I am the only architect and responsible in charge who works for a multidiscipline firm. We always use AIA contract forms on our projects. I never see them, review them or sign off on them. Believe me, this is not by choice. The owner is a crusty old structural engineer who also thinks he's an architect. He flat out told me once "I am the architect, not you". Is it legal for our firm to use the AIA forms and have them signed off on by someone who is not an architect or responsible in charge of architectural work? It seams strange to me that a structural engineer would sign off on a substantial completion form that says "has been found, to the Architect's best knowledge,....to be substantially complete". It doesn't seem legal to me that he would sign for me. He also signs off on my specifications. Very weird but I don't know that it is illegal. Does anyone have any experience with this or have any thoughts.
??? What signed agreement, he is my boss, I work at the firm he owns. My employment letter states that I am the "responsible in charge of architectural work". Its really more of a question about the legality of someone who is not an architect signing legal documents as if he was an architect. This guy is about 5' tall with thick glasses and a bald head. I think its more short mans syndrome than anything. I just wonder if I am getting some legal exposure.
Shellarchitect - You sound like a normal person, thank you for your input. Yes I am stamping drawings and preparing specifications. I am the only architect here so all architectural work is prepared under my supervision. Its just the contracts and AIA forms that I am not included on. The owner has all direct contact with the clients so I am given no opportunity to prepare these documents.
It is odd to me that you assume I have an attorney on retainer or that you suggest I need one at all. And to be clear, you are the one who reduced my question to a personal attack. "You "wonder". Jesus". Is a personal attack on my intelligence, don't be surprised or get upset when I return the favor. If you don't understand that this stuff happens all the time between employers and employees you are naïve. That's why I think it's odd, you may be able to afford an attorney every time life gets into gray areas but I can't. However, you are correct, the question that I originally posted deals with the issue of who can sign as an architect under AIA forms, that is what I am trying to discuss. And yes I am in a difficult situation, again, that is what I am seeking feedback on.
Oct 27, 17 5:06 pm ·
·
JBeaumont
Please don't take Mr. Balkins' advice on modifications to AIA contracts. He obviously has no familiarity with these documents - not only no familiarity with the documents themselves, but no familiarity with the process of editing them. If you pay for access to the contract software, you may edit them in any way you choose - there's no copyright issue - you're buying the right to edit them. But if you change defined terms referring to parties (for instance chaning "Owner" to "Client") then you need to address that in all of the hundreds/thousands of places it occurs in any of the documents you're using (i.e. everything from the bond forms to requisition forms to terms of use of digital content forms, etc.) - and more importantly you'd need to change the contract definitions of "Client", "Owner", "Design Professional", etc. It's an extensive suite of documents, with defined terms - changing anything in one place requires careful followup throughout.
If you're going to make changes to any model contracts (whether AIA's, EJCDC's, or whatever) in order to develop a firm-specific template, always consult your firm's insurer, and an attorney experienced with construction law.
Jan 2, 18 10:40 am ·
·
JBeaumont
The OP is talking about a multi-disciplinary firm with large enough projects to have project manuals. The suite of AIA documents they're using is likely many documents per project and potentially thousands of pages. I'm not as concerned about the amount of typing as with the cross-coordination with other industry-standard documents and reference standards, and with the implications of changing defined contractual terms. If there's some great advantage to calling an Owner a "client" then I'm sure the firm's insurer and attorney will say so when the OP consults with them - but the can of worms that opens extends far beyond the AIA documents themselves, to literally tens of thousands of industry standards referenced in a typical project manual. Also retyping an AIA contract by hand into a doc file does in fact violate AIA's terms of use, if you obtained the original as part of a single-use or per-use package, which is the case for most architectural firms - or if you obtained it for non-commercial use (as is the case if you got it through academic channels, or as part of a student package, etc.)
Jan 2, 18 2:01 pm ·
·
JBeaumont
There are in fact AIA documents designed for A/E firms. Also the "design professional" field is linked/editable throughout the suite (so no typing required - it's a one-stop change, providing you're using legally licensed AIA software). What I'm objecting to is your bizarre advice that the defined term "Owner" be changed.
In any case the OP stated that this has already been addressed through his state and that the owner is in the right with regard to contracts. The problem seems to be in regard to affixing his seal to the specifications without including the seal of the person who actually prepared those.
