Claims Procedures for Metal Building Erectors
Proposed Protocols for Claims to Manufacturers
Purpose
This guide was developed by the Metal Building Contractors and Erectors Association (“MBCEA”) to work in conjunction with the Metal Building Manufacturers Association (MBMA) Manual of Standard Practice by providing practical, project and field-level best practices for handling claims with manufacturers within the metal building industry.
The goal of this document is to provide processes to help erectors:
• Properly document issues and deficiencies;
• Understand manufacturer expectations and procedures;
• Communicate issues early and effectively;
• Avoid common pitfalls that lead to denied, delayed, or unresolved claims; and
• Better understand and document downstream project impacts associated with manufacturing-related deficiencies.
By establishing consistent claim and dispute resolution practices, contractors and erectors can foster stronger working relationships between manufacturers and erectors. Clear processes and procedures will also promote cooperation within the industry and collectively reduce friction, improve accountability, and elevate the overall quality and performance of metal building projects.
This document also reflects MBCEA’s position that equitable resolution of manufacturing related issues should include consideration of the practical field impacts experienced during modern project execution and not be limited solely to direct material replacement costs in all circumstances.
Background
The metal building industry relies on close coordination between manufacturers, erectors, contractors, and suppliers to efficiently deliver high-quality structures. However, real-world challenges such as freight damage, missing components, fabrication discrepancies, and field-fit issues are inevitable — particularly when projects are operating under compressed schedules or through general contractor and/or third-party procurement procedures.
The MBMA Manual of Standard Practice outlines the roles and responsibilities of each party involved in the metal building delivery and erection process, including procedures for reporting damage, shortages, and nonconforming materials. While these standards provide important industry guidance, they are not binding; and they are often misunderstood or inconsistently applied in the field — especially on fast-paced jobsites or when the erector is not the direct purchasing party.
Too often, legitimate problems and related claims are delayed, under-documented, or routed incorrectly in real time. This results in missed reimbursement opportunities, avoidable project delays, and unnecessary tension between field teams and manufacturers. In many cases, communication breakdowns also prevent meaningful root-cause analysis, allowing the same issues to be repeated on the same or across future projects.
This document is intended to provide practical guidance to help erectors navigate these situations
more effectively using fair, timely, and professional approaches to the resolution of manufacturing-related issues.
Properly Document Issues and Deficiencies
Proper documentation is the foundation of any successful claim to a manufacturer. Field personnel should be trained to identify issues as soon as possible and document them immediately upon discovery. This is particularly true during unloading, inventory, and initial erection activities. Cell phones and tablets with cameras are great tools to ensure this occurs.
Photographs and videos should clearly capture:
• Overall condition of the shipment;
• Packaging and banding condition;
• Shipping labels and piece marks;
• Specific damage locations; and
• Any evidence of freight or handling impacts.
Whenever possible, damage should be photographed prior to unloading or disturbing the shipment. Time-stamped photos and organized field reporting software can significantly improve claim credibility and response times.
Documentation should also include:
• Delivery dates and carrier information;
• Packing lists and shortage reports;
• Labor impacts or schedule disruptions caused by the issue;
• Weather exposure concerns if materials cannot be installed as planned;
• Missing paperwork, including drawings and specifications; and
• Daily reports and foreman notes related to the issue.
Consistent and organized documentation not only improves reimbursement opportunities, but also helps manufacturers identify recurring production, packaging, or shipping problems.
MBCEA does not endorse any one platform, but various modern software platforms and other field documentation tools can assist erectors in organizing photographs, daily reports, and cost impacts in a format that is easier to communicate and defend. These include commonly used software like CompanyCam, Raken, and Procore.
Understand Manufacturer Expectations and Procedures
The MBMA has its own manual that provides proposed procedures for claims and disputes. In addition, each manufacturer may have slightly different procedures for handling shortages, freight claims, fabrication discrepancies, or warranty concerns. Erectors should familiarize themselves with these procedures before problems arise.
