The UAV-GC 2025 through the lens of design responsibility
An article by Gert Weerheim, partner and attorney at Brackmann, was recently published in TBR (Journal for Construction Law), offering a perspective on the UAV-GC 2025 from the viewpoint of design responsibility.
In his article, Gert Weerheim nalyzes how the UAV-GC 2025 addresses design responsibility. He examines this new version of the integrated construction contract through the lens of the designer and concludes that—despite several improvements compared to the UAV-GC 2005—the liability borne by designers under the UAV-GC remains significantly broader than that of other designers (for instance, under the DNR 2011). He also notes that the UAV-GC 2025 provides insufficient clarity in demarcating construction phases. According to Weerheim, these issues result in a number of critical challenges.
“In my article, I compare the position of the designer under the DNR 2011 with that of the design-performing Contractor under the UAV-GC 2025. The key question is whether the UAV-GC 2025 does justice to the distinctive nature of design work.”
What stands out when examining the UAV-GC 2025 from the perspective of design responsibility?
The article highlights four key differences between the DNR 2011 and the UAV-GC 2025:
- The DNR designer operates under a duty of care and a best-efforts obligation. In contrast, the UAV-GC Contractor is bound by a results obligation and is liable for "defects" (including failure to meet requirements, even ‘fit for purpose’ criteria).
- The concept of ‘state of the art’ is embedded in the DNR through the duty of care. The UAV-GC 2025 lacks such a standard: the Contractor is simply required to meet the set requirements.
- The liability of a DNR advisor is capped (typically between one and three times the fee), whereas the liability of a UAV-GC Contractor is much broader.
- Preliminary, Definitive, and Final Designs (VO, DO, UO) are referenced in the UAV-GC 2025, but without a clear definition or external benchmark, such as the Standard Task Description. Nevertheless, the Explanatory Notes claim there is sufficient clarity. Is that a valid assumption?
A step forward is that the UAV-GC 2025 do introduce a duty of care when it comes to aligning with the existing site conditions. The guiding principle is what a reasonably careful Contractor could have expected. In this respect, the UAV-GC 2025 move closer to the DNR approach.
Interested in reading the full article?
The complete publication (in Dutch) is available via IBR Tracker:
📄 TBR 2025-55 – De UAV-GC 2025 door de lens van de ontwerpverantwoordelijkheid