# AI Clauses in Engineering Services Contracts: What Changed January 2026 **By Dan Cumberland** · Published May 19, 2026 · Categories: AI Strategy > On January 1, 2026, two pieces of insurance form language quietly took effect that most AEC firm principals haven't read. Verisk's CG 40 47 and CG 40 48... ## The January 1, 2026 Inflection On January 1, 2026, two pieces of insurance form language quietly took effect that most AEC firm principals haven't read\. Verisk's CG 40 47 and CG 40 48 endorsements[1](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-1) made AI exclusions standard for commercial general liability policies\. Berkley moved faster\. Its Form PC 51380[2](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-2) is an absolute AI exclusion[3](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-3) that fires on AI use "by any person or entity," across D&O, E&O, and Fiduciary Liability lines\. Verisk's definition of generative AI covers any machine\-learning system that can produce content like text, images, audio, video, or code[1](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-1)\. That definition is broad enough to capture the embedded AI in Revit, Bluebeam, and Microsoft 365\. Most firms underestimate their actual AI footprint\. The team isn't just using ChatGPT\. The tools are using AI on the team's behalf, often without anyone flagging it\. Your AIA B102 and your EJCDC E\-500 don't say a word about AI\. The 2026 editions don't either\. AIA characterizes its position[4](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-4) as guiding firms to existing approved language rather than authoring AI\-specific clauses\. EJCDC's 2026 release[5](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-5) includes several updates and leaves AI to the firms\. What changed January 1: - Verisk endorsements gave commercial general liability carriers a standardized way to exclude AI claims\. - Berkley's absolute AI exclusion extended that logic into D&O, E&O, and Fiduciary lines\. - Standard contract templates \(AIA, EJCDC\) still treat AI as if it doesn't exist\. Mid\-market AEC firms are quietly updating client contracts to fill the gap\. The work is happening at the level of engineering services agreements \(MSAs and PSAs\) and isn't being announced\. This piece walks the principal of a 250\-person firm through what changed at the carrier, the eight categories of contract language showing up in active negotiation, what the standards bodies actually say, and three things to do this week\. If that sounds abstract, the firms feeling it most acutely have a specific profile\. ## Why This Hits Mid\-Market Hardest Firms in the 100\-500 employee range, roughly $20M\-$100M in revenue, sit in the middle of three pressures that smaller and larger firms feel less acutely: client RFPs sophisticated enough to score AI governance, no in\-house Chief AI Officer or general counsel, and AI adoption rates that are real but uneven across the studio\. The AIA 2024 Firm Survey[6](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-6) found that 61% of large architecture firms \(50\+ employees\) currently use AI for day\-to\-day work, versus 42% of midsize firms and 27% of small firms\. A midsize firm is already exposed to AI risk and rarely has the legal infrastructure to address it\. Deltek's 46th Annual Clarity A&E Study[7](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-7) puts the composite A&E figure at 53% using AI tools, up from 38% the year before\. A December 2025 Bluebeam survey[8](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-8) of 1,000 AEC professionals found 27% currently using AI in operations and 94% planning to increase use in 2026\. In the same survey, 69% of respondents named regulatory uncertainty as a brake on their plans\. ```html-table
Firm SizeAI AdoptionPressure Profile
Large (50+, often 1,000+ employees)61%In-house counsel, dedicated risk staff, AI governance committees
Midsize (100-500 employees)42%RFP-scored on AI governance, limited internal legal capacity
Small (<50 employees)27%Less RFP exposure, less formal AI use, fewer client signals
``` Source: AIA 2024 Firm Survey[6](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-6); pressure descriptors are typical of the band\. A 250\-person firm signs maybe 30\-50 client agreements a year\. Each one carries the same insurance exposure\. One bad clause hits the whole portfolio\. The pressure compounds when budget conversations begin\. Funding contract review and an AI rider sits next to other operational AI investments\. See [how mid\-market firms are budgeting for AI program rollout](/blog/hidden-costs-ai-projects) for the dollars\-and\-hours dimension\. The pressure starts with insurance\. Here's what changed at the carrier\. ## The Insurance Gap That Drove This The insurance gap is the engine driving contract changes in 2026\. Verisk's CG 40 47 and CG 40 48 endorsements[1](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-1) gave