Jan 2, 18 2:04 pm ·
·
JBeaumont
In contract language the "Owner" is the party contracting with the design professional or contractor. The definitions in the AIA contracts specifically state that that person or entity may or may not actually own the land or the building where the project is sited, and that the party named "Owner" in the contracts may be a tenant, or a prospective buyer of the site or building, or in various other positions of non-ownership of the subject site or building. Regardless, that person is the "Owner" for contract purposes. In contract language a landowner who is not the party contracting with the design professional or contractor is typically referred to as the "landlord" (yes regardless of whether any lease or rent agreement pertains, and yes uncapitalized, as they are not a party to the contract.) Does your school offer any construction law courses? Or can you take some seminars through your insurer? It would help a lot with your understanding AIA documents.
Jan 2, 18 4:23 pm ·
·
Gloominati
Ugh. This thread is reminding me of a couple different young guys I had working in my office: one of them decided that "project manual" didn't seem like the right name for the big-book-of-specs-and-procurement-docs and set about renaming it throughout our documents, without talking to someone more senior first. He was quite surprised and sheepish to learn that's an industry-wide term that would need to be redefined not only throughout our own office documents, but all through the AIA documents - not to mention all through contractors', OPM's, etc.'s vocabularies. The other kid objected to the graphic design of various Division 00 forms - you know, those stodgy and uninspired old bid forms, unit prices forms, bond forms... He decided to surprise us with his inspired artistic re-do - and then was dismayed to learn that the forms were our client's in-house standard and the re-design wasn't appreciated by the client or their attorney. Most often there are reasons behind why things are the way they are. It's best not to redecorate at all until a thorough fluency with the present whys.
Jan 2, 18 4:57 pm ·
·
Gloominati
JB is correct - it states that in the commentary for the 2007 and both more recent versions, as well as in the referenced definitions. The sample documents in the AHPP don't include the commentaries, and the definitions are a separate document - usually when you prepare contracts with the AIA software you incorporate the definitions directly.
Jan 2, 18 5:03 pm ·
·
Gloominati
Amending contract language should be done by people who understand contract language. The firm should involve appropriate advisors. Amending of contract language by people with limited understanding of the implications is a recipe for disaster.
Jan 2, 18 5:09 pm ·
·
Gloominati
The definitions are typically part of the contract. They come as an option, that is incorporated into the contract with the AIA software - i.e. you decide when writing the contract whether you want to put them in there or not. If you don't explicitly include the definitions pages, and you end up in court, you end up being held to those definitions anyway, because they're the industry recognized definitions. That's why it's a bad idea to start tinkering with them. The title of the design professional can be swapped out in the contract writing suite - it's set up as an option - it's not a big deal. Changing other terms (client, owner, landlord, project manual...) is not that straight-forward and should not be undertaken lightly.
Jan 2, 18 5:26 pm ·
·
Gloominati
There's no problem in this case with the use of "Architect" in the contracts anyway. The OP is in a state where a firm that provides architectural services can be owned by non-architects. The firm's principal, though not an architect, is allowed to sign a contract for architectural services because he is signing as an agent of a firm that is allowed to provide those services. See the OP's follow up post about this below, in which he specifically states that he verified this with his state board. The "architect" for contractual language purposes is the corporation - not the agent of the corporation. The only problem from the state's perspective is that the engineer shouldn't be signing/sealing architectural specifications when he was not the professional who prepared them. But if I were the OP and did not have ownership in this firm I would not be so anxious to have my seal on those...
Maybe you could contact your state board on the matter? Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't signing a legal contract claiming to be a licensed architect just as illegal as stamping documents with a fake stamp? This also seems odd to me because, to my knowledge, in the state where I live you are not allowed to own an architectural firm that provides architectural services unless you are licensed.
Oct 27, 17 5:35 pm ·
·
thisisnotmyname
You are correct in jurisdictions where the use of the title "Architect" is legally restricted by a professional title law.
Oct 27, 17 5:40 pm ·
·
thisisnotmyname
As AIA documents have the term "Architect" used throughout, an unlicensed person using that title by signing AIA forms risks running afoul of their state's professional title law.
Oct 27, 17 5:44 pm ·
·
thisisnotmyname
Indeed. Replacing the term "Architect" something legal in your state is all you need to do to keep out of trouble. I think the AIA will happily sell the forms to anyone who wants to buy them. You don't have to be an AIA member to purchase or use them.
