3.6.2.2 - A has auth. To reject non-conforming work, require inspection or testing, but it does not “give rise to a duty or resposibility of the Architect to the Contractor, Subcontractor …blablabla… performing portions of the work”
The first bit makes sense, is the second bit basically saying that if Arch. rejects work it must not be interpreted as taking over means and methods / contractors scope?
Thanks!
PH
Hello @CatPets247 -
Perhaps this is a question best answered by our in house Architect @coachchrishopstock .
-Elise
Hi @CatPets247
The purpose of the second part is to clarify that the ability to reject work ‘does not give rise to a duty or responsibility of the architect to the contractor’.
Basically - this is clarifying a situation where there may be unsatisfactory work that the architect did not notice. Just because the architect did not notice it, does not mean it is correct or ‘accepted’. The architect does not owe it to the contractor to make exhaustive inspections of the work, and a lack of rejecting work does not constitute an acceptance of such work.