that it deserved
and, whilst the standard of much of their work was high, there were
important elements of the project where it fell significantly short of
what might have been expected. It was for [the architect] to identify
those areas and to ensure that they were corrected by [the
contractor]. In the absence of any written inspection notes or
instructions to that effect, it is difficult to say that he fulfilled his
general obligation.
5. The judge went on to say that because the areas of tiling were extensive and
were carried out over a long period of time the architects were negligent.
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Table of cases

Alexander Corfield v. David Grant (1992) 59 BLR 102

Bowmer & Kirkland Ltd v. Wilson Bowden Properties Ltd (1996) Unreported 11 January
1996
Brown and Brown v. Gilbert Scott and Payne (1992) 35 Con LR 120
Clay v. A J Crump & Sons Ltd (1964) 3 All ER 687
Clayton v. Woodman and Son (Builders) Ltd (1962) 2 All ER 33
Consarc Design Ltd v. Hutch Investments Ltd (1999) 84 Con LR 36
Crown Estate Commissioners v. John Mowlem (1994) 70 BLR 1
Department of National Heritage v. Steensen Varming Mulcahy & Others (1998) CILL
1422
East Ham Borough Council v. Bernard Sunley and Sons Ltd (1965) 3 All ER 619
Florida Hotels Pty Ltd v. Mayo (1965) 113 CLR 588
George Fischer Holding Ltd v. Multi Design Consultants Ltd and Davis Langdon &
Everest (1998) 61 Con LR 85
Jameson v. Simon (1899) 1 F Court of Session 1211
The Kensington Chelsea and Westminster Area Health Authority v. Wettern Compo-
sites and Others (1984) 31 BLR 57
Lee v. Bateman (1893) The Times 31 October
Leicester Guardians v. Trollope (1911) 75 JP 197
London Hospital (Trustees) v. T P Bennett (1987) 43 BLR 63

165
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

166 Inspecting Works

McGlinn v. Waltham Contractors Ltd (2007) EWHC 149 (TCC)

Oldschool v. Gleeson Construction Ltd (1976) 4 BLR 103
Saunders and Collard v. Broadstairs Local Board (1890) Hudson’s BC 4th edn, Vol 2,
164
Sutcliffe v. Chippendale & Edmondson (1971) 18 BLR 149
Victoria University of Manchester v. Hugh Wilson (1984) 2 Con LR 43
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Bibliography

M. Bentley Quality Control on Building Sites, BRE Information Paper IP28/81,

Building Research Establishment, Watford, 1981
R. Bonshor ‘Low rise housing: design and construction’ Architect’s Journal 30 April
1980, 881–885
R. Bonshor and H. Harrison Quality in Traditional Housing Volume 3: An Aid to Site
Inspection, DoE, BRE, London, HMSO, 1982
R. Bonshor and H. Harrison Traditional Housing: a BRE Study of Quality, BRE
Information Paper IP 18/82, Building Research Establishment, Watford, 1982
J. Bowyer Small Works Supervision 2nd edition, Architectural Press, London,
1979
A. Burns The Legal Obligations of the Architect Butterworths, London, 1994
R. Cecil ‘Site inspection’ Architects’ Journal 3 April 1985, 75–76
D. L. Cornes Design Liability in the Construction Industry Blackwell Scientific Publi-
cations, Oxford, 1994
I. Freeman and M. Bentley ‘Quality Control on Site’ Building Research and Practice
November/December 1980, 368–377
R. Green The Architect’s Guide to Running a Job 6th edition, Architectural Press,
Oxford, 2001
Institute of Clerks of Works Clerk of Works and Site Inspector Handbook RIBA
Publishing, London, 2006
Levitt Bernstein Associates Supervisor’s Guide to Rehabilitation and Conversion
Architectural Press, London, 1978

167
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

168 Inspecting Works

A. A. MacFarlane Architectural Supervision on Site Applied Science Publishers,

London, 1973
P. Mayer and P. Wornell HAPM Workmanship Checklists HAPM Publications/Spon,
London, 1999
J. L. Powell and R. Stewart Jackson and Powell on Professional Negligence 6th
edition, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2006
Achieving Quality on Building Sites National Economic Development Office,
London, 1987
Architects’ Inspection Duties under Architect’s Appointment and the Standard Form
of Building Contract RIBA Practice, September 1987, 1–2
Architect’s Job Book 8th edition, RIBA Publishing, London, 2008
Health and Safety in Construction HSE, Sudbury, 2006
‘Site architect’s guide’ Architects’ Journal 20 April 1983, 69–86; 27 April 1983, 47–
48; 4 May 1983, 71–77
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Index