commercial general liability carriers a standardized way to exclude AI\-related claims\. Individual carriers led by Berkley extended that exclusion logic into D&O, E&O, and Fiduciary Liability with form language that fires on AI use by any person or entity\. Berkley's PC 51380[2](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-2) excludes claims "arising from the actual or alleged use, deployment, or development of artificial intelligence by any person or entity\." That last phrase is the trap\. An embedded AI in a vendor's software can trigger the exclusion even when the firm never knowingly activated it\. Risk Specialty Group documents that Berkley's exclusion explicitly names ChatGPT, Bard, Midjourney, and DALL\-E[9](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-9)\. AIG, Great American, and WR Berkley have filed similar exclusions for regulatory approval\. Philadelphia Insurance and Hamilton Select have already excluded AI claims from professional liability lines\. ```html-table
CarrierForm / StatusLines AffectedEffective
Berkley23PC 51380 ("absolute" AI exclusion)D&O, E&O, Fiduciary2025-2026
Verisk industry forms1CG 40 47, CG 40 48Commercial General LiabilityJanuary 1, 2026
AIG, Great American, WR Berkley9Filing for regulatory approvalE&O / professional linesPending
Philadelphia Insurance, Hamilton Select9Already excludedE&O / professional linesIn effect
``` Stanford research from 2024[10](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-10) found that the LLMs tested hallucinated 69\-88% of the time on legal queries; even legal\-tailored tools showed significant error rates\. Frontier models have improved since, but no current tool is hallucination\-free on professional\-grade legal work\. Those error rates are the underwriting rationale\. Carriers don't think every firm using AI is reckless\. They think the technology generates a class of error that doesn't yet have stable mitigation, and they're pricing accordingly\. The exclusion landscape doesn't mean every policy excludes AI yet\. It means firms must ask, not assume\. One\-third of architecture firms now use AI tools daily[11](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-11), and architects under 35 use AI image generators at 66%, those over 50 at 41%\. Adoption is happening faster than carriers are pricing it\. State AI laws add another layer\. Texas TRAIGA took effect January 1, 2026, with penalties of $10,000\-$200,000 per violation; substantial NIST AI Risk Management Framework compliance provides a safe harbor[12](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-12)\. These statutes don't dictate the language of contracts for engineering services, but they establish operating obligations that contract review must account for\. Three questions to ask your broker before the next renewal: - Does our current E&O policy contain an AI exclusion endorsement? If yes, which form number? - What is the carrier's filed position on AI for the 2027 renewal? - What evidence of AI governance \(written policy, training, QA/QC procedures\) does the carrier want to see at renewal? When the policy shrinks, the contract has to grow\. Here are the eight clauses firms are quietly adding to make that math work\. ## The Eight Clauses Firms Are Adding Eight categories of contract language are showing up in mid\-market AEC engineering services agreements right now: AI use disclosure, prior written consent for new AI tools, data ownership and training restriction, standard of care preservation, IP allocation for AI\-assisted output, E&O insurance coordination, subconsultant flowdown, and audit rights\. These aren't eight clauses every firm must adopt\. They are eight categories of language showing up in active negotiation\. Some firms add them to the master services agreement \(MSA\) directly\. Others draft an AI rider, a supplemental document attached to the MSA that addresses AI\-specific issues without renegotiating the underlying contract\. Either approach works; the choice is largely about how much of the MSA is open for rework\. Many firms' tool stacks already include embedded AI in tools like Revit, Bluebeam, scheduling software, and Microsoft 365\. The question is whether the contract reflects what the studio is actually doing\. Morgan Lewis observes[19](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-19) that generic disclaimers are no longer sufficient for sophisticated buyers\. Sophisticated buyers want service\-oriented terms— defined service descriptions, performance warranties, governance rights, and outcome\-tied liability\. ```html-table
#ClauseWhat It Does
1AI Use DisclosureNames the firm's actual AI use in deliverables
2Prior Written ConsentRequires client sign-off before new AI tools enter the workflow
3Data Ownership and Training RestrictionRestricts vendor training on client project data
4Standard of Care PreservationAffirms AI use doesn't shift the engineer's or architect's duty
