Translation of construction and erection projects entails several challenges, especially regarding the specific technical terms of each field (construction, industrial erection, mining, energy, etc.). However, when translating a project’s technical documents (bidding terms, finance documents, EPC or EPCM agreements, technical documentation), there are even greater difficulties when faced with terms that don’t have a direct equivalent both in English and Spanish (or Common Law vs the Code-based legal systems). One such term is what we know as Owner’s Engineer, usually translated as Inspector Técnico de Obras or ITO in Spanish-speaking countries.
The Owner’s Engineer is a very common figure in engineering and construction projects, born together with the boom of EPC and EPCM agreements, as an answer to the growing need of the projects’ owners for specialized guidance and advice on the development and execution of projects.
It is a common concept in English speaking countries, and others where it relates to a specific legal figure, which has no direct equivalent in Latin countries. In Latin America, this concept is usually translated as Inspector Técnico de Obras (Works’ Technical Inspector). However, they have very specific differences.
The Owner’s Engineer is a person or company acting as an advisor or consultant for the Client or Owner, regarding all technical and financial aspects relating to the Project, from its earliest stages and into its completion. Its work usually begins during the project’s pre-design and design stages, and goes on during the construction, erection, and, through its commissioning and start up. It advises the Owner on the engineering development, so as to achieve an optimal and strategically beneficial design. During its construction, he makes sure not only that the project stays within the expected terms and budgets, but also that it complies with all technical, legal, environmental, financial and safety requirements; he keeps a general management of costs and investment, makes the necessary risk assessments, and helps minimizing the budget, environmental, legal and claim risks; tracks the quality and compliance with the designs and specifications. In many cases, he has the legal obligation to make the project’s due diligence in its different stages. He strategically, integrally and generally oversees and supervises, monitors and gives counsel regarding the design, development and construction of the projects.
The ITO, on the other hand, is also a legal figure, but with a slightly different role. Its function is specifically linked to the construction being performed pursuant to the standards and permissions, and in compliance with the technical specifications, plans and calculation projects, architecture and specialties as defined in the contracts and agreements. It reviews reports and work progress book (libro de obras), performs quality control, reviews and approves the payment statements during the project. Its scope of action is narrowed to the technical and, to a lesser extent, budgetary aspects of the project’s execution; in buildings or constructions for public use, it is required by law. It supervises and monitors specific details of a project’s construction.
That is all it has in common with the Owner’s Engineer. The differences, in turn, are quite clear, given that the ITO: does not participate during the design or development stage, nor does it provide the owner with general strategic or financial advice. It does not analyze or manage the project’s risks, nor the due diligence thereof, and it does not help to coordinate the engineering design or technical-economical assessments of development options for a project. The closest term in English may be that of “technical reviewer” , but with a defined legal status.
In a nutshell, the OE has a broader and more strategic scope, whereas the ITO is much more restricted, with a lot more focus in the technical aspects of a project, mostly related to compliance with specific technical parameters. Even though both terms tend to be incorrectly translated as synonyms, their misuse can lead to significant consequences for the development of a project abroad, especially when the different parties lack a clear vision of the role each figure plays, and their technical and legal implications.
The Owner’s Engineer is a very common figure in engineering and construction projects, born together with the boom of EPC and EPCM agreements, as an answer to the growing need of the projects’ owners for specialized guidance and advice on the development and execution of projects.
It is a common concept in English speaking countries, and others where it relates to a specific legal figure, which has no direct equivalent in Latin countries. In Latin America, this concept is usually translated as Inspector Técnico de Obras (Works’ Technical Inspector). However, they have very specific differences.
The Owner’s Engineer is a person or company acting as an advisor or consultant for the Client or Owner, regarding all technical and financial aspects relating to the Project, from its earliest stages and into its completion. Its work usually begins during the project’s pre-design and design stages, and goes on during the construction, erection, and, through its commissioning and start up. It advises the Owner on the engineering development, so as to achieve an optimal and strategically beneficial design. During its construction, he makes sure not only that the project stays within the expected terms and budgets, but also that it complies with all technical, legal, environmental, financial and safety requirements; he keeps a general management of costs and investment, makes the necessary risk assessments, and helps minimizing the budget, environmental, legal and claim risks; tracks the quality and compliance with the designs and specifications. In many cases, he has the legal obligation to make the project’s due diligence in its different stages. He strategically, integrally and generally oversees and supervises, monitors and gives counsel regarding the design, development and construction of the projects.
The ITO, on the other hand, is also a legal figure, but with a slightly different role. Its function is specifically linked to the construction being performed pursuant to the standards and permissions, and in compliance with the technical specifications, plans and calculation projects, architecture and specialties as defined in the contracts and agreements. It reviews reports and work progress book (libro de obras), performs quality control, reviews and approves the payment statements during the project. Its scope of action is narrowed to the technical and, to a lesser extent, budgetary aspects of the project’s execution; in buildings or constructions for public use, it is required by law. It supervises and monitors specific details of a project’s construction.
That is all it has in common with the Owner’s Engineer. The differences, in turn, are quite clear, given that the ITO: does not participate during the design or development stage, nor does it provide the owner with general strategic or financial advice. It does not analyze or manage the project’s risks, nor the due diligence thereof, and it does not help to coordinate the engineering design or technical-economical assessments of development options for a project. The closest term in English may be that of “technical reviewer” , but with a defined legal status.
In a nutshell, the OE has a broader and more strategic scope, whereas the ITO is much more restricted, with a lot more focus in the technical aspects of a project, mostly related to compliance with specific technical parameters. Even though both terms tend to be incorrectly translated as synonyms, their misuse can lead to significant consequences for the development of a project abroad, especially when the different parties lack a clear vision of the role each figure plays, and their technical and legal implications.
“The content of this article is of the exclusive property of Key Translations Limitada. Its publication, transmission, distribution, sale, edition and any other use of its content (including, but not limited to, text, photographs, brands, videos and logotypes) is expressly forbidden.”
