WEBINAR ALERT : June 16th, 2026 - Delegated Design in Preconstruction
Introduction
As modular and prefabricated construction methods are increasingly adopted, so too are the potential challenges that come with them. The appeal is straightforward: faster timelines, controlled fabrication environments, and reduced on-site labor demands. But the risks that accompany these benefits are often less clear—and, in many cases, poorly defined.
For example, what happens when a prefabricated component is delayed past its installation window? Who is responsible for a defect discovered inside a sealed, installed module? What happens to warranty obligations when a prefabricated component must be modified on site?
These are not hypothetical concerns; they are practical realities the parties involved in modular and prefabricated construction are encountering with increasing frequency. While this is not an exhaustive list of all considerations or risks associated with modular and prefabricated construction, it does provide insight into key areas that project teams should consider.
Design and Coordination Between Factory and Field
On a conventional project, the design and construction process can be relatively linear—drawings are issued, submittals are revised, and the work is executed in the field. On modular or prefabricated projects, or conventional projects utilizing modular or prefabricated components, that process fractures into parallel workstreams with different responsible parties.
Prefabricated components are manufactured to precise specifications in a controlled environment, but the as-built conditions may not share those same specifications. This misalignment is one of the primary challenges with prefabrication construction methods, and the fix often requires more than a simple field modification. Given this misalignment, parties should pay close attention upfront to how the contract addresses dimensional tolerances and acceptance criteria for prefabricated components — specifically, who bears the risk and cost of correction when a factory-built component does not align with field conditions.
The same coordination challenge extends to installation. Prefabricated materials are often oversized. Setting them requires precision placement with purpose-built rigging, and equipment specifically specified for the load distribution. If, for example, the crane isn’t rated for the actual load, or the rigging plan wasn’t coordinated with the factory output schedule, what should be a controlled operation starts impacting the project schedule. Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems roughed into prefabricated components must likewise be coordinated with site-side systems before fabrication begins, not during installation. Once a component is built, changes are costly, or in some cases, impossible.
The practical takeaway is that the project contract must be drafted in a manner to both delineate responsibility and coordination for all “life stages” of the fabricated component (i.e., design, manufacturing, and installation). Delegated design clauses should clearly identify which party is responsible for the design of the component itself, the connections between the component and the building, and the structural adequacy of the receiving conditions — these are often three different parties, and standard delegated design language may not draw those lines clearly enough. Similarly, detailed contractual provisions requiring formal coordination between the manufacturer, installing contractor, and design team for the fabricated component could also help to avoid issues before they arise.
Schedule Sequencing, Delivery, and Quality Control
Prefabricated components often involve long lead times, and as a result, these components frequently become schedule drivers. Standard construction contracts are often structured on a just-in-time basis, leaving little or no buffer between when a component arrives and when it needs to be installed. For example, if delivery slips past the installation window, the component may no longer fit through available openings, requiring partial disassembly, re-routing, or rework that eliminates or significantly diminishes the benefit of prefabrication altogether.
A separate set of issues arise when early delivery is an option, specifically that the prefabricated components require dedicated storage space, weather protection and handling protocols, and extended or improper storage can result in possible degradation of materials before installation even begins. The result is a narrow delivery window where arriving too late disrupts the schedule and arriving too early creates storage risk and potential damage exposure.
This risk is amplified when prefabricated components are supplied by a party outside the installation contractor’s control. In that scenario, the installing contractor has no control over the fabrication or delivery, yet, without proper contractual protection, bears the consequences when delivery is delayed. For example, on a large industrial project, a mechanical contractor was required to disassemble and re-assemble owner-procured prefabricated materials which were delayed beyond the time period in which the portion of the facility through which the prefabricated materials were to be installed had already been enclosed. What followed was a dispute over who should bear the significant additional costs and schedule impacts.
Beyond scheduling and delivery, quality verification, both during manufacturing and on-site, is also an important element which is often overlooked. When a defect is later discovered in an installed component, responsibility is often difficult to trace. Moreover, because manufacturer warranties frequently only cover the component “as fabricated,” any gap can leave the installing contractor facing responsibility for a defect it did not cause.
Contracts should account for these risks. Delivery sequencing requirements and realistic lead-time assumptions should be addressed at the contracting stage, not discovered during execution. Where prefabricated materials are procured by a party other than the installing contractor, the contract should expressly define coordination obligations and allocate responsibility for delays in delivery. Storage obligations and associated risk should likewise be addressed in situations where early delivery is possible or necessary. And quality control provisions should both establish inspection rights at defined fabrication milestones and clearly delineate warranty boundaries between the manufacturer and installing contractor.
Conclusion
Modular and prefabricated construction offers real advantages, but it fundamentally changes where risk lives on a project. Recognizing this, industry groups have begun developing contract documents tailored specifically to prefabricated construction, such as the ConsensusDocs 753 Standard Prefabricated Construction Agreement, which addresses many of the issues discussed in this article. That said, no standard form can anticipate every project’s unique circumstances, and the contract should be tailored accordingly. For parties drafting or negotiating contracts involving prefabricated construction, the considerations above are a practical place to start.
“The Construction Industry Team at Jones Walker LLP is one of the most highly regarded and award-winning construction law practices in the nation. Our experienced construction attorneys understand the complex dynamics between — and the unique priorities of — project participants and can craft effective solutions that minimize disputes, manage risks, and help keep projects moving from conception to completion.”
The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of ConsensusDocs. Readers should not take or refrain from taking any action based on any information without first seeking legal advice.