Why Forensic Peer Review Is Critical in Multi-Firm Architectural Collaborations

Architectural projects involving multiple firms are often complex, ambitious, and highly collaborative. These projects require careful coordination, precise design integration, and a consistent approach to problem-solving. However, even experienced teams can encounter miscommunications, design conflicts, and documentation oversights during a collaboration.

Forensic peer review provides an independent examination of design and construction documents to identify potential problems before they lead to delays, disputes, or claims. FORENSIC ARCHITECT - David Erik Chase, AIA, serves clients in South Carolina and other jurisdictions, bringing decades of architectural experience to construction and design matters. His background provides insight into the value of peer review when multiple architectural and design teams contribute to the same project.

What Is Forensic Peer Review?

Forensic peer review involves the detailed evaluation of architectural and construction documents by an independent professional with relevant experience. While peer review is used throughout the design profession, a forensic perspective can focus particular attention on discrepancies, design deficiencies, contractual responsibilities, code-related concerns, and conditions that could contribute to later disputes.

The goal is not simply to find mistakes. A review can examine whether the documents consistently communicate the design intent and whether the work reflects applicable professional standards and project requirements. Identifying concerns before construction progresses may give the project team an opportunity to address them when changes are less disruptive.

David Erik Chase, AIA, has more than 55 years of architectural experience and more than two decades of experience as a forensic architect. His work includes forensic architecture, construction expert witness services, and dispute resolution involving architectural and construction matters.

The Complexities of Multi-Firm Collaborations

Multi-firm collaborations bring together professionals with different areas of knowledge, working methods, and design responsibilities. This can benefit a complex project by drawing on specialized expertise, but it also creates more points where communication or documentation can break down.

Each firm may use different drawing standards, software platforms, documentation practices, and internal review procedures. Responsibilities may also be divided among the architect of record, design architect, consultants, engineers, and other professionals. When information moves between those teams, inconsistent details or unclear responsibilities can create problems.

An independent forensic peer review for architects and designers can provide another level of scrutiny. The reviewer can compare documents, identify inconsistencies, and raise questions that the individual project teams may not recognize while concentrating on their own scopes of work.

Why Timing Matters in Forensic Peer Review

Timing can significantly affect the usefulness of peer review. Conducting a review during design development or before construction documents are finalized may help address inconsistencies before they become embedded in construction.

For example, conflicting details between disciplines may require relatively straightforward revisions while a project remains on paper. The same conflict discovered after materials have been ordered or construction has begun can become more difficult and expensive to address.

Peer review does not have to be limited to a single point in the project. Depending on the scope and circumstances, independent review may be useful during design, construction documentation, or other stages when project decisions and documentation are being evaluated.

For multi-firm projects, reviewing coordination before construction can also help clarify whether the documents consistently communicate the responsibilities and design intent established for the project.

Addressing Liability Through Forensic Peer Review

Architectural collaborations involve creative and technical challenges as well as potential professional and financial risks. Inconsistent drawings, unclear contractual responsibilities, code-compliance concerns, or design and documentation errors can contribute to disputes when they affect construction.

Peer review can help identify potential concerns before they develop into claims. It can also provide an independent assessment of whether project documentation reflects the applicable scope of work, contractual requirements, and professional standard of care.

Mr. Chase’s experience includes work as a forensic architect, construction expert witness, and arbitrator. His forensic work involves examining project documents and circumstances to evaluate design and construction issues, including alleged defects, deficiencies, omissions, contractual obligations, and professional standards.

Early review cannot guarantee that a dispute will not occur, but identifying and addressing documented concerns can give project participants an opportunity to correct problems before they become more difficult to resolve.

Improving Communication and Coordination

Another benefit of forensic peer review is its ability to identify areas where project documentation does not communicate consistently across firms. When multiple teams contribute to a project, each participant needs to understand the scope of their responsibilities and how their work interfaces with the work of other professionals.

An independent reviewer can examine drawings, specifications, agreements, and other project documents for conflicts or gaps. For example, one consultant’s drawings may rely on information that does not appear consistently in another discipline’s documents.

Identifying those issues gives project teams an opportunity to clarify responsibilities and reconcile documentation before construction proceeds. The review therefore serves not only as a technical check but also as a way to identify coordination problems that could otherwise remain unnoticed.

Complying With Building Standards and Regulations

Architectural projects must comply with building codes and other requirements applicable to the project’s location and scope. When multiple firms or consultants contribute to the documents, coordination is particularly important because compliance responsibilities may cross disciplinary boundaries.

A forensic peer review can examine project documentation for potential inconsistencies involving applicable codes, contractual requirements, and published building standards. Mr. Chase holds architectural licenses in 21 states and the District of Columbia, providing broad professional experience across multiple jurisdictions.

However, requirements vary by state, municipality, project type, and site. A review should therefore consider the requirements applicable to the particular project rather than assume that standards are uniform across jurisdictions.

Learning From Forensic Peer Review

The value of forensic peer review can extend beyond correcting issues on a single project. Identified documentation problems may reveal weaknesses in coordination procedures, internal review practices, or the way responsibilities are communicated among participating firms.

Understanding why an inconsistency occurred can help teams improve procedures for future collaborations. Firms may identify where additional coordination is needed, where responsibilities require clearer documentation, or where internal quality-control procedures could be strengthened.

For architectural teams working on increasingly complex projects, that feedback can make peer review part of an ongoing risk-management and quality-control process rather than simply a response to an existing problem.

Guidance From a Forensic Architect

Multi-firm architectural collaborations can bring together valuable expertise, but the number of participants also increases the importance of consistent documentation and clearly defined responsibilities. Forensic peer review provides an independent opportunity to examine the work for potential design, coordination, contractual, and performance concerns before those issues contribute to larger disputes.

FORENSIC ARCHITECT - David Erik Chase, AIA, has more than 55 years of architectural experience and more than 23 years of forensic architecture experience. He provides peer review and forensic consulting services for architects and designers, as well as expert witness and dispute-resolution services. Contact his firm to discuss forensic peer review for your project.

Disclaimer: David Erik Chase, AIA, is a registered architect in 22 states and not an attorney. The content of this article is intended only as a general overview of the process and not a representation for guidance or any legal professional opinions or advice. (Nb. Legal consultation is always advisable in this entire process.)