I think the original question raises additional questions... especially regarding the structure of your employment. Saying "It doesn't seem legal to me that he would sign for me" would indeed trigger many of us to suggest you have a lawyer review the situation and your employment contract, as well as your employers use of your license to stamp work while excluding you from some of the responsibilities that go along with that stamp. But that varies by state, and may or may not be legit - we don't have enough info really to tell. Lawyers are expensive, but so is getting sued by a client or contractor for something you stamped that was then ok'd by someone else so you never even got to review if it was done per plan. In fact, that could be far more expensive. Do you have insurance? Does your employer have insurance that names you as additional insured? Are you in a state where the office holds all liability or in one where the architect personally does? If so, what does the insurance company say about the situation? They are usually a good source for this sort of advice and may have legal counsel who can assist you. I would assume your office has insurance and you don't (based on the above questions) - if so check to see if it covers YOU not just the office. I would do two things: 1. review situation with a lawyer for advice, then 2. reorganize your employment terms to reflect the correct responsible control by an architect per lawyers advice. You sound like you have no control over this, but you are in fact the only one with a stamp there right? Can he keep doing work without you? Recognize what power you have and use it to set things up correctly. Sounds like an alternate move is to start applying to other offices. If you can't afford (or cant work out another way) to review with a lawyer to find out if your work situation is legal or not, honestly then maybe you should not be stamping sets and should work where that is not required. read the Architects Practice code for your state - it should state clearly what your responsibilities are for a start.
If your PE boss is entering these contracts with the firm's clients, with you are the sole Architect, it could be he is simply identifying you as the Architect in responsible control for the project in these documents. Were I you, I would look these documents to make sure there is nothing untoward going on, but this doesn't seem to be too weird an arrangement. If the contracts contain some strange language, like identify you as solely responsible for damages or delays or if the PE won't share these documents with you- that would be an issue.
The guy sounds like a turd who doesn't really respect you or your profession. If you are at the point of considering legal counsel to protect you from him, it's time for a career change.
From what I understand, no. You need to be in responsible control of the contract documents which include drawings, specs, general and supplementary conditions and the CONTRACT. The submittals and dates of substantial completion clearly need to be signed off by the architect in responsible control. The shitty thing is in this situation you will be held liable not him and the state board could punish you. So maybe call your state board anonymously, get your facts straight and then confront the doosh.
Anyone can use the AIA contracts. The issue arises in the usage of the word 'architect'. Some states it can be RA or PE - the contracts should capture that variation in such case. There's usually a square footage or height limit on the ability of the two to be interchangeable so you'd need to check that as well.
Based on the situation as described you definitely should not be stamping anything.
Best advice is to gtfo of that office especially while the market is still in favor of the employee as it is now. Don't dwell on how long or short you've been at this place, just get out. This issue is likely the tip of the iceberg of problems at this office.
Though my "work" that I have managed to accumulate in my journey to become an architect, myy notes on such dealings are:
The date of substantial completion is when the project, or a portion of the project identified by the construction contract....(whatever is agreed upon), is determined by the A/E to be sufficiently complete so the that the owner can use it for its intended use.
So as long as the A/E team has found the portion of work or the hole project to be sufficiently complete. If the A/E team is a little at argument on the dealing someone has to have the final say in the team.
I'm not sure why you're specifically worried about the contracts. If you are the sole stamping architect, everything coming out of that office is YOUR liability REGARDLESS of who signs the contract.
But yes, apart from that it is likely the engineer would be found to be misrepresenting himself as architect, depending on your local jurisdiction's regulations. However that error on his part will not indemnify you from full liability for everything contained on the drawings.
Also this is an extremely unusual situation and I second the opinion that you should consult a lawyer pronto. Good luck.
Thank you for all the feedback. My boss is a "turd" as one post said. He is a plump one at that, he's a 5'-2" tall turd with a large belly, bald and thick glasses. And yes, he has no respect for the architecture profession. I went through our data base just out of curiosity to see how many architects have worked here over a 25 year period. There has been 10, so, every 2.5 years the architect quits and they get a new one in. I also found out that at one point he decided that he didn't need an architect and started sealing architectural work which he was reprimanded by his state board. To answer one post, in our state you need an architect as the responsible in charge and only they can seal architectural work. I am particularly concerned about the contracts because he is representing himself as the architect which opens me up to liability. I am calling my state board today to discuss this with them. Depending on the conversation I may be seeking counsel as well. The only reason why I am putting up with this crap from this little turd is because the office is 10 minutes from my house and I never have to work past 5. I have been building my own firm over the last year and am almost at a point to step out on my own. I can't juggle that and work overtime like I would at any other firm I would go to. Also, the next closest firm is an hour away. Thanks again for all the great input and I'll will let you know what the board says.
