The obvious question that presents itself is: “What are field services and what is it about field services that makes this area of professional practice so volatile and dangerous for the A/E?”

The term “field services” is often used synonymously in construction contracts and jargon with the terms “contract administration”, “site reviews”, “site visits”, “general reviews” and “supervision”. Some of the writers in the field have suggested that the term “supervision” should never be used when describing the A/E’s role in administering the construction contract between the owner and the general contractor. They suggest that “supervision” is something that the contractor does in organising and coordinating his own forces, including any subcontractors that he might engage for the purpose of carrying out the work required by the project contract documents. With deference to these august construction lions, the writer submits that the word “supervision” is not anathema to the description of this critical administrative role for the A/E. Ultimately, the issue becomes a matter of semantics. It is submitted that, for reasons to be elaborated upon in this paper, it is not so much the term used to describe “field services” that constitutes the problem, as it is the definition that is ascribed to that term within the A/E’s contract with the client.