When something goes wrong on a construction project, the first question is usually technical. The second is almost always: who approved that? On many owner-side teams, nobody can give a clear answer. The project manager thought the director had signed off. The director thought it was within the PM's authority. The user group told the contractor directly. Finance paid the invoice because the consultant recommended it.
A RACI chart, combined with a clear delegation of authority, fixes that. This guide explains how to build one for the owner's own project team, which decisions it should cover, how it ties to approval limits, and the gaps we see most often.
RACI in one paragraph
RACI assigns four roles to each task or decision. Responsible is whoever does the work; there can be several. Accountable is the single person who owns the outcome and answers for it. Consulted means people whose input is sought before the work is finished. Informed means people kept up to date afterwards. PMI's guidance puts the central rule simply: "one Accountable owner per outcome." Responsibility can be shared. Accountability can't.
PMI also flags the two most common mistakes: two people in the Accountable column, or none. Either one leads to disputes or dropped work. On construction projects, both happen constantly.
Build it around decisions, not tasks
Most RACI charts list tasks: prepare the monthly report, run the coordination meeting, review shop drawings. That's useful for the team's workload, but it misses the point for an owner. The risk on the owner's side sits in decisions, especially the ones that commit money, accept work or change scope.
For the owner-side team, the rows that matter are:
- Approving the project budget and any change to it.
- Approving change orders and change directives, at each value level.
- Releasing contingency.
- Accepting the baseline schedule and approving extensions of time.
- Approving design at each stage, and accepting design changes after approval.
- Processing payment applications and releasing holdback.
- Accepting user or tenant requests for scope changes.
- Accepting the building at turnover.
Be specific about what "approve" means. Approving a design stage usually means accepting that it meets the owner's requirements and budget. It doesn't mean the owner takes over responsibility for its technical correctness, which stays with the design professionals. Write the meaning of each approval into the chart's notes, so nobody signs believing they're doing something else.
For each one, the chart should answer: who is accountable, who prepares the recommendation, who must be consulted before the decision, and who needs to know afterwards.
View the data
| Decision | Sponsor | Owner PM | Consultant | Contractor | Finance | Operations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approve project budget | A | R | C | – | C | I |
| Change within PM limit | I | A/R | R | C | I | – |
| Change above PM limit | A | R | C | C | C | I |
| Accept baseline schedule | I | A | C | R | – | I |
| Release contingency | A | R | – | – | C | – |
| Process payment | – | A | R | I | R | – |
| User scope request | A | R | C | I | C | C |
| Accept at turnover | I | A | R | R | I | C |
Decision rights and delegation of authority
A RACI chart says who decides. A delegation of authority (DoA) says how much they can decide on their own. Owners need both, and they need to agree with each other.
A DoA matrix sets approval limits by value and type of transaction. An article on capital project DoA rules lists the transactions it usually covers: cost estimates and budgets, including transfers between budget lines; selection of consultants and contractors; contract awards; change orders and claims; progress payments; and the final account. Approval levels are driven by the value of the item, sometimes combined with its type. A change that adds scope may need a higher approver than one of the same value that only re-sequences work.
The same article lists the problems that show up when DoA rules are applied by hand: approvals given by people without the authority, reviews that stall without being escalated, no audit trail of who approved what and when, and slow reporting on pending approvals. Those are the failures a RACI-plus-DoA setup is meant to prevent.
View the data
| Change value | Approver |
|---|---|
| Up to $25k | Owner PM |
| $25k–$100k | Director of construction |
| $100k–$250k | VP real estate / sponsor |
| Over $250k | Executive committee |
| Override | Change exceeding remaining contingency, or cumulative changes over $100k in a month: sponsor and finance |
Common gaps on owner-side teams
On programs we've supported, the same gaps show up again and again:
- Users instructing the contractor directly. A department head or store manager walks the site and asks for an extra outlet or a moved wall. The contractor does it, then prices it. Users should be Consulted on scope, never Accountable, and the contractor should know that instructions only come from named people.