As a follow up thought, I read through the definitions of terms on a few of the contracts. He amended the definitions to define architect as our firm as a whole. This still doesn't seam right to me though, I should have just as much involvement as him in preparing these contracts. Also, I don't think it's legal for him to just redefine the term architect to mean what he wants, I will mention this to the state board. He is basically using my AIA membership to get reduced prices on the contracts and then using my registration to advertise as an architectural firm but then cutting me out of major decisions.
What you stated in your last post indicates unethical and possible criminal activity on his part.
However, I urge you to consult a lawyer regardless because if you are the stamping architect, you are "opened up to liability" no matter WHAT the contracts say.
Basically these are two separate issues you should have concerns about.
For example: his contract could clearly state "I am Joe Schmo Engineer, NOT AN ARCHITECT, but my office will provide you drawings that are not in any way to be construed "architectural" drawings for your building, for graphic illustration use only and you should not ever build from them because I am NOT A LICENSED ARCHITECT."
But then, if he then issues drawings under that contract to that client AND YOUR STAMP IS ON THEM, you are liable for whatever is on those drawings, period.
jimbob, when I started at a previous (20 person) firm my computer "desktop" was blank except for a single excel file. That file was a list of all current and past employees for the past 5ish years, with their start dates, end dates, and reason for leaving. Most left on their own after about 2 years, tho a couple had been fired. Not a great first day....
I too left after a little over a year. I'd say get while the getting is good. Regardless of what the lawyers or state board might say, I wouldn't expect this guy to change his behavior much. Better to wash your hands on the whole thing.
Jim bob, may sound counter intuitive, but a corporation, can have "personhood" in many cases. Not saying this is one, but If the firm is register as an arch firm it may gain that right to sign for its services by proxy. The moment you leave, that right would likely no longer would apply in the case of architecture. Probably Depends on whether or not your state registers firms, people only, or both. In my state for instance, a contracting firm can be created by joe shmo (who's never swung a hammer), but have bob (an experienced regular employee) as a qualifying party. The license stays with the firm even if bob falls off a cliff...Anyway, talk to a lawyer....
i would learn a little more about the rights/responsibilities of your license in your state
i suspect you have more leverage with your boss than you are currently understanding (& more liability than you may understand too)
when you research or chat with an attorney, figure out the extent of your liability after you leave this place -- do you (or your current employer) need to cover your E&O expenses for a number of years after you leave?
If he has been signing off on things as though he is the architect rather than you, he may have hung himself if anything goes wrong and you could establish that you were purposefully left out of the loop. It might not indemnify you but it would make a very good defense.
The fact that he is an engineer makes it unlikely that he could ever argue in court that he didn't realize the implications of what he is doing.
BTW, you said the firm is multi-discipline. Are the other disciplines ones that require someone licensed? What is happening there?
Fascinating scenario, and one they never taught us in school. Keep us posted.
So, I talked to my state board. Everyday Architect had it right. Anyone can sign the AIA documents if they are acting as a registered agent of a company with a certificate of authority (a COA is a certificate that corporations have to have to offer architectural work in Missouri. If you are a sole proprietor you don't need it, just corporations). So, as the owner of a company who is authorized to offer architectural services (because I am licensed) he is allowed to act on the companies behalf and sign for an architect when it comes to contracts. I did, however, learn that he is in violation by signing my specifications. We have a seals page at the front of our spec books and his seal and signature is the only one he will allow on the page. This is a clear violation and I will have to talk with the little turd about that. Anyway, thanks for all the feedback and discussion. Now I just need to grow a pair and get out on my own and out of this hell hole.
We have a seals page at the front of our spec books and his seal and signature is the only one he will allow on the page
At this point, why would you want to have your seal on them, if you don't have any practical control anyway? The fewer places you are signing the better.
Some cities and states allow Struct./Civil engineers to sign off on architectural drawings up to 4 storied buildings.My feeling is that based on this presumption in his mind, this gentleman is thinking that he is justified in signing. However i think it is different story to sign AIA documents as An Architect.State board or city plan checking authority can help you besides attorney.
