Liability is a tricky, overlooked, and misunderstood danger in architecture. While most of the project claims during construction fall on the general contractor, architects are often woefully unprotected against risks. Design errors, code violations and misinterpretations, data management, and even documentation organization can all come back to the design firm.

But the most significant threat architects face is the delay claim—when a general contractor blames the architect for project delays and pursues legal action to hold them financially accountable. These claims can arise from late RFI responses, unclear documentation, design changes, or coordination issues. And the reality is that so much of that risk feels like it's out of the architect's control, creating a nagging Catch-22.

Control over the areas that cause the most exposure often slips away once a project transitions to construction. Documentation spreads across emails and third-party platforms, and communication fractures. In the end, architects are left without the visibility or authority over the risks that threaten them most.

This article explores why architects face this accountability-control mismatch and outlines strategic approaches to reclaim authority over the risks that matter most.

Why architects are accountable, even without control

The ugly truth for architects is that they carry significant legal and financial responsibility. But their tools and workflows are rarely capable of handling that reality.

Once construction starts, firms often find themselves:

• Chasing fragmented data. RFIs in one system, submittals in another, field reports lost in email threads. There’s no centralization or control. When a GC files a delay claim alleging slow responses or missing information, architects scramble to piece together a timeline from scattered sources.

• Losing ownership of intellectual property. Third-party platforms can strip architects of control over their designs and documentation. And not just the flow of information, but also the rights to it. Without access to comprehensive project records, defending against a delay claim becomes nearly impossible.

• Operating reactively, not proactively. Without streamlined processes and true visibility, errors are caught too late, increasing liability exposure. By the time an architect realizes documentation gaps exist, the GC may already be building a case for delays.

This level of misalignment is costly. Architects are accountable for outcomes they have little ability to influence, whether they can afford to be or not.

Why control matters for liability

Liability in architecture is as much about documentation as the actual design. When a dispute occurs, courts and clients often turn to the data. What was recorded? How was it managed? Were mandated or regulatory processes followed? When did we respond to that critical RFI? Was the latest drawing revision shared with the contractor?

Without clear, consistent, and owned records, architects can’t defend themselves effectively against allegations that they caused project delays. A GC might claim the architect took three weeks to respond to an RFI, but without timestamped proof of when the request was received and answered, the architect has no defense.

Control over data isn’t just about efficiency and property; it’s also a legal safeguard that ultimately reduces risk for the firm.

Taking back control: 4 ways to reduce exposure

On the surface, it seems like liability management is a fingers-crossed policy for architects. However, things aren’t completely out of the firm’s hands, and it can take back some control. It comes down to rethinking how information is handled—especially across the construction phase.

1. Centralize project data

One of the biggest contributors to delay claim risk is fragmented data across multiple platforms. But when all submittals, RFIs, drawings, and field reports live in a single system, architects have access to the information they’re ultimately accountable for. Centralization prevents details from slipping through the cracks and creates one reliable source of truth. If a GC alleges delays, the architect can quickly pull a complete record showing exactly when communications occurred and decisions were made.

2. Automate documentation

If you want to minimize risk, automate, automate, automate. Manual processes leave room for missed steps, errors, delays, and inconsistencies—all ammunition for a delay claim. Automated logs, timestamps, and standardized formats help keep records accurate, defensible, and ready if a claim arises. They also free up staff time, allowing them to work on more creative tasks or customer relationships. Most importantly, automation creates an irrefutable timeline that can protect architects when GCs try to shift blame for project delays.

3. Streamline workflows

Review and approval processes can be fertile ground for liability to grow. Streamlining them with customizable workflows not only saves time but also reduces opportunities for errors that could create liability. Accountability chains that track who approved what and when can be a legal shield during a delay claim dispute. When workflows are consistent, compliance is easier to maintain and prove if a dispute occurs. This is particularly critical for RFI response times, which are often at the center of delay claims.

4. Retain data ownership

One of the easiest yet most overlooked ways for a firm to protect itself is to choose the right tools—tools that help it retain data ownership. Data should remain accessible, exportable, and under the firm’s control, not locked in someone else’s system.

Data ownership also provides the firm with an audit trail. Tracking communications, reviews, approvals, changes, and requests provides the firm with a record of who is accountable, with timestamps and full visibility. Firms won’t have to rely on the GC’s software and timely communication, resulting in more overall control of the project and their liability. When delay claims arise, having independent documentation that you control—rather than relying on the GC's version of events from their system—can mean the difference between winning and losing a lawsuit..

