Elias Saltz, Steve Gantner, & David Stutzman discuss the technical and contractual realities of delegated design. Using examples such as curtain walls, stairs, railings, and fire protection systems, the discussion explores how design responsibility is shared between the design professional and specialty contractors. The conversation clarifies the distinction between delegated and deferred design, examines why delegated design submittals should be treated as action submittals, and highlights a critical principle: delegated design transfers detailed engineering, not design intent. Successful delegated design depends on clearly defined performance criteria, active review of delegated assumptions, and alignment between the project's requirements and the final engineered solution.
Delegated design transfers detailed engineering, not responsibility for defining the project's performance requirements and design intent.
The quality of a delegated design solution depends on the quality of the criteria provided. Vague requirements create risk, assumptions, and potential dispute.
Delegated design and deferred design are not the same. One assigns engineering responsibility within defined parameters; the other delays portions of the design process.
Delegated design submittals are action submittals. Design professionals must review the assumptions, inputs, and outcomes to confirm alignment with the contract documents.
When performance criteria, loading requirements, or design expectations are incomplete, project risk often finds its way back to the architect and engineer of record.
You can delegate the engineering, but you can't delegate the design intent.