5IP Allocation for AI-Assisted OutputSpecifies who owns AI-assisted deliverables
6E&O Insurance CoordinationReallocates risk where the policy excludes AI
7Subconsultant FlowdownRequires subs and consultants to comply with the same provisions
8Audit and Right-to-InspectGives client the right to audit AI governance documentation
``` ### Clause 1: AI Use Disclosure - **What it does:** Names which AI tools the firm uses in producing deliverables and identifies the human review process\. - **Why it matters:** Establishes affirmative disclosure that protects against later "you didn't tell us" claims and aligns with the transparency recommendations in ACEC's Guidelines[13](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-13)\. - **Source anchor:** ACEC[13](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-13); Morgan Lewis on service\-oriented terms[19](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-19)\. ### Clause 2: Prior Written Consent for New AI Tools - **What it does:** Requires the firm to obtain client sign\-off before introducing new AI tools into the project workflow, with the threshold for consent calibrated to risk level\. - **Why it matters:** A tool change mid\-project can change the data flow, the IP picture, and the carrier's view of the engagement\. Consent at the outset closes the gap\. - **Source anchor:** Tascon's tiered\-by\-risk approach[23](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-23)\. ### Clause 3: Data Ownership and Training Restriction - **What it does:** Restricts the firm and its AI vendors from using client project data to train models, and specifies who owns the data the firm puts into AI tools\. - **Why it matters:** Morgan Lewis names data and IP ownership as one of the most actively negotiated areas[19](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-19)\. Contract Nerds catalogs an AI training prohibition as a standard category[21](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-21)\. Realistic scenario: a team uploads client drawings to a document review AI to flag spec inconsistencies\. Without a training restriction, the vendor's terms may permit those drawings to inform future model training\. That's a discoverable problem if the client asks where its design data went\. - **Source anchor:** Morgan Lewis[19](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-19); Contract Nerds[21](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-21)\. ### Clause 4: Standard of Care Preservation - **What it does:** Affirms that the firm's standard of care is the duty of a competent professional in the same field, and that AI use does not modify that duty\. - **Why it matters:** Forecloses any argument that AI use shifts the duty\. Backed by ASCE Policy Statement 573[14](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-14) and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review opinion[15](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-15)\. AIA's January 2026 Position Statement[17](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-17) makes the same point: AI supports rather than replaces professional judgment\. - **Source anchor:** ASCE PS 573[14](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-14); NSPE BER opinion[15](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-15); NSPE PE Seal Position Statement[16](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-16); AIA[17](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-17)\. ### Clause 5: IP Allocation for AI\-Assisted Output - **What it does:** Specifies who owns AI\-assisted deliverables and what licenses run with them\. Identifies whether AI\-generated drawings, calculations, or text are owned by the firm or licensed to the client\. - **Why it matters:** Frantz Ward identifies IP allocation as one of five critical gaps in standard AIA agreements[18](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-18)\. Lexology lists IP and warranties as one of eight essential clauses for AI contracts[22](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-22)\. Bonterms publishes a CC0\-licensed standard clause library[20](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-20) that gives counsel a starting point\. - **Source anchor:** Frantz Ward[18](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-18); Lexology[22](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-22); Bonterms[20](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-20)\. ### Clause 6: E&O Insurance Coordination - **What it does:** Acknowledges the carrier's AI position and reallocates risk between firm and client where the policy excludes AI claims\. - **Why it matters:** This is the bridge from the insurance gap to the contractual cure\. Frantz Ward names insurance alignment as the fifth critical gap in standard AIA agreements[18](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-18)\. Realistic scenario: a client claims an AI\-assisted load calculation