Platforms like Part3 allow design firms to work within their own tool and maintain control over their data, reducing overall liability.

Case in point: How VCBO turned liability into leverage

VCBO’s experience highlights the connection between liability and control. Before implementing Part3, the firm juggled multiple systems, leaving visibility and ownership gaps full of risk. After adopting one centralized platform designed specifically for architects, VCBO not only improved its efficiency but also hedged its risks.

By owning its data and standardizing its documentation processes, VCBO combined responsibility and authority. This shift gave the team confidence that it could both deliver projects efficiently and protect itself legally against delay claims and other disputes.

As Phillip Haderlie, Principal at VCBO Architecture, explained: “With Part3, you maintain full ownership and control of your data, which is critical from a legal standpoint. Unlike other platforms where we lose copyright and control, Part3 allows us to keep everything within our system while still collaborating seamlessly with external consultants.”

👉 Read the full VCBO case study here.

The real-world costs of poor liability management

Architectural liability has direct financial and reputational consequences. Even relatively small claims can cost firms tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and settlements. Larger disputes over design errors or construction delays can cause six- or seven-figure damages, straining firm resources and damaging client relationships.

But it’s not just the money. Liability issues can erode trust and damage the firm’s reputation. Clients might hesitate to rehire a firm entangled in disputes. Talented staff may leave if they feel projects are chaotic and will lead to litigation or suits, even if they’re not the liable party. Liability affects the balance sheet as well as the firm’s long-term ability to grow and attract both clients and talent.

In this sense, taking control isn’t just about avoiding lawsuits — it’s about preserving the health of the business.

New risks in a digital world

The shift to digital workflows brings both opportunities and challenges for architects. On one hand, cloud-based platforms make it easier than ever to communicate and collaborate with contractors, engineers, and owners. On the other hand, the effortless spread of data introduces new risks that can fuel delay claims:

• Data loss or lock-in. When project records live in third-party systems, architects may lose access at the exact moment they need it most. And that data disadvantage means firms won’t have access to the latest changes or updates, almost ensuring their tracking sheet is out of date, leaving very little room in disputes against the GC’s project management software.

• Version confusion. Multiple platforms increase the likelihood of working off outdated drawings or specifications, and the architect will struggle to share the latest versions. And, if a contractor builds off an old drawing, the architect may still be blamed unless they can prove the current version was shared. This scenario is a common trigger for delay claims when construction has to stop and wait for clarification or rework.

• Cybersecurity concerns. Sensitive project data, if not controlled, can be exposed to breaches or unauthorized use. And, the importance of data security only continues to grow. If a breach exposes client IP or confidential designs, liability may extend beyond the project to reputational or even regulatory risk.

The industry is at a tipping point. Firms that prioritize digital control, like ownership of their data, secure collaboration, and transparent documentation, will be better positioned to manage liability in this new landscape.

A proactive future for architects

Looking ahead, the architects adopting proactive liability management strategies now will set themselves apart. Instead of waiting for disputes to force change, these firms will build systems today that reduce exposure in the future.

Take something as simple as RFIs. When every request is logged, tracked, and time-stamped automatically, there’s no gray area about whether or when an architect responded. If a dispute arises over delays or miscommunication, the firm has a solid record that proves it met its obligations. The same goes for change orders, submittals, and field reports, as proactive tracking can turn potential liability into documented compliance.

This approach also strengthens client relationships. Owners want design partners who not only deliver great buildings but also manage risk responsibly. By demonstrating control through transparent processes and reliable documentation, architects position themselves as trusted advisors, not just service providers. It’s a competitive edge in an industry where reputation and risk management carry almost as much weight as design skill.

If the liability is yours, so is the control

While the architecture profession has all but accepted liability as a cost of doing business, it doesn’t need to be a sitting target. Tools now exist to reduce exposure by centralizing data, automating documentation, streamlining workflows, and owning intellectual property. Architects can now protect themselves while also improving project outcomes and building trust with their clients.

Ultimately, if the liability is yours, the control should be too.

Ready to take control of your liability exposure? Part3's centralized platform helps architects maintain data ownership, streamline documentation, and reduce risk throughout the construction phase. See how firms like VCBO are turning liability challenges into competitive advantages—schedule a demo to discover how Part3 can protect your practice while improving project outcomes.