Jan 2, 18 5:10 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 Can Sign AIA Contract Documents
I am the only architect and responsible in charge who works for a multidiscipline firm. We always use AIA contract forms on our projects. I never see them, review them or sign off on them. Believe me, this is not by choice. The owner is a crusty old structural engineer who also thinks he's an architect. He flat out told me once "I am the architect, not you". Is it legal for our firm to use the AIA forms and have them signed off on by someone who is not an architect or responsible in charge of architectural work? It seams strange to me that a structural engineer would sign off on a substantial completion form that says "has been found, to the Architect's best knowledge,....to be substantially complete". It doesn't seem legal to me that he would sign for me. He also signs off on my specifications. Very weird but I don't know that it is illegal. Does anyone have any experience with this or have any thoughts.
??? What signed agreement, he is my boss, I work at the firm he owns. My employment letter states that I am the "responsible in charge of architectural work". Its really more of a question about the legality of someone who is not an architect signing legal documents as if he was an architect. This guy is about 5' tall with thick glasses and a bald head. I think its more short mans syndrome than anything. I just wonder if I am getting some legal exposure.
if he wants to take responsibility, let him. besides he is the owner of the firm and the design profession in charge
I assume you are not stamping anything?)
David Curtis - You are an odd person.
Shellarchitect - You sound like a normal person, thank you for your input. Yes I am stamping drawings and preparing specifications. I am the only architect here so all architectural work is prepared under my supervision. Its just the contracts and AIA forms that I am not included on. The owner has all direct contact with the clients so I am given no opportunity to prepare these documents.
It is odd to me that you assume I have an attorney on retainer or that you suggest I need one at all. And to be clear, you are the one who reduced my question to a personal attack. "You "wonder". Jesus". Is a personal attack on my intelligence, don't be surprised or get upset when I return the favor. If you don't understand that this stuff happens all the time between employers and employees you are naïve. That's why I think it's odd, you may be able to afford an attorney every time life gets into gray areas but I can't. However, you are correct, the question that I originally posted deals with the issue of who can sign as an architect under AIA forms, that is what I am trying to discuss. And yes I am in a difficult situation, again, that is what I am seeking feedback on.
Please don't take Mr. Balkins' advice on modifications to AIA contracts. He obviously has no familiarity with these documents - not only no familiarity with the documents themselves, but no familiarity with the process of editing them. If you pay for access to the contract software, you may edit them in any way you choose - there's no copyright issue - you're buying the right to edit them. But if you change defined terms referring to parties (for instance chaning "Owner" to "Client") then you need to address that in all of the hundreds/thousands of places it occurs in any of the documents you're using (i.e. everything from the bond forms to requisition forms to terms of use of digital content forms, etc.) - and more importantly you'd need to change the contract definitions of "Client", "Owner", "Design Professional", etc. It's an extensive suite of documents, with defined terms - changing anything in one place requires careful followup throughout.
If you're going to make changes to any model contracts (whether AIA's, EJCDC's, or whatever) in order to develop a firm-specific template, always consult your firm's insurer, and an attorney experienced with construction law.
The OP is talking about a multi-disciplinary firm with large enough projects to have project manuals. The suite of AIA documents they're using is likely many documents per project and potentially thousands of pages. I'm not as concerned about the amount of typing as with the cross-coordination with other industry-standard documents and reference standards, and with the implications of changing defined contractual terms. If there's some great advantage to calling an Owner a "client" then I'm sure the firm's insurer and attorney will say so when the OP consults with them - but the can of worms that opens extends far beyond the AIA documents themselves, to literally tens of thousands of industry standards referenced in a typical project manual. Also retyping an AIA contract by hand into a doc file does in fact violate AIA's terms of use, if you obtained the original as part of a single-use or per-use package, which is the case for most architectural firms - or if you obtained it for non-commercial use (as is the case if you got it through academic channels, or as part of a student package, etc.)
There are in fact AIA documents designed for A/E firms. Also the "design professional" field is linked/editable throughout the suite (so no typing required - it's a one-stop change, providing you're using legally licensed AIA software). What I'm objecting to is your bizarre advice that the defined term "Owner" be changed.
In any case the OP stated that this has already been addressed through his state and that the owner is in the right with regard to contracts. The problem seems to be in regard to affixing his seal to the specifications without including the seal of the person who actually prepared those.
