In cases like this, is seems that contractors have the ability to pressure the engineers to accelerate design and accept substandard construction much more so than when the tie to the owner was direct.
I think we discussed Design/Build vs Owner/Consultant earlier in Part I of this thread (January 2020). The difference I see is that the contractors have a short-term responsibility -- they are mostly concerned with failures during construction (though they can be held responsible for substandard work years after the work is completed), and owners have longer-term interests. The construction company can only be held liable for errors in HOW the building was constructed, not errors in the building design or operation. However, when the "owners" are a company that was created to build and own a single building ("1031 Canal Street") which will be operated under a licensing agreement with an operating company ("Hard Rock International"), then the owners are able to shield their other assets (surely they have other assets) from liability or bankruptcy judgments. In the past, if a corporation bought land and built a new commercial development, they owned many other assets as well that could be held liable in the event of an at-fault judgment. Similarly, a corporation like Exxon owns a refinery operation, whether or not they own or lease the land, and hires engineers to design foundations and equipment structures that they will be responsible for over the long term, so they have a long-term interest in not having problems with their structures and foundations.
Just thinking "on the fly" here as an interested observer. I'm no expert in Design/Build or commercial real estate.