ARE 5.0: Construction and Evaluation

The Architect Registration Examination (ARE) 5.0 division Construction and Evaluation sits closest to day-to-day practice for many architects. It tests how well you understand the construction phase and the architect’s role in protecting the owner’s interests while supporting a successful project outcome. If you have spent time on a jobsite, managed RFIs, reviewed submittals, or helped close out a project, much of the content will feel familiar. The challenge is integrating that experience with a clear grasp of contracts, procedures, and building performance.

At its core, Construction and Evaluation covers three connected areas: construction administration, building systems performance, and commissioning and closeout. Together they represent the architect’s responsibility to observe, evaluate, document, and respond during construction, and to verify that the finished building meets the project requirements.

What this division is really testing

Construction and Evaluation is less about memorizing isolated facts and more about professional judgment. The exam is checking whether you can:

• Apply the architect’s typical services during construction in a contract-informed way
• Evaluate whether the work conforms to the contract documents
• Understand how building systems should perform and how problems are identified and corrected
• Support a structured closeout process that leads to a building that can be operated, maintained, and verified

The division assumes you can read drawings and specifications, interpret scope, and understand the difference between design intent and construction means and methods.

Construction administration: the architect’s role during construction

Construction administration (CA) is where the paper project meets reality. The architect’s role is to administer the contract for construction and help interpret the contract documents. This does not mean directing the contractor’s work. It means confirming that what is being built aligns with what was specified and drawn, and documenting decisions consistently.

Key workflows and why they matter

Submittals
Submittals, including shop drawings, product data, and samples, are the contractor’s way of demonstrating how they intend to meet the design requirements. The architect reviews submittals for conformance with the design intent and the contract documents. A common professional pitfall is treating submittals as a second design phase. The review should not expand scope or introduce new design decisions without appropriate documentation.

Requests for Information (RFIs)
RFIs arise when the contractor needs clarification. A strong response resolves the question, references the contract documents, and avoids directing means and methods. The best RFI responses are specific, well-documented, and coordinated across disciplines so that the answer does not create conflicts elsewhere.

Change management
Changes can be unavoidable, but they must be controlled. Construction changes typically show up as change orders, construction change directives, or proposals depending on the contract structure. The architect’s role involves evaluating whether a change is justified, reviewing proposed costs and time impacts when required, and issuing clear documentation that can be tracked.

A helpful mental model is to think of change evaluation in two steps:

1. Confirm the reason for change (scope clarification, unforeseen condition, owner request, coordination issue).
2. Confirm the proposed solution is consistent with the contract documents and project requirements.

Site observations and field reports
Site visits are not inspections for safety or means and methods. They are observations to determine, in general, whether the work is proceeding in accordance with the contract documents. Field reports matter because they create a record of what was observed, what questions were raised, and what follow-up is required.

Certificates for payment and protecting the owner

The review of applications for payment is a practical test of an architect’s ability to balance progress, documentation, and risk. The architect typically evaluates percent complete, checks stored materials (when applicable), and confirms that work billed aligns with what is in place. This is one of the clearest moments where documentation and professional judgment intersect.

Payment review also ties into closeout: if retainage, punchlist completion, and final documentation are not managed carefully, owners can be left with incomplete work and limited leverage.

Evaluating building systems during construction

Construction and Evaluation expects you to understand not only the administrative steps, but also the basics of how building systems are coordinated and verified. The architect is not an engineer, but is responsible for coordinating the whole building and recognizing when performance and integration issues may be developing.

Common building systems coordination issues

Envelope performance
Many construction disputes trace back to the building envelope: air barriers, vapor control, flashing continuity, window installation, and penetrations. A small detailing or sequencing failure can lead to water intrusion and long-term damage. During CA, evaluation often involves confirming continuity and compatibility of adjacent materials, especially at transitions.

MEP integration
Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems frequently drive changes in ceilings, shafts, equipment pads, and access clearances. The architect’s evaluation role includes checking that the installed or proposed systems align with spatial constraints, code-required access, and the intended architectural outcomes.

Fire and life safety coordination
Field conditions can introduce risks that are not obvious on paper, such as compromised firestopping, incorrect door hardware sets, or changes that affect egress widths. Being able to recognize these issues and route them through proper documentation is essential.

Practical example: catching a performance issue early

Consider a scenario where a curtain wall submittal proposes a different thermal break configuration than the basis-of-design system. The alternative may look similar but perform differently. The architect’s evaluation should focus on whether the submittal meets the specified performance criteria, including thermal and air-water resistance requirements, and whether adjacent details remain valid. When questions exceed the architect’s expertise, the correct response is coordination with consultants and documented requests for additional information.

Commissioning: verifying performance, not just installation

Commissioning connects construction to real operation. It is a structured process to verify that building systems are installed, started up, tested, and able to perform as intended. Commissioning is especially significant for HVAC controls, life safety interfaces, lighting controls, domestic hot water systems, and other operationally complex elements.

What architects should understand about commissioning

• Commissioning is planned early, but it has major activity during late construction and closeout.
• The process generates documentation: commissioning plans, test procedures, functional performance tests, and issue logs.
• Successful commissioning requires coordination among the contractor, subcontractors, equipment vendors, and the commissioning authority.

Architects play a supporting role by ensuring the commissioning requirements are reflected in the contract documents and by coordinating the resolution of issues that affect design intent. If a system cannot meet performance requirements, the documentation trail matters. It shows what was specified, what was installed, what was tested, and what corrective actions were taken.

Closeout and post-occupancy evaluation

Closeout is often treated as administrative cleanup, but it is a critical part of project delivery. It determines whether the owner receives a building that can be operated, maintained, and verified.

Core closeout components

Punchlist and substantial completion
The punchlist is a targeted record of incomplete or nonconforming work. Substantial completion marks the point when the owner can occupy or use the building for its intended purpose, even if minor items remain. Understanding this distinction is important because it triggers timelines for warranties, insurance, and responsibilities.

O&M manuals, as-builts, and training
Owners rely on operation and maintenance information and training to run the building. As-built drawings and record documents help future teams maintain and modify the facility responsibly. From an evaluation standpoint, these deliverables are part of confirming that the project is truly complete.

Warranties and corrective work
Warranty reviews require careful documentation. If a problem arises post-occupancy, the architect may be involved in evaluating whether it is a warranty issue, a maintenance issue, or a design and construction coordination problem.

Post-occupancy evaluation as part of professional growth

Post-occupancy evaluation connects design assumptions to real performance. Even when it is not a formal service, architects can learn from occupant feedback, energy performance trends, and maintenance patterns. That learning loop improves future detailing, specifications, and coordination, which directly strengthens performance during the construction and evaluation phase.

How to approach ARE 5.0 Construction and Evaluation effectively

Preparation is strongest when it mirrors practice. Focus on understanding the “why” behind the steps:

• Why submittals are reviewed for conformance rather than redesign
• Why field observations must be documented and bounded by contract responsibilities
• Why payment certification is tied to progress and risk
• Why commissioning verifies performance, not just completion
• Why closeout documentation is as important as the final punchlist

Construction and Evaluation ultimately measures your readiness to act as a licensed architect during the most consequential phase of a project, when decisions are costly, timelines are tight, and documentation is the difference between clarity and dispute. Understanding the workflows, responsibilities, and evaluation mindset is not only how you pass the division. It is how you protect clients, strengthen projects, and deliver buildings that perform as intended.