In your office, who on the project team is looking at and fully understanding the documents that end up becoming the contract for construction? Principle, project architect, project manager, construction administrator, legal dept., spec writer, intern, etc? Some combination of the above? It might also be helpful to know what the typical project delivery method is; design-build, design-bid-build, design-negotiate-build, etc.
Also, by "documents that end up becoming the contract for construction" I'm talking about the General Conditions (AIA A201), Supplementary Conditions, Agreement, etc. And by "fully understand" I mean actually sitting down and reading them to know what that means for your office's obligations to the Owner according to that agreement.
typcially that would be the PM and Spec Writer at a minimum (and CA staff during construction) - how else can you do your work unless you understand your contractual requirements for the project? Always a good idea to get your PA and interns reading the agreements as well to help them understand both their roles and the big picture.
I would expect the PM and spec writer at a minimum. I've started to branch out a little more and ask to see some of these documents for projects I'm working on. My office is willing to allow it, and it was a suggestion from a mentor of mine in the office. However, I've found that some PMs don't even know what I'm asking for when I ask for the General Conditions. Some do and I look forward to working on projects they manage, but it's scary to think that there are some projects, fairly large ones I might add, that have PMs that have not even looked at these documents.
Good inclination on your part. Look at the range of AIA docs on the AIA website - read what the purpose of each is... There is a doc for EVERYTHING ....probably one for making coffee.... But download the A201, A101, and the B101 sample versions -- free from several sites in PDF format. Read them all the way through. Listen to the Schiff Hardin lectures for free online.
Although I would not point it out to your coworkers, you are quite correct -- many staffers have a very thin understanding of contracts.
I'll add that the even when a PM knows what the documents are, that doesn't mean they understand them. I'm starting to see that, at least in my office, the only people who really understand them are the spec writers, with a few exceptions. They'll bore you to death with all the gritty details, but they at least understand the documents.
"...the only people who really understand them are the spec writers, with a few exceptions..."
Yeah, that's not typical, in my experience. Spec writers put Division 1 together, but they have little if any experience administering contracts during construction, which is where the rubber meets the road.
CD's serve 2 purposes 1) estimating and 2) layout & assembly of components on site.... these are construction functions and someone who has estimated and built a building should do final review... not many architects fit this qualification.
If you plan to stay out of court, protect your self from liability, & pass the a.r.e., you better have an understanding of the contract documents! If not sciff & hardin has audio lecture files on-line thouroughly explaining contract law, contract documents (A201, B101, etc.) copyright law, etc... & they do an outstanding job explaining it all
And don't forget the building code. Like the IBC 107.2.4 Exterior wall envelope. I hang lots of architects in litigation over that one. Nasty stuff like all the flashing details and intersections.
And the one most miss:
"The construction documents shall include manufacturer's installation instructions that provide supporting documentation that the proposed penetration and opening details described in the construction documents maintain the weather resistance of the exterior wall envelope. The supporting documentation shall fully describe the exterior wall system which was tested, where applicable, as well as the test procedure used."
Basically how you are hung. This is building code. This is a minimum. This is law. There is no valid defense for not meeting the minimum required by law. It is negligence (in the legal term), not just an omission.
Jan 20, 15 10:55 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Who really understands contract documents
In your office, who on the project team is looking at and fully understanding the documents that end up becoming the contract for construction? Principle, project architect, project manager, construction administrator, legal dept., spec writer, intern, etc? Some combination of the above? It might also be helpful to know what the typical project delivery method is; design-build, design-bid-build, design-negotiate-build, etc.
Also, by "documents that end up becoming the contract for construction" I'm talking about the General Conditions (AIA A201), Supplementary Conditions, Agreement, etc. And by "fully understand" I mean actually sitting down and reading them to know what that means for your office's obligations to the Owner according to that agreement.
typcially that would be the PM and Spec Writer at a minimum (and CA staff during construction) - how else can you do your work unless you understand your contractual requirements for the project? Always a good idea to get your PA and interns reading the agreements as well to help them understand both their roles and the big picture.
I would expect the PM and spec writer at a minimum. I've started to branch out a little more and ask to see some of these documents for projects I'm working on. My office is willing to allow it, and it was a suggestion from a mentor of mine in the office. However, I've found that some PMs don't even know what I'm asking for when I ask for the General Conditions. Some do and I look forward to working on projects they manage, but it's scary to think that there are some projects, fairly large ones I might add, that have PMs that have not even looked at these documents.
Good inclination on your part. Look at the range of AIA docs on the AIA website - read what the purpose of each is... There is a doc for EVERYTHING ....probably one for making coffee.... But download the A201, A101, and the B101 sample versions -- free from several sites in PDF format. Read them all the way through. Listen to the Schiff Hardin lectures for free online.
Although I would not point it out to your coworkers, you are quite correct -- many staffers have a very thin understanding of contracts.
I'll add that the even when a PM knows what the documents are, that doesn't mean they understand them. I'm starting to see that, at least in my office, the only people who really understand them are the spec writers, with a few exceptions. They'll bore you to death with all the gritty details, but they at least understand the documents.
"...the only people who really understand them are the spec writers, with a few exceptions..."
Yeah, that's not typical, in my experience. Spec writers put Division 1 together, but they have little if any experience administering contracts during construction, which is where the rubber meets the road.
CD's serve 2 purposes 1) estimating and 2) layout & assembly of components on site.... these are construction functions and someone who has estimated and built a building should do final review... not many architects fit this qualification.
If you plan to stay out of court, protect your self from liability, & pass the a.r.e., you better have an understanding of the contract documents! If not sciff & hardin has audio lecture files on-line thouroughly explaining contract law, contract documents (A201, B101, etc.) copyright law, etc... & they do an outstanding job explaining it all
And don't forget the building code. Like the IBC 107.2.4 Exterior wall envelope. I hang lots of architects in litigation over that one. Nasty stuff like all the flashing details and intersections.
And the one most miss:
Basically how you are hung. This is building code. This is a minimum. This is law. There is no valid defense for not meeting the minimum required by law. It is negligence (in the legal term), not just an omission.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.