produced a structural error; the E&O policy excludes AI\-related claims under Berkley's PC 51380 language[2](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-2)\. The contract decides who pays for the gap the policy left\. - **Source anchor:** Frantz Ward[18](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-18); Risk Specialty Group on carrier landscape[9](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-9)\. ### Clause 7: Subconsultant Flowdown - **What it does:** Requires the firm's subs and consultants to comply with the same AI provisions— disclosure, consent, training restriction, standard of care\. - **Why it matters:** Berkley's "any person or entity" language[2](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-2) means a sub's AI use can trigger the exclusion even when the prime firm has its own house in order\. Realistic scenario: a civil sub uses an AI\-assisted scheduling tool to optimize the project schedule\. No one on the prime team activates that tool\. Without flowdown, the prime's policy and the sub's policy may both have gaps no one has mapped\. - **Source anchor:** Hunton on Berkley language[2](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-2); Contract Nerds[21](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-21); Frantz Ward[18](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-18)\. ### Clause 8: Audit and Right\-to\-Inspect - **What it does:** Gives the client \(or its insurance carrier\) the right to audit the firm's AI governance documentation, including written policy, training records, and QA/QC procedures\. - **Why it matters:** Lexology lists security and audit as essential[22](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-22)\. GSA's proposed clause GSAR 552\.239\-7001[24](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-24) institutes audit and disclosure provisions for federal contractors, signaling where the private market is heading\. - **Source anchor:** Lexology[22](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-22); Holland & Knight on the GSA clause[24](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-24)\. These clauses don't appear in standard contract templates\. Here's what the standards bodies actually say\. ## What ACEC, AIA, ASCE, and NSPE Actually Recommend Every major AEC standards body has published AI guidance: ACEC in July 2024, ASCE in July 2024, NSPE in July 2024, and AIA in January 2026\. None of them mandate specific contract language\. Each frames its position as guidance and recommends that firms work with legal counsel to translate principles into clauses\. ACEC's Guidelines on the Use of AI by Design Professional Firms[13](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-13) explicitly state: > "Neither these Guidelines nor anything set forth herein constitute requirements, mandates, or an establishment of any facet of a design professional's standard of care\." That quiet line is doing real work\. It signals that ACEC won't be the body that prescribes the language\. Firms must commission their own\. ACEC's companion piece in Engineering Inc[26](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-26) adds that transparency, disclosure of AI to clients, data ownership, and human review before delivery are the practical priorities\. The four\-body alignment, in plain terms: - **ACEC**[13](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-13): Recommends legal review of internal policies, client agreements, and AI tool procurement contracts; emphasizes transparency\. - **ASCE Policy Statement 573**[14](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-14): PE remains accountable; AI cannot substitute for professional judgment\. - **NSPE Board of Ethical Review**[15](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-15): Engineers using AI must give credit per Code section III\.9 and maintain client confidentiality\. Engineers must also stay within their areas of competence\. - **AIA Position Statement**[17](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-17): AI supports rather than replaces professional judgment\. AIA formed an AI Task Force on January 29, 2026 to keep guidance current\. The pattern across the four bodies is consistent\. Professional accountability holds\. Transparency to clients matters\. And the contract language itself is left to firms and their counsel\. Insurance brokers parallel the same logic\. WTW's 2025 guidance for design professionals[25](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-25) recommends QA/QC procedures, professional review of AI output, and client contract updates as the three\-legged stool\. If you're stitching this together with a broader AI strategy, [our analysis of AI governance strategy for founder\-led firms](/blog/ai-governance-strategy) covers the operating model that sits underneath the contract decisions\. All four positions point at one anchor that hasn't moved\. ## The PE Seal Still Means What It