In contract language the "Owner" is the party contracting with the design professional or contractor. The definitions in the AIA contracts specifically state that that person or entity may or may not actually own the land or the building where the project is sited, and that the party named "Owner" in the contracts may be a tenant, or a prospective buyer of the site or building, or in various other positions of non-ownership of the subject site or building. Regardless, that person is the "Owner" for contract purposes. In contract language a landowner who is not the party contracting with the design professional or contractor is typically referred to as the "landlord" (yes regardless of whether any lease or rent agreement pertains, and yes uncapitalized, as they are not a party to the contract.) Does your school offer any construction law courses? Or can you take some seminars through your insurer? It would help a lot with your understanding AIA documents.
Ugh. This thread is reminding me of a couple different young guys I had working in my office: one of them decided that "project manual" didn't seem like the right name for the big-book-of-specs-and-procurement-docs and set about renaming it throughout our documents, without talking to someone more senior first. He was quite surprised and sheepish to learn that's an industry-wide term that would need to be redefined not only throughout our own office documents, but all through the AIA documents - not to mention all through contractors', OPM's, etc.'s vocabularies. The other kid objected to the graphic design of various Division 00 forms - you know, those stodgy and uninspired old bid forms, unit prices forms, bond forms... He decided to surprise us with his inspired artistic re-do - and then was dismayed to learn that the forms were our client's in-house standard and the re-design wasn't appreciated by the client or their attorney. Most often there are reasons behind why things are the way they are. It's best not to redecorate at all until a thorough fluency with the present whys.
JB is correct - it states that in the commentary for the 2007 and both more recent versions, as well as in the referenced definitions. The sample documents in the AHPP don't include the commentaries, and the definitions are a separate document - usually when you prepare contracts with the AIA software you incorporate the definitions directly.
Amending contract language should be done by people who understand contract language. The firm should involve appropriate advisors. Amending of contract language by people with limited understanding of the implications is a recipe for disaster.
The definitions are typically part of the contract. They come as an option, that is incorporated into the contract with the AIA software - i.e. you decide when writing the contract whether you want to put them in there or not. If you don't explicitly include the definitions pages, and you end up in court, you end up being held to those definitions anyway, because they're the industry recognized definitions. That's why it's a bad idea to start tinkering with them. The title of the design professional can be swapped out in the contract writing suite - it's set up as an option - it's not a big deal. Changing other terms (client, owner, landlord, project manual...) is not that straight-forward and should not be undertaken lightly.
There's no problem in this case with the use of "Architect" in the contracts anyway. The OP is in a state where a firm that provides architectural services can be owned by non-architects. The firm's principal, though not an architect, is allowed to sign a contract for architectural services because he is signing as an agent of a firm that is allowed to provide those services. See the OP's follow up post about this below, in which he specifically states that he verified this with his state board. The "architect" for contractual language purposes is the corporation - not the agent of the corporation. The only problem from the state's perspective is that the engineer shouldn't be signing/sealing architectural specifications when he was not the professional who prepared them. But if I were the OP and did not have ownership in this firm I would not be so anxious to have my seal on those...
Maybe you could contact your state board on the matter? Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't signing a legal contract claiming to be a licensed architect just as illegal as stamping documents with a fake stamp? This also seems odd to me because, to my knowledge, in the state where I live you are not allowed to own an architectural firm that provides architectural services unless you are licensed.
You are correct in jurisdictions where the use of the title "Architect" is legally restricted by a professional title law.
As AIA documents have the term "Architect" used throughout, an unlicensed person using that title by signing AIA forms risks running afoul of their state's professional title law.
Indeed. Replacing the term "Architect" something legal in your state is all you need to do to keep out of trouble. I think the AIA will happily sell the forms to anyone who wants to buy them. You don't have to be an AIA member to purchase or use them.
