Time and again, safety during construction is not part of a design and the constructors are left to decide what bracing is needed. Or more precisely, the EOR doesn't have responsibility for means and methods, and the person doing the 'pre-engineering" of components or a system doesn't have the information required to design the bracing (that is, how bracing carries forces back to the rest of the structure or the ground.) In the wood truss industry, many (most?) suppliers do not show in-process bracing. I suspect the same applies to some PEMB. OSHA does have some coverage on this.
Frequently, I hear from contractors that "the engineer over-designed this thing and it would be fine with half this much reinforcement." We, as designers, need to do a better job of interacting with contractors so they respect our designs, and when we do indicate bracing they abide by it. I would guess that the erector has used these same techniques previously with success. What I do not understand is why the permanent lateral bracing on the sidewalls was not installed before the roof purlins were being set. It seems like it would have been difficult to true up the building and keep it that way. Sad as it is, better that this happened now than when it was occupied if the bracing was simply forgotten. (We obviously don't know the circumstances yet, but lack of adequate bracing seems to be the obvious culprit.)
I have been working with a construction engineering program at a nearby university. These student will be uniquely positioned to help reduce these problems. Their curriculum is half structural engineering and half construction management. I guess I should discuss this example with the professor since it is so near. (I rode past this high school on Tuesday.)