above-ground drainage, 1503 performance of clerk of works, 425

access, 33, 80, 90, 106 categories of inspection, 645
additional fees, 14, 53 cavity work, 1378
adjoining structures, 116 cement screeds, 1257
architect certification, 523
appointment, 502 for payment, 23, 76, 82
authority, 80, 81 practical completion, 978, 161
conduct on site, 1026 checklists, 76, 113
degree of care, 214 cladding, 146
duty of inspection, 12, 1921 claims, 56, 114, 155
inspection approach, 7980, 11314 clerk of works
instructions, 80, 867 appointment, 601
knowledge, 1078 briefing, 678
responsibilities, 23 delegation to, 94
service options, 512 performance, 425
terms of appointment, 316, 502 relations with, 934, 103, 105
asphalting, roofs, 1434 requirement for, 5860
client, relations with, 67
basement waterproofing, 124 clothing, 1012
below-ground drainage, 11718 commissioning, 161
boundary conditions, 115 ‘competent person’, 83
brickwork see masonry completed work, 3, 9, 97
briefing completion, 968
project team, 689 certificates, 161
site agent, 712 concrete
site inspectors, 678 deliveries, 121
subcontractors, 84 frames, 121
building contracts mix, 1223
contractual provisions, 801 precast floors, 1245
division of responsibilities, 23 reinforcement, 120
documentation, 656 concreting, 1214
tender documents, 557 consultants, 55, 67, 94
building services, 5960, 14953 contractor
built-in furniture and fittings, 157 briefing, 84
competence, 223
care, 214 notice of covering up, 65
case law, 1946 personnel, 107
contractor’s working methods, 3742 programme, 634, 701
defective work, 316 progress monitoring, 85
degree of care, 214 quality control, 55, 835, 109
duty of inspection, 1921 queries, 1089
inspection frequency and duration, 2431 records, 845

169
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

170 Inspecting Works

contractor (continued) fibre reinforced cement roofing, 1412

reports, 55 final inspection, 968, 161
responsibility for defective work, 23, 11011 fittings, 157
suggestions, 110 flooring, timber, 1567
working methods, 3742 floors
contracts see building contracts precast concrete, 1245
control panels, 133 tiling, 1556
control samples, 567, 133 timber, 12930
costs 57, 66, 80, 88, 111 formwork, 1201
covered up work, 645, 111 (see also opening up) foundations, 11617, 11819
critical inspections, 64, 67 frequency of inspection, 52, 65
case law, 2431
damage prevention, 812, 133, 1389
damp-proof membranes, 119, 125 glazing, 148
daywork sheets, 923
decorating, 1578 hardcore, 11819
defective work health and safety, 8990
acceptance of, 89, 10910 contractor’s working methods, 3742
architect’s options, 859 protective clothing, 1012
delay in making good, 11011 site safety, 8990
register, 967 site visits, 106
responsibility for, 23, 317 heating systems, 1513
delays hot and cold water services, 1513
causes of, 92
making good defective work, 11011 information provision see production information
delegation, 54, 94 inspection, on-site see site visits
demolition work, 11415 inspection approach, 7980, 11314
design issues, 108, 110 inspection categories, 645
documentation inspection plan, 634, 75
building contract, 557, 656 inspection records, 946
contractor’s records, 845 inspection service, 512
inspection plan, 634, 75 insulation
inspection records, 946 above concrete floors, 125
production information see production below slabs, 119
information cavity work, 138
quality control, 85 internal above-ground drainage, 1513
terms of appointment, 50 internal finishes, 1538
doors, 1468 internal painting, 1589
drainage
below-ground, 11718 JCT Intermediate Building Contract (IC 2005), 81,
external above-ground, 1501 87, 88
internal above-ground, 1513 JCT Standard Building Contract (SBC 2005), 80, 856
drawings, 102
duty of inspection, 12, 1921 liability
architect’s, 6, 12, 34, 44, 51
electrical services, 14950 contractor’s, 35
equipment, inspection, 102 vicarious, 45
excavations, 11617 litigation see case law
existing features, protection, 82
extensions of time, 70, 86, 88 making good see delays
external above-ground drainage, 1501 manufactured components, 83
external painting, 158 masonry, 1329
external wall finishes, 1446 cavity work, 1378
external works, 15960 materials and storage, 1334
protection of new work, 133, 1389
fees, additional, 14, 53 trials, 1323
fencing, 159 workmanship, 1347
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

Index 171

materials documentation, 66
inspection, 801, 83 quality of, 4950
replacement, 812 profiled roofing sheets, 1412
storage, 812, 1212, 134 programme, contractor’s, 701
substitute, 110 programming of inspections, 634
meetings progress meetings, 55, 67, 79
project team, 689 progress monitoring, 65, 912
site agent, 712 completion, 1601
site progress, 55, 67, 79 contractor’s records, 85
subcontractor, 84 provision for, 56
metal roofing, 1412 project management, 84
method statement, 90 project team, initial meeting, 689
mock-ups, 567, 133 protection of components and materials, 812
mortar mix, 1323, 135 existing features, 82
new brickwork, 133, 1389
negligence, 12, 45, 52, 110 protective clothing, 1012
notices, 65, 77, 110
quality control, 55, 65
off site inspection, 823 contractor’s, 55, 835, 109
opening up records, 85
allowance for, 57 quantity surveyors, 80, 94
contractual provisions, 81
defective work, 867, 111 records see documentation
included work, 81 reduced inspection services, 52
reinforcement, 120
painting, 1578 render, 1445
partial inspection services, 52 repetitive elements, 57, 68
party wall agreements, 69, 78, 116 replacement components and materials, 812
paving, 15960 repointing, 137
periodic inspections, 65, 76 responsibilities
personal possessions, 1067 architect’s, 216
personnel for defective work, 23, 317
contractors, 107 division of, 689
inspection, 54 roofing
photography, 95 asphalting, 1434
piling, 116 built-up and single-ply, 1423
pipework coverings, 13944
below-ground, 11718 fibre reinforced cement, 1412
external above-ground, 1501 fully supported metal, 142
internal, 1513 profiled metal, 1412
planning tiling and slating, 1401
checklists, 76 timber, 1312
programming of inspections, 634
timing of inspections, 756 safety
plant, 56, 85, 161 contractor’s working methods, 3742
plasterboarding, 1534 site safety, 8990
plastering, 1545 site visits, 106
possession, 69, 96, 97 sample panels, 1323
practical completion, 69, 978, 1601 samples, provision for, 567
practice site inspector, 545 screeds, 1257
precast concrete floors, 1245 security, site, 901
pre-contract meeting, 689 sequencing, 6, 70
predictive inspections, 64, 75 service options, 512
pre-fabricated components, 83 setting out, 115
priorities, 64, 76, 78 site agent
production information briefing, 712
checking on use, 84 relations with, 1034, 105
Licensed copy from CIS: niall@[Link], White Ink Architects, 03/02/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

172 Inspecting Works

site architect, requirement for, 5860 temperature, 56, 85

site etiquette, 1034 tender documents, 557
site inspection form, 76 terms of appointment, 316, 502
site inspection records, 946 testing
site inspector, 545 contractual provisions, 81
appointment, 601 defective work, 86, 867
briefing, 678 included work, 81
delegation to, 94 tiling
practice, 545 external walls, 1456
relations with, 934, 103, 105 floors, 1556
site progress meetings, 55, 67, 79 internal walls, 1556
site safety, 8990 roofs, 1401
site security, 901 timber
site stripping, 11415 flooring, 1567
site tidiness, 91 floors and ceilings, 12930
site visits, 789 framing and studwork, 1301
architect’s conduct, 1026 structural, 12832
equipment, 102 time allowance, 2431, 52
frequency and duration, 2431 time monitoring, 667
general inspection, 114 timing of inspections, 634, 756, 83
preliminaries, 114 trials, masonry, 133
report, 79
time allowance, 523 unannounced visits, 65
timing, 83
unannounced, 65 valuations, 80, 94
slating, 1401 variations, 86
snagging list see defective work video recording, 96
specialist inspections, 55, 5960, 67 visits, site see site visits
spot checks, 65
stairs, 132 walls
standard forms of appointment, 316 coverings, 159
steel finishes, 1446
reinforcement, 120 tiling, 1556
structural, 1278 water services, 1513
storage of components and materials, 812, waterproofing
1212, 134 basements, 124
structural concrete, 11824 damp-proof membranes, 119, 125
structural engineer, 114, 115, 116 weather, 56, 85
structural steelwork, 1278 welfare facilities, 91
structural timber, 12832 windows, 1468
structural work, 11527 working methods, contractor’s, 3742
subcontractors, 69, 84 workmanship, 223, 801, 823, 1347
‘supervision’, 5, 20
suspended timber floors and ceilings, 12930