Spearin Lite? The Limited Implied Warranty in a Construction Management at Risk Project -

We are all familiar with the Spearin doctrine: In the classic design-bid-build project delivery system, an owner furnishes stamped plans and specifications provided by its separately contracted design professional for a contractor to follow in a construction job. As long as the contractor relies on the plans and specifications in good faith (over which the contractor has had no input or control), the owner impliedly warrants their sufficiency for the intended purposes (United States v. Spearin 1918).

In the recent case of Coghlin v. Gilbane, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) faced the question of what warranty, if any, an owner in a public project provides a contractor relating to the adequacy of its design professional’s prepared and stamped plans when utilizing the project delivery method known as the “construction management at risk” (CMAR) project delivery method. Under this method, the CMAR is typically retained early in the design process and consults with the owner and its designer of record regarding design clarity, cost, constructability and other issues, which require the CMAR to be familiar with the design as it is completed.