Printed from the ArchiMentor Knowledge pages on - www.archimentor.net

Inspection Duties

• Introduction
• Reference sources
• McGlinn v Waltham - paragraph 218

Introduction

The extent of the architect's duties and responsibilities, when inspecting the works under construction, has been the subject of debate for many years. This page seeks to provide the latest guidance on this issue following the judgement from the Technology and Construction Court on the case of McGlinn v Waltham. This was reported briefly in RIBA Practice Bulletin 388 and those with a particular interest in the issue can read the full judgement from this link.

Reference sources

RIBA Standard Form of Agreement

The "Services Supplement" to Schedule 2 of the RIBA Standard Form of Agreement (SFA/99) merely provides a "tick-box" to cover ...

and shall make visits to construction works in connection with:
1. inspection generally of the progress and quality of the work; ...

... without providing any further guidance on the number, frequency, duration, duties, responsibilities, etc., of these visits.

RIBA Architect's Job Book

• This (Seventh Edition) provides some clear guidance in the Core Material to Stage K-L.
• K-L/CM2 Site Meetings states clearly that site progress meetings and site inspection visits "serve an entirely different purpose", even if they take place on the same day.
• K-L/CM3 Site Inspections provides sensible guidance, some of which is effectively given a legal basis in the McGlinn v Waltham judgement below.

McGlinn v Waltham - paragraph 218

This extraordinary case has all the makings of a modern Honeywood File but the summary guidance on the legal principles relating to the architect’s inspection duties, given in paragraph 218, is worth repeating here (with minor omissions for clarity):

• a) 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 religiously to carry out an inspection of the work either before or after the fortnightly or monthly site meetings, and not otherwise. The dates of such site meetings may well have been arranged some time in advance, without any reference to the particular elements of work being progressed on site at the 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.
• b) Depending on the importance of the particular element or stage of the works, the inspecting professional can instruct the contractor not to cover up the relevant elements of the work until they have been inspected ... However, it seems to me that such a situation would be unlikely to arise in most cases because, if the inspecting officer is carrying out inspections which are tailored to the nature of the works proceeding on site at any particular time, he will have timed his inspections in such a manner as to avoid affecting the progress of those works.
• c) The mere fact that defective work is carried out and covered up between inspections will not, therefore, automatically amount to a defence to an alleged failure on the part of the architect to carry out proper inspections; that will depend on a variety of matters, including the inspecting officer's reasonable contemplation of what was being carried out on site at the time, the importance of the element of work in question, and the confidence that the architect may have in the contractor's overall competence ...
• d) If the element of the work is important because it is going to be repeated throughout one significant part of the building, such as the construction of a proprietary product or the achievement of a particular standard of finish to one element of the work common to every room, then the inspecting professional should ensure that he has seen that element of the work in the early course of construction/assembly so as to form a view as to the contractor's ability to carry out that particular task ...
• e) However, even then, reasonable examination of the works does not require the inspector to go into every matter in detail; indeed, it is almost inevitable that some defects will escape his notice ...
• f) It can sometimes be the case that an employer with a claim for bad workmanship against a contractor makes the same claim automatically against the inspecting officer, on the assumption that, if there is a defect, then the inspector must have been negligent or in breach of contract for missing the defect during construction. That seems to me to be a misconceived approach. The architect does not guarantee that his inspection will reveal or prevent all defective work ... It is not appropriate to judge an architect's performance by the result achieved ...

© 2008. ArchiMentor.