The AIA A201 is the general form of agreement between owner and contractor. But let’s says the Architect puts in his general notes requirements that come into conflict with requirements in that contract. How is that resolved? It almost seems like the general notes need to be coordinated with the requirements of the contract for construction, but is seems like that is impossible because in a traditional design bid build situation, drawings are usually produced before the bid goes out. So what prevails? How is this issue revolved?
AIA A201 (or whatever form you use) supersedes your notes on the drawings or even specs. In order to modify the form, you do Supplementary Conditions, and then they govern.
How to make sure drawings don't conflict the form? A good, experienced Job Captain would take care of that by making sure drawings are done accordingly. Also, before you lift a pencil (or a mouse) to do drawings and specs, you MUST know what kind of a contract you have here. If you do not, you will end up with lots of conflicts. If that happens, you have to look at the form and any supplementary conditions to figure out what is going on. In other words, in case of conflicts, Specs govern over drawings, General Conditions govern over drawings and specs, and Supplementary Conditions govern over everything else before.Never say on your drawings, "This work is by Others" or "Material supplied by Others". That's for other documents to qualify.
I've done a fair number of design/build jobs in the past - worked for the largest design/build firm in Canada at the time. Before we would start the drawings, we would be given a set of design drawings, and an Outline Spec done by the Project Manager. Then, we simply follow that. If we drew one more foot of a concrete curb than what the outline specs or design drawings called for, George would come down and ask us, "Are you paying for that? If not, why are you showing it?" You learn very quickly what discipline is all about!!!
The way it ended up in that firm, George (or any other Project Manager) would already have tendered the job - or considered using our own forces - based upon his Outline Spec and Design Drawings. Working Drawings were done only to tidy-up some loose ends, and get a Building Permit from. It was a well run place with militaristic precision. Everybody knew what their purpose was in the firm. We also had all the consultants "under one roof".
Dec 21, 20 10:59 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
A201 is not the same as B201. I think you might be referring to the latter.
Dec 21, 20 11:15 am ·
·
SneakyPete
"in case of conflicts, Specs govern over drawings, General Conditions govern over drawings and specs, and Supplementary Conditions govern over everything else before"
Bzzzt. Nope. Conflicts require communication, not assumptions. Drawings and specs are complementary, neither supersedes the other. This is spelled out in the General Conditions.
So many words and assumptions, I'm not even going to touch it. I'm just here to say that the Army took nearly a year to design a face mask so I think "militaristic precision" needs to be qualified every time it get's used from here on out.
The conflict resolution between drawings and specs is a lot easier though than when you start having conflicts with contracts though. It's not in the contract, they are not doing it without $.
Dec 21, 20 1:52 pm ·
·
atelier nobody
^^THIS^^ The language in Pete's first paragraph is sometimes added in the Supplementary Conditions, but is not standard. Standard language assumes the Contract Documents are coordinated, but since we know perfect coordination never happens, the requirement is for the Contractor to submit an RFI, the Architect to make an interpretation, and may lead into the standard Claims procedure.
I'm only going to say nice things about APS's post so . .
apscoradiales wrote:
"Also, before you lift a pencil (or a
mouse) to do drawings and specs, you MUST know what kind of a contract you have
here. If you do not, you will end up with lots of conflicts. If that happens,
you have to look at the form and any supplementary conditions to figure out
what is going on.”
This is good advice.
.apscoradiales wrote:
“Never say on your drawings, "This
work is by Others" or "Material supplied by Others". That's for
other documents to qualify”.
This is good advice.
Dec 21, 20 4:36 pm ·
·
atelier nobody
“Never say on your drawings, "This work is by Others" or "Material supplied by Others". That's for other documents to qualify”.
This is good advice.
If I had a nickel for every time I've had to explain this to an engineer...
BulgarBlogger, A201 is not the "general form of agreement between the Owner and the Contractor." It is the "General Conditions of the Contract for Construction" or just "General Conditions" for short. The general form of agreement will be something else, like A101 for example.
I'm assuming that if you're talking about using AIA docs between contractor and owner, you likely have an AIA agreement between architect and owner too. You'll see there that one of the architect's basic services under the Construction Documents Phase is to "assist the Owner in the development and preparation of [...] (2) the form of agreement between the Owner and Contractor; and (3) the Conditions of the Contract for Construction (General, Supplementary and other Conditions)" (See AIA B101-2017 3.4.3). For example, #2 would be A101, #3 would be A201 and any edits to it.
This means that A) you should know what it says in the agreement and general conditions, and B) you should be preparing your general notes (and construction documents) to coordinate with, rather than conflict with, the owner's agreement and the conditions of the contract with the contractor. It also means that if you don't know what the agreement says, you're not fulfilling your duty to the owner.
But what if you do have something in the documents that conflicts anyway? Well, SneakyPete is exactly right ... communication over assumptions will win the day. In addition to what he pointed out, you can also check out paragraph 3.2.2 of A201-2017 for clarification of what the contractor should do if they discover an error in the contract documents. Hint, it's not look at a list or assume that one portion governs another, it's to promptly report the error as an RFI.
Also, the thread title referring to "General [...] Requirements" is confusing as well. The General Requirements are Division 01 of the specifications, which you should be preparing anyway so they do not conflict with the Conditions of the Contract, or with the rest of the contract documents.
Bottom line, you should know what all of these documents say, and you should prepare your drawings and specifications so as not to conflict with them. No one should be saying one document is more correct than another in the case of any conflicts (and there will inevitably be conflicts ... our standard of care is not perfection), instead you should be communicating with each other.
The question was clearly about AIA contract documents ... what does CCDC have to do with this? You don’t see me pontificating about Consensus Docs and how they are different.
I would have thought they'd be very similar. Obviously not. Learnt something today. We do put on a note on drawings, "Contractor to report all errors to the Architect before proceeding with Work", but it doesn't really mean much legally. Also, the Contractor will tell you, "We're not checking your drawings. We just build according to them". And they are 100% right.
Dec 21, 20 3:54 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Aps, CCDC2, General conditions part 1.1.7 as follows:
If there is a conflict within the Contract Documents:
1.The order of priority of documents, from highest to lowest, shall be:
the Agreement between the Owner and the Contractor,
the Definitions,
Supplementary Conditions,
the General Conditions,
Division 1 of the Specifications,
technical Specifications,
material and finishing schedules,
the Drawings.
2. Drawings of larger scale shall govern over those of smaller scale of the same date.
3. dimensions shown on Drawings shall govern over dimensions scaled from Drawings.
4. later dