Which statement about how the construction manager should handle nonconforming work is correct?

Which statement about how the construction manager should handle nonconforming work is correct?

• A. The CM is held to a standard of performance that would require it to discover every defect or nonconformity, but only those that are NOT reasonably discoverable.
• B. The CM is generally NOT liable to the Owner for damages arising from its failure to detect obvious defects or nonconforming work.
• C. The CM who fails to perform minimal inspections will not be able to avoid liability to the Owner where the damage incurred by the Owner arises from defective or nonconforming work that would have been obvious.
• D. The critical issue in judging the CM's performance is whether the construction defect or nonconformity should have been discovered by the CM in the later stage of the project.

Answer: (C)

The essential idea is that the construction manager must exercise reasonable supervision and perform basic inspections to catch obvious nonconforming work. The standard of care isn’t to uncover every possible defect, but to conduct minimal, sensible inspections so that defects that would be evident to a prudent manager don’t slip through. If the CM skips those minimal inspections and obvious defects slip by, the owner’s damages that arise from those defects can be attributed to the CM’s negligence. Because a reasonable CM is expected to notice issues that would be obvious during routine oversight, failing to detect them breaches the duty to manage quality and protect the project. In other words, the owner shouldn’t have to absorb losses from defects that a reasonable inspection would have revealed. Think of it this way: obvious defects are those that show up through standard observation and review. If the CM ignores routine checks and an obvious defect leads to damage, the CM is likely liable because the inspection duty was not fulfilled. This contrasts with statements that overstate the need to find every defect, deny liability for obvious defects, or confuse the issue with the timing of discovery rather than the obligation to conduct proper inspections.

The essential idea is that the construction manager must exercise reasonable supervision and perform basic inspections to catch obvious nonconforming work. The standard of care isn’t to uncover every possible defect, but to conduct minimal, sensible inspections so that defects that would be evident to a prudent manager don’t slip through.

If the CM skips those minimal inspections and obvious defects slip by, the owner’s damages that arise from those defects can be attributed to the CM’s negligence. Because a reasonable CM is expected to notice issues that would be obvious during routine oversight, failing to detect them breaches the duty to manage quality and protect the project. In other words, the owner shouldn’t have to absorb losses from defects that a reasonable inspection would have revealed.

Think of it this way: obvious defects are those that show up through standard observation and review. If the CM ignores routine checks and an obvious defect leads to damage, the CM is likely liable because the inspection duty was not fulfilled. This contrasts with statements that overstate the need to find every defect, deny liability for obvious defects, or confuse the issue with the timing of discovery rather than the obligation to conduct proper inspections.