Has Always Meant The most important thing to know about AI and engineering contracts in 2026 is what hasn't changed: the licensed Professional Engineer remains accountable, and the seal still means what it has always meant\. AI use doesn't shift the duty\. It only changes the workflow that produces the work the PE seals\. ASCE Policy Statement 573[14](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-14) puts it directly: > "AI cannot serve as a replacement for the professional judgement of a licensed Professional Engineer\." NSPE's standing position on the PE Seal[16](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-16) anchors the same point\. Sealing engineering documents signifies that the work was prepared by the PE or under the PE's direct control or personal supervision\. NSPE's Code of Ethics also requires that engineers perform only in areas of their competence\. That obligation doesn't relax because an AI tool is involved\. The standard of care evolves over time\. As AI use becomes ordinary practice, what counts as competent practice will shift with it\. The contract isn't trying to freeze the standard\. The contract is trying to allocate the risk that comes with workflow change\. The PE seal is the source of truth\. AI is a tool\. Contracts don't change the engineering\. They allocate the risk that comes with how the engineering gets done\. People are the answer, not AI\. Knowing the eight clauses is one thing\. Doing something about them this week is another\. ## Three Things To Do This Week Three actions cover the immediate gap: call your E&O carrier and ask their AI position, commission a review of the firm's engineering services agreement with construction\-experienced counsel, and add a one\-page AI policy attachment to the next three RFP responses to test client reaction\. **1\. Call your E&O carrier\.** The carrier conversation should happen before the next renewal, not at it\. Ask the broker: "What is our carrier's current position on AI exclusions, and will our 2027 renewal carry one?" Risk Specialty Group's coverage of the carrier landscape[9](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-9) is the briefing material for this conversation\. If the answer is yes, ask what evidence of AI governance the carrier wants to see\. **2\. Commission an MSA review with construction\-experienced counsel\.** ACEC's guidelines explicitly recommend this[13](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-13)\. Frantz Ward's five\-gap diagnostic[18](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-18) is a useful starting frame for the conversation\. The MSA review doesn't need to produce final language in the first pass\. It needs to produce a prioritized list of where the current contract goes silent on AI\. Then counsel can draft\. **3\. Test the market with an AI policy attachment\.** Add a one\-page AI policy attachment to the next three RFP responses\. Light enough to revise after seeing client reaction\. Specific enough to demonstrate that the firm has thought it through\. Morgan Lewis's read on what sophisticated clients want[19](/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc#ref-19) is the calibration document\. If the firm is also weighing other AI investments alongside this contract work, [the framework for evaluating AI investment decisions](/blog/ai-decision-framework-founders) is built for the principal making that call\. There's a deeper question underneath all of this\. ## The Contract Reflects The Studio Updating client contracts in 2026 does two things at once\. It defends against AI risk, and it signals what kind of firm runs the work\. Both are true\. All of it matters\. Sophisticated clients read AI clauses as a competence indicator\. Generic disclaimers say the firm hasn't thought about it\. Specific clauses say the firm runs its studio with intention\. The contract becomes a small but legible piece of evidence about how the work gets done\. Your client agreement should reflect what's actually happening inside your office\. If the team uses AI features in Revit and Bluebeam, the contract should say so\. If they don't, don't pretend they do\. AI can make words\. AI can't make meaning\. The contract is the meaning, and only the firm can author that\. The principal making this call usually does it best with a partner who's already thinking across insurance, contract, and operations together\. [Dan Cumberland Labs' AI strategy services](/services/ai-strategy) help mid\-market AEC firms work through that intersection\. The firms updating their contracts now are the ones running toward the change\. ## FAQ ### Does my current E&O policy already exclude AI claims? It may\. Berkley's PC 51380 absolute AI exclusion is already in effect across D&O, E&O, and Fiduciary lines, and Philadelphia Insurance and Hamilton Select have also excluded AI claims from professional liability policies\. The article recommends calling your broker before the next