I think the original question raises additional questions... especially regarding the structure of your employment. Saying "It doesn't seem legal to me that he would sign for me" would indeed trigger many of us to suggest you have a lawyer review the situation and your employment contract, as well as your employers use of your license to stamp work while excluding you from some of the responsibilities that go along with that stamp. But that varies by state, and may or may not be legit - we don't have enough info really to tell. Lawyers are expensive, but so is getting sued by a client or contractor for something you stamped that was then ok'd by someone else so you never even got to review if it was done per plan. In fact, that could be far more expensive. Do you have insurance? Does your employer have insurance that names you as additional insured? Are you in a state where the office holds all liability or in one where the architect personally does? If so, what does the insurance company say about the situation? They are usually a good source for this sort of advice and may have legal counsel who can assist you. I would assume your office has insurance and you don't (based on the above questions) - if so check to see if it covers YOU not just the office. I would do two things: 1. review situation with a lawyer for advice, then 2. reorganize your employment terms to reflect the correct responsible control by an architect per lawyers advice. You sound like you have no control over this, but you are in fact the only one with a stamp there right? Can he keep doing work without you? Recognize what power you have and use it to set things up correctly. Sounds like an alternate move is to start applying to other offices. If you can't afford (or cant work out another way) to review with a lawyer to find out if your work situation is legal or not, honestly then maybe you should not be stamping sets and should work where that is not required. read the Architects Practice code for your state - it should state clearly what your responsibilities are for a start.
If your PE boss is entering these contracts with the firm's clients, with you are the sole Architect, it could be he is simply identifying you as the Architect in responsible control for the project in these documents. Were I you, I would look these documents to make sure there is nothing untoward going on, but this doesn't seem to be too weird an arrangement. If the contracts contain some strange language, like identify you as solely responsible for damages or delays or if the PE won't share these documents with you- that would be an issue.
The guy sounds like a turd who doesn't really respect you or your profession. If you are at the point of considering legal counsel to protect you from him, it's time for a career change.
fictional- that is a standard arrangement by which many projects are run, but keep in mind, in this case, both the PE and RA work for the same company
geezer- spot on
you need to check the code in your state/jurisdiction. Some allow either RA or PE to be responsible in charge.
the short answer: anyone can sign AIA contract documents, especially if you're the owner of the firm entering into the agreement.
From what I understand, no. You need to be in responsible control of the contract documents which include drawings, specs, general and supplementary conditions and the CONTRACT. The submittals and dates of substantial completion clearly need to be signed off by the architect in responsible control. The shitty thing is in this situation you will be held liable not him and the state board could punish you. So maybe call your state board anonymously, get your facts straight and then confront the doosh.
Also if he says, “I’m the architect not you,” again tell him he can stamp the drawings with his stamp then.
Anyone can use the AIA contracts. The issue arises in the usage of the word 'architect'. Some states it can be RA or PE - the contracts should capture that variation in such case. There's usually a square footage or height limit on the ability of the two to be interchangeable so you'd need to check that as well.
Based on the situation as described you definitely should not be stamping anything.
Best advice is to gtfo of that office especially while the market is still in favor of the employee as it is now. Don't dwell on how long or short you've been at this place, just get out. This issue is likely the tip of the iceberg of problems at this office.
Though my "work" that I have managed to accumulate in my journey to become an architect, myy notes on such dealings are:
The date of substantial completion is when the project, or a portion of the project identified by the construction contract....(whatever is agreed upon), is determined by the A/E to be sufficiently complete so the that the owner can use it for its intended use.
So as long as the A/E team has found the portion of work or the hole project to be sufficiently complete. If the A/E team is a little at argument on the dealing someone has to have the final say in the team.
But yes, apart from that it is likely the engineer would be found to be misrepresenting himself as architect, depending on your local jurisdiction's regulations. However that error on his part will not indemnify you from full liability for everything contained on the drawings.
Also this is an extremely unusual situation and I second the opinion that you should consult a lawyer pronto. Good luck.
The question is not so much who can sign AIA contracts as who would want to?
Thank you for all the feedback. My boss is a "turd" as one post said. He is a plump one at that, he's a 5'-2" tall turd with a large belly, bald and thick glasses. And yes, he has no respect for the architecture profession. I went through our data base just out of curiosity to see how many architects have worked here over a 25 year period. There has been 10, so, every 2.5 years the architect quits and they get a new one in. I also found out that at one point he decided that he didn't need an architect and started sealing architectural work which he was reprimanded by his state board. To answer one post, in our state you need an architect as the responsible in charge and only they can seal architectural work. I am particularly concerned about the contracts because he is representing himself as the architect which opens me up to liability. I am calling my state board today to discuss this with them. Depending on the conversation I may be seeking counsel as well. The only reason why I am putting up with this crap from this little turd is because the office is 10 minutes from my house and I never have to work past 5. I have been building my own firm over the last year and am almost at a point to step out on my own. I can't juggle that and work overtime like I would at any other firm I would go to. Also, the next closest firm is an hour away. Thanks again for all the great input and I'll will let you know what the board says.