Many manufacturers require:
• Claims to be submitted within a specified timeframe;
• Use of standardized claim forms;
• Piece mark references;
• Freight carrier acknowledgment for shipping damage; and
• Approval prior to performing corrective work.
Failure to follow manufacturer procedures can unintentionally jeopardize reimbursement eligibility, even when the claim itself is legitimate. Check your contract documents and the manufacturer’s policies relating to claims and disputes.
It is also important to recognize that manufacturers often operate through multiple departments including project management, engineering, detailing, shipping, and warranty administration. Clear communication and complete documentation help ensure claims are routed efficiently and resolved faster. When in doubt about where to submit communications and claims, be overly inclusive.
Where possible, erectors should establish relationships with manufacturer project managers early
in the project. Strong communication channels frequently lead to quicker resolutions, better
coordination, and improved long-term working relationships.
Communicate Early and Effectively
Early and clear communication is one of the most important factors in minimizing project impacts. Even when the full extent of an issue is not yet known, notifying the manufacturer immediately helps establish awareness and allows corrective actions to begin sooner.
Delays in communication can:
• Delay response and reaction times;
• Increase schedule impacts;
• Complicate freight responsibility determinations;
• Limit replacement material options;
• Create disputes over labor responsibility; and
• Reduce the manufacturer’s ability to investigate root causes.
Communication should remain professional and solution oriented. The primary objective is not to assign blame. The goal is to quickly identify the problem, create accountability, mitigate impacts to the project, and prevent similar issues in the future.
Projects involving owner-purchased or GC-purchased building packages often create additional complexity regarding communication responsibilities and claim authority. These responsibilities should be clarified early in the project to avoid confusion during active issues. Project participants should have a clear understanding of who to include in the communication loop, how information should be communicated, and the timing elements of communication.
Avoid Common Pitfalls that Lead to Denied or Unresolved Claims
Several common mistakes frequently complicate otherwise legitimate claims within the metal building industry.
These include, but are not limited to:
• Waiting too long to report issues;
• Failing to photograph damage before unloading or installation;
• Disposing of damaged materials before manufacturer review;
• Performing corrective work without authorization;
• Incomplete tracking of labor impacts and delays, including extended general conditions;
• Poor communication between the erector, GC, owner, and manufacturer;
• Failure to document equipment standby or remobilization costs;
• Lack of supporting documentation for labor or equipment billing rates
Erectors should also understand that once a project reaches closeout, obtaining reimbursement for unresolved issues becomes significantly more difficult. Timely identification and documentation are critical to protecting all parties involved.
When immediate corrective action is necessary to protect safety or project sequencing, the
condition should be thoroughly documented prior to repair or modification whenever possible.
In addition to the practical implications of this approach, it is often required by law.
Tips and Tricks
Be Fair and Professional
Relationships matter. Good working relationships within the industry are built on trust. Manufacturer claims are most effective when approached professionally, factually, and reasonably. Claims should focus on actual measurable impacts supported by documentation rather than generalized frustrations or unsupported estimates. If contractors and erectors want equitable treatment from the manufacturers, it has to be offered to the manufacturers.
Maintaining trust and credibility throughout the process is critical to preserving strong working relationships and improving future claim outcomes.
Segregate and preserve damaged or nonconforming materials whenever practical. Manufacturers or freight carriers may request inspection or pickup as part of the claim process, and premature disposal or installation of damaged materials may complicate claim resolution.
Track Equipment Utilization and Standby Costs
Manufacturing-related issues frequently impact cranes, forklifts, aerial lifts, welding equipment, and other specialized resources scheduled around tightly coordinated erection activities.
When impacts occur:
• Record standby time and idle periods with as much detail as possible;
• Maintain rental agreements and invoices;
• Track remobilization requirements;
• Document delays in daily reports; and
• Identify out-of-sequence work and down time caused by shortages or fabrication issues.
On many projects, equipment-related impacts may exceed the direct value of the affected material itself.
Document General Conditions and Labor Impacts
General conditions and labor inefficiencies are often among the most significant downstream impacts associated with manufacturing deficiencies.