renewal and asking specifically which form number applies to your policy\. ### Do the standard AIA and EJCDC contract templates address AI? No\. The 2026 editions of both AIA and EJCDC contracts leave AI unaddressed\. AIA's position is to guide firms toward existing approved language rather than author AI\-specific clauses, and EJCDC's 2026 release includes several updates but leaves AI to individual firms\. ### If a subconsultant uses AI without my knowledge, does that affect my coverage? Yes, it can\. Berkley's PC 51380 exclusion fires on AI use "by any person or entity," meaning a subconsultant's use of an AI tool can trigger the exclusion even when the prime firm never activated it\. That is the specific risk the subconsultant flowdown clause is designed to close\. ### Does using AI change the standard of care a licensed PE is held to? No\. ASCE Policy Statement 573 states directly that AI cannot replace the professional judgment of a licensed PE, and NSPE's position on the PE seal holds that sealing documents signifies work prepared by or under the PE's direct control\. The standard of care preservation clause in the article reinforces this by affirming that AI use does not modify the engineer's professional duty\. ## References 1. Verisk \(via IndependentAgent\.com Virtual University\), "Verisk to Roll Out New General Liability Exclusions for Generative AI Exposures" \(2025\) — [https://www\.independentagent\.com/vu\_resource/verisk\-to\-roll\-out\-new\-general\-liability\-exclusions\-for\-generative\-ai\-exposures/](https://www.independentagent.com/vu_resource/verisk-to-roll-out-new-general-liability-exclusions-for-generative-ai-exposures/) 2. Hunton Andrews Kurth, "The Continued Proliferation of AI Exclusions" \(2025\) — [https://www\.hunton\.com/hunton\-insurance\-recovery\-blog/the\-continued\-proliferation\-of\-ai\-exclusions](https://www.hunton.com/hunton-insurance-recovery-blog/the-continued-proliferation-of-ai-exclusions) 3. National Law Review, "Berkley Introduces 'Absolute' AI Exclusion in Liability Policies" \(2025\) — [https://natlawreview\.com/article/continued\-proliferation\-ai\-exclusions](https://natlawreview.com/article/continued-proliferation-ai-exclusions) 4. AIA Contract Documents, "Artificial Intelligence: Rhetoric and Reality" \(2024\) — [https://help\.aiacontracts\.com/hc/en\-us/articles/30057732783763\-Artificial\-Intelligence\-Rhetoric\-and\-Reality](https://help.aiacontracts.com/hc/en-us/articles/30057732783763-Artificial-Intelligence-Rhetoric-and-Reality) 5. Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee \(EJCDC\), "EJCDC Releases the 2026 Edition of the EJCDC Traditional Design/Build Family of Documents" \(2026\) — [https://ejcdc\.org/the\-engineers\-joint\-contract\-documents\-committee\-ejcdc\-releases\-the\-2026\-edition\-of\-the\-ejcdc\-traditional\-design\-build\-family\-of\-documents/](https://ejcdc.org/the-engineers-joint-contract-documents-committee-ejcdc-releases-the-2026-edition-of-the-ejcdc-traditional-design-build-family-of-documents/) 6. American Institute of Architects \(AIA\), "AIA Research Explores Perceptions and Opportunities of Artificial Intelligence" \(2025\) — [https://www\.aia\.org/about\-aia/press/new\-research\-explores\-perceptions\-and\-opportunities\-artificial\-intelligence](https://www.aia.org/about-aia/press/new-research-explores-perceptions-and-opportunities-artificial-intelligence) 7. Deltek, "What the 46th Annual Deltek Clarity A&E Study Reveals About the Architecture and Engineering Industry" \(2025\) — [https://www\.deltek\.com/en/about/media\-center/press\-releases/2025/what\-the\-46th\-annual\-deltek\-clarity\-ae\-study\-reveals\-about\-the\-industry](https://www.deltek.com/en/about/media-center/press-releases/2025/what-the-46th-annual-deltek-clarity-ae-study-reveals-about-the-industry) 8. American Society of Civil Engineers \(ASCE\) / Civil Engineering Source \(citing Bluebeam survey\), "Architecture, Engineering, Construction Sector Slow to Adopt AI, Survey Shows" \(2025\) — [https://www\.asce\.org/publications\-and\-news/civil\-engineering\-source/article/2025/12/18/architecture\-engineering\-construction\-sector\-slow\-to\-adapt\-ai\-survey\-shows](https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/article/2025/12/18/architecture-engineering-construction-sector-slow-to-adapt-ai-survey-shows) 9. Risk Specialty Group, "AI Liability Insurance For Architects" \(2026\) — [https://riskspecialtygroup\.com/ai\-liability\-insurance\-architects\-2026/](https://riskspecialtygroup.com/ai-liability-insurance-architects-2026/) 10. Stanford Human\-Centered AI Institute, "Hallucinating Law: Legal Mistakes with Large Language Models Are Pervasive" \(2024\) — [https://hai\.stanford\.edu/news/hallucinating\-law\-legal\-mistakes\-large\-language\-models\-are\-pervasive](https://hai.stanford.edu/news/hallucinating-law-legal-mistakes-large-language-models-are-pervasive) 11. FinancialContent / MarketersMedia, "Insurance Carriers Add