As a follow up thought, I read through the definitions of terms on a few of the contracts. He amended the definitions to define architect as our firm as a whole. This still doesn't seam right to me though, I should have just as much involvement as him in preparing these contracts. Also, I don't think it's legal for him to just redefine the term architect to mean what he wants, I will mention this to the state board. He is basically using my AIA membership to get reduced prices on the contracts and then using my registration to advertise as an architectural firm but then cutting me out of major decisions.
However, I urge you to consult a lawyer regardless because if you are the stamping architect, you are "opened up to liability" no matter WHAT the contracts say.
Basically these are two separate issues you should have concerns about.
For example: his contract could clearly state "I am Joe Schmo Engineer, NOT AN ARCHITECT, but my office will provide you drawings that are not in any way to be construed "architectural" drawings for your building, for graphic illustration use only and you should not ever build from them because I am NOT A LICENSED ARCHITECT."
But then, if he then issues drawings under that contract to that client AND YOUR STAMP IS ON THEM, you are liable for whatever is on those drawings, period.
jimbob, when I started at a previous (20 person) firm my computer "desktop" was blank except for a single excel file. That file was a list of all current and past employees for the past 5ish years, with their start dates, end dates, and reason for leaving. Most left on their own after about 2 years, tho a couple had been fired. Not a great first day....
I too left after a little over a year. I'd say get while the getting is good. Regardless of what the lawyers or state board might say, I wouldn't expect this guy to change his behavior much. Better to wash your hands on the whole thing.
Is this guy planning on retiring/dying soon?
Jim bob, may sound counter intuitive, but a corporation, can have "personhood" in many cases. Not saying this is one, but If the firm is register as an arch firm it may gain that right to sign for its services by proxy. The moment you leave, that right would likely no longer would apply in the case of architecture. Probably Depends on whether or not your state registers firms, people only, or both. In my state for instance, a contracting firm can be created by joe shmo (who's never swung a hammer), but have bob (an experienced regular employee) as a qualifying party. The license stays with the firm even if bob falls off a cliff...Anyway, talk to a lawyer....
i would learn a little more about the rights/responsibilities of your license in your state
i suspect you have more leverage with your boss than you are currently understanding (& more liability than you may understand too)
when you research or chat with an attorney, figure out the extent of your liability after you leave this place -- do you (or your current employer) need to cover your E&O expenses for a number of years after you leave?
If he has been signing off on things as though he is the architect rather than you, he may have hung himself if anything goes wrong and you could establish that you were purposefully left out of the loop. It might not indemnify you but it would make a very good defense.
The fact that he is an engineer makes it unlikely that he could ever argue in court that he didn't realize the implications of what he is doing.
BTW, you said the firm is multi-discipline. Are the other disciplines ones that require someone licensed? What is happening there?
Fascinating scenario, and one they never taught us in school. Keep us posted.
So, I talked to my state board. Everyday Architect had it right. Anyone can sign the AIA documents if they are acting as a registered agent of a company with a certificate of authority (a COA is a certificate that corporations have to have to offer architectural work in Missouri. If you are a sole proprietor you don't need it, just corporations). So, as the owner of a company who is authorized to offer architectural services (because I am licensed) he is allowed to act on the companies behalf and sign for an architect when it comes to contracts. I did, however, learn that he is in violation by signing my specifications. We have a seals page at the front of our spec books and his seal and signature is the only one he will allow on the page. This is a clear violation and I will have to talk with the little turd about that. Anyway, thanks for all the feedback and discussion. Now I just need to grow a pair and get out on my own and out of this hell hole.
I can see a scenario where you tell him this and you get the opportunity to go out on your own fairly quickly.
Where do I collect my winnings?
We have a seals page at the front of our spec books and his seal and signature is the only one he will allow on the page
At this point, why would you want to have your seal on them, if you don't have any practical control anyway? The fewer places you are signing the better.
Some cities and states allow Struct./Civil engineers to sign off on architectural drawings up to 4 storied buildings.My feeling is that based on this presumption in his mind, this gentleman is thinking that he is justified in signing. However i think it is different story to sign AIA documents as An Architect.State board or city plan checking authority can help you besides attorney.
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.