Documentation should include, but are not limited to:
• Daily reports;
• Crew sizes and classifications;
• Additional supervision or coordination time;
• Schedule updates;
• Delay narratives;
• Additional site visits or mobilizations; and
• Overtime or extended duration impacts.
Clear and consistent documentation substantially improves the ability to support reimbursement discussions.
Maintain Clear Billing Rates and Cost Backup
Claims involving labor, equipment, or demobilization/remobilization costs should be supported by transparent and consistent cost documentation.
Recommended support documentation may include:
• Internal equipment rates;
• Payroll burden calculations;
• Labor classifications and hourly rates;
• Rental invoices;
• Fuel and transportation costs; and
• Additional subcontractor invoices tied to the issue.
Well-organized documentation improves credibility and reduces disagreements regarding the legitimacy of project impacts.
Relationships Matter
Strong working relationships between erectors, manufacturers, project managers, and detailing teams often play a significant role in successful claim resolution.
Professional communication, early notification, and collaborative problem-solving generally produce better outcomes than adversarial approaches.
Consistent field feedback and clear communication also help manufacturers improve packaging methods, shipping procedures, detailing practices, and quality control processes across future projects.
Clarify Ownership and Responsibility Early
Projects involving owner-furnished or general contractor-purchased building packages can create confusion regarding responsibility for claims, coordination, and reimbursement. Clear contract documents can help ensure clarity on this issue.
Whether in the contract documents or not, parties should clarify the following before issues arise:
• Who owns the building package;
• Who holds contractual responsibility with the manufacturer;
• Who has authority to approve corrective work;
• Who is responsible for freight claims; and
• How downstream project impacts will be handled.
Lack of clarity in these areas frequently delays resolution and complicates recovery efforts.
MBCEA Position Regarding Project Impact Costs and Manufacturer Claims
MBCEA believes that cost reimbursement policies and procedures relating to manufacturer related defects, delays, and deficiencies should be more equitable and recognize the true nature of the cost impacts to owners, contractors, and erectors when they occur. They should not be limited solely to direct material replacement costs.
MBCEA recognizes the value the MBMA Manual of Standard Practice provides in establishing common industry guidance regarding shortages, damaged materials, and nonconforming products. However, modern metal building projects are commonly built under compressed schedules, using specialized equipment requirements, with restricted site conditions, and being held to tightly coordinated sequencing between multiple trades. Under these conditions, even relatively minor manufacturing discrepancies, shortages, shipping damage, or nonconforming materials may result in substantial downstream costs that extend well beyond the value of the affected material itself. Moreover, only providing for direct material costs reimbursement is inequitable and creates unnecessary discord in important industry relationships.
These impacts may include, but are not limited to:
• General conditions costs;
• Equipment standby expenses;
• Crane and lifting costs;
• Crew downtime and labor inefficiencies;
• Additional mobilization or remobilization costs;
• Schedule disruption impacts; and
• Additional project management and coordination efforts.
MBCEA’s position is that these costs should not be automatically excluded from consideration solely because they exceed direct material replacement value. Erectors and contractors should carefully document all resulting project impacts and pursue fair and equitable reimbursement when manufacturing-related issues materially affect project execution; and manufacturers should recognize and consider such fairly presented evidence.
MBCEA further encourages erectors, contractors, and purchasers of metal building systems to review purchase orders, subcontract language, and contract documents carefully to ensure risk allocation and reimbursement expectations are clearly defined and evenly distributed. Where appropriate, parties should consider supplementing or amending contract language to provide for fair compensation associated with actual project impacts resulting from manufacturing deficiencies, shortages, shipping damage, or nonconforming materials, rather than relying exclusively on generalized industry standards or limitations.
MBCEA believes that equitable resolution of manufacturing-related issues should reflect the practical realities of modern construction and encourages continued industry dialogue regarding fair allocation of project risks and impacts among all parties involved in the metal building process.
Learn more about MBCEA membership and read additional best practice articles.