AI Exclusions to Design Professional E&O Policies" \(2026\) — [https://www\.financialcontent\.com/article/marketersmedia\-2026\-1\-16\-insurance\-carriers\-add\-ai\-exclusions\-to\-design\-professional\-e\-and\-o\-policies](https://www.financialcontent.com/article/marketersmedia-2026-1-16-insurance-carriers-add-ai-exclusions-to-design-professional-e-and-o-policies) 12. Norton Rose Fulbright, "The Texas Responsible AI Governance Act: What Your Company Needs to Know Before January 1" \(2025\) — [https://www\.nortonrosefulbright\.com/en/knowledge/publications/c6c60e0c/the\-texas\-responsible\-ai\-governance\-act](https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/c6c60e0c/the-texas-responsible-ai-governance-act) 13. American Council of Engineering Companies \(ACEC\), "Guidelines on the Use of AI by Design Professional Firms" \(2024\) — [https://www\.acec\.org/resource/guidelines\-on\-the\-use\-of\-ai\-by\-design\-professional\-firms/](https://www.acec.org/resource/guidelines-on-the-use-of-ai-by-design-professional-firms/) 14. American Society of Civil Engineers \(ASCE\), "Policy Statement 573 — Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Responsibility" \(2024\) — [https://www\.asce\.org/advocacy/policy\-statements/ps573\-\-\-artificial\-intelligence\-and\-engineering\-responsibility](https://www.asce.org/advocacy/policy-statements/ps573---artificial-intelligence-and-engineering-responsibility) 15. National Society of Professional Engineers \(NSPE\), "Use of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Practice \(Board of Ethical Review\)" \(2024\) — [https://www\.nspe\.org/career\-growth/ethics/board\-ethical\-review\-cases/use\-artificial\-intelligence\-engineering\-practice](https://www.nspe.org/career-growth/ethics/board-ethical-review-cases/use-artificial-intelligence-engineering-practice) 16. National Society of Professional Engineers \(NSPE\), "Use of the Professional Engineer Seal — Position Statement" — [https://www\.nspe\.org/nspe\-advocacy/explore\-issues/professional\-policies\-and\-position\-statements/use\-the\-professional](https://www.nspe.org/nspe-advocacy/explore-issues/professional-policies-and-position-statements/use-the-professional) 17. American Institute of Architects \(AIA\), "AI Task Force" \(2026\) — [https://www\.aia\.org/resource\-center/ai\-task\-force](https://www.aia.org/resource-center/ai-task-force) 18. Frantz Ward LLP via JD Supra, "AI Is Already on Your Project\. Your Contract Doesn't Know It\." \(2026\) — [https://www\.jdsupra\.com/legalnews/ai\-is\-already\-on\-your\-project\-your\-4185383/](https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ai-is-already-on-your-project-your-4185383/) 19. Morgan Lewis, "Negotiating AI Provisions in Commercial and Technology Contracts: Where the Market Is Heading" \(2026\) — [https://www\.morganlewis\.com/blogs/sourcingatmorganlewis/2026/04/negotiating\-ai\-provisions\-in\-commercial\-and\-technology\-contracts\-where\-the\-market\-is\-heading](https://www.morganlewis.com/blogs/sourcingatmorganlewis/2026/04/negotiating-ai-provisions-in-commercial-and-technology-contracts-where-the-market-is-heading) 20. Bonterms Standard Agreements Committee, "AI Standard Clauses Version 1\.0" \(2026\) — [https://bonterms\.com/forms/ai\-standard\-clauses\-version\-1\-0](https://bonterms.com/forms/ai-standard-clauses-version-1-0) 21. Contract Nerds, "7 AI\-Specific Confidentiality Clauses" \(2025\) — [https://contractnerds\.com/7\-ai\-specific\-confidentiality\-clauses/](https://contractnerds.com/7-ai-specific-confidentiality-clauses/) 22. Lexology / A&L Goodbody LLP, "Eight Essential Clauses for AI Contracts" \(2025\) — [https://www\.lexology\.com/library/detail\.aspx?g=1ab888e0\-c14b\-47a8\-9e6a\-531dbac057aa](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1ab888e0-c14b-47a8-9e6a-531dbac057aa) 23. Tascon Legal, "AI Clauses In Contracts: The Practical Guide For 2025" \(2025\) — [https://tasconlegal\.com/ai\-clauses\-in\-contracts\-the\-practical\-guide\-for\-2025/](https://tasconlegal.com/ai-clauses-in-contracts-the-practical-guide-for-2025/) 24. Holland & Knight, "GSA's Proposed AI Clause: A Deep Dive into New Requirements for Government Contractors" \(2026\) — [https://www\.hklaw\.com/en/insights/publications/2026/03/gsas\-proposed\-ai\-clause\-a\-deep\-dive](https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/03/gsas-proposed-ai-clause-a-deep-dive) 25. WTW \(Willis Towers Watson\), "AI Risks and Guidelines for Design Professionals" \(2025\) — [https://www\.wtwco\.com/en\-us/insights/2025/02/ai\-risks\-and\-guidelines\-for\-design\-professionals](https://www.wtwco.com/en-us/insights/2025/02/ai-risks-and-guidelines-for-design-professionals) 26. Engineering Inc \(ACEC\), "AI Risks Get Real" \(2024\) — [https://engineeringinc\.acec\.org/feature/ai\-risks\-get\-real/](https://engineeringinc.acec.org/feature/ai-risks-get-real/) --- Source: https://dancumberlandlabs.com/blog/contract-engineering-services-inc/