- Consultants approving beyond their authority. Design consultants and owner's representatives often have authority to issue instructions that don't change cost or time. When that line isn't written down, small changes with cost consequences slip through. Our post on owner's rep vs project manager covers who works for whom.
- Split changes. A $90,000 change is broken into three $30,000 changes to stay under a $50,000 limit. The DoA should set cumulative limits per package or per month, not just per item.
- Contingency as a slush fund. Contingency is drawn down by the project team without anyone senior approving the release. Contingency drawdown should be its own row in the RACI, with an Accountable person above the project manager.
- No alternate. The Accountable person is on vacation, and decisions stall for two weeks, or someone without authority makes them. Every Accountable role needs a named delegate with the same limits.
- Accountable in name only. The sponsor is listed as Accountable for scope, but never sees the change log. Accountability without information is a signature, not a decision.
How it works in practice
Take a common case. Six weeks before opening, the operations manager asks for extra power and data at a service counter. Without a RACI, the request goes straight to the site superintendent, the work gets done, and a $38,000 change appears a month later with no approval behind it.
With the chart in place, the path is different. The request goes to the owner PM, who is Responsible for assessing it. The consultant is Consulted on design and code effects, and the contractor is asked for a price and a time impact. Finance is Consulted on whether contingency can absorb it. Because it's a user scope request, the sponsor is Accountable and decides whether the extra power is worth $38,000 and the schedule risk. Under the illustrative limits above, a change of that value would sit with the director of construction, but here the scope row overrides the value row: new scope from users goes to the sponsor whatever it costs.
That last point matters. A RACI and a DoA can point to different people for the same item. Decide in advance which rule wins, and write it down.
Make it match the contract
The owner's internal RACI can't override the construction contract. The contract sets out who can issue instructions, change orders and certificates to the contractor, and in what form. If your RACI says the director approves all changes over a certain value, but the contract lets the consultant issue instructions that carry cost, you have a gap the contractor can drive through.
Before the contract is signed, compare the RACI and DoA with the contract's change and payment provisions, and close the differences through the supplementary conditions or a written notice of who holds authority. Get legal advice on the wording. Then give the contractor and consultants a one-page authority letter: who can instruct, who can approve changes and up to what value. Our guide to managing change orders covers the change process itself.
Keep it small and visible
A RACI for the owner-side team should fit on one page. Eight to fifteen decision rows and five to seven roles is enough for most projects. Bigger charts don't get read, and an unread chart doesn't stop anyone from approving something they shouldn't.
Three habits help it stick:
- Build it in a workshop. Have the roles in the room argue about each row. The arguments reveal where people already disagree about who decides.
- Use it at gates. At each stage gate, confirm the RACI and DoA still fit the next phase. Construction needs different decision rights from design.
- Enforce it in the workflow. If approvals run through a project information system, set up the routing to follow the DoA, so an item can't be approved by the wrong person and every approval leaves a record.
Review it when people change. A new project director or a reorganization can quietly make half the chart wrong.
What owners should do
- List the decisions that commit money, accept work or change scope, and build the RACI around those rows.
- Put exactly one Accountable person on each row, with a named delegate for absences.
- Set a delegation of authority with value limits, including cumulative limits, and make sure it matches the RACI.
- Check both against the contract before signing, and close any gaps with legal advice.
- Issue a one-page authority letter to the contractor and consultants saying who can instruct and approve.
- Review the chart at each gate and whenever people change.
The bottom line
Most approval failures on construction projects aren't fraud or incompetence. They're gaps: nobody was sure who decided, so either nobody did or the wrong person did. A one-page RACI built around real decisions, backed by a delegation of authority and aligned with the contract, closes those gaps for very little effort. It also gives everyone a clear answer to "who approved that?" before anyone has to ask.
Want help setting decision rights and approval limits for your next project? Book a 30-minute call with Benjamin R. Consulting.
Sources: Project Management Institute, Stakeholder Management and RACI: Who Does What, and Who Answers for It (2026); CMCS, Ensuring compliance with the delegation of authority (DoA) matrix rules for capital construction projects. The RACI chart and approval limits are illustrative. This article is general information, not legal advice. Get legal advice on your contract and specific circumstances.