When non-conforming work is discovered during construction, the architect must evaluate corrective action options. The decision is rarely simple. Every non-conformance presents at least three potential resolution paths: require the contractor to remove and replace the work per the original documents, approve a repair that brings the work into acceptable compliance, or accept the work as-is with appropriate adjustments.

The choice between repair and removal depends on several interrelated factors. Structural adequacy is the threshold question. If the non-conforming work compromises structural capacity or life safety, the structural engineer of record must evaluate whether a repair can restore the required performance or whether complete removal is the only acceptable path. The architect cannot make this determination independently.

Code compliance is the second gate. Even if the structural engineer confirms that a repair is structurally adequate, the repaired condition must still satisfy applicable building codes. A concrete wall poured 2 inches thinner than specified might be structurally acceptable after engineering analysis but could fail fire-resistance rating requirements that depend on the specified thickness.

Cost and schedule analysis drives practical decision-making. Removal and replacement of a completed element may be technically ideal but could add weeks to the schedule and cost more than the non-conformance warrants. The architect evaluates these trade-offs while ensuring that cost savings never compromise safety or code compliance. Under A201 Section 12.2, the contractor bears the cost of correcting non-conforming work. The architect's role is to evaluate the resolution options and recommend a course of action that satisfies the contract documents, building codes, and the owner's interests.