Part 3 Q4. GC says a project delay caused by the framing subcontractor who is shut down due to fraud, and then proposes an alternate structure system to the architect and owner to review and evaluate.
My first question here, in this circumstance, is that if this GC is at fault? And if GC’s proposal is more expensive, who will pay the extra construction cost, Owner or GC?
Second question is that if GC did not propose the alternate, should GC be liable of the delay and potential extra cost? @coachphilipcolwell
Yes, the GC is responsible for the delay. Under A201, subcontractors are entirely the GC’s responsibility, so a framing subcontractor shutting down—regardless of the reason—is a GC-caused delay. This means the GC is not entitled to additional time simply because their subcontractor failed.
If the GC proposes an alternate structural system that costs more, the Owner only pays for it if they choose to approve the change. A GC cannot push additional cost onto the Owner to recover from a delay that is the GC’s own responsibility. If the Owner does approve it, the change is handled through a Change Order with agreed cost and time adjustments.
If the GC does not propose an alternate or take other corrective action, they remain liable for the delay and any resulting cost impacts. The GC has a contractual obligation to manage subcontractors and mitigate delays; failing to do so keeps responsibility squarely on them.
The Architect’s role is to evaluate the proposed alternate with the consultants, determine whether it meets design intent and code requirements, advise the Owner on cost and schedule implications, and perform Additional Services for any redesign or AHJ resubmittals. The Architect does not decide whether the Owner should accept the alternate—only provides the information needed for the Owner to make that decision.
If you haven’t already seen - we’ve just released our newest study material, Real-World Practice, which translates our most effective Virtual Workshop content into self-paced exercises on your dashboard. This particular exercise’s thread is linked here in case you want to check it out and get additional practice on the topic!
Hope this helps!
Kiara Galicinao, AIA, NCARB
Product Coordinator Black Spectacles
Do you mean “at fault” not equals to “not entitled to extend time”? Do you mind help further explain when A201 8.3.1 will apply? 8.3.1 lists some causes which gives GC opportunities to extend the time. Also, in some questions that like extra lead time happens, why GC is still liable for delay if the 8.3.1 applies?
@xinruizhang Correct, “at fault” does not automatically mean “no time extension,” but A201 §8.3.1 only applies to delays that are truly beyond the GC’s control.
§8.3.1 allows time extensions for events like adverse weather conditions or other unforeseeable external events. It does not excuse delays caused by the GC or its subcontractors. Even if the GC didn’t personally cause the problem, subcontractor failure (bankruptcy, fraud, missed manpower, procurement issues) is contractually treated as a GC risk, so §8.3.1 does not apply.
This is why “extra lead time” questions often still leave the GC liable. Normal procurement risks—long fabrication times, supplier delays, or underestimated lead times—are foreseeable and part of the GC’s scheduling responsibility. Since these are within the GC’s control to plan for, they don’t qualify for a time extension under §8.3.1.
When §8.3.1 does apply, the GC typically gets time but not money.
Kiara Galicinao, AIA, NCARB
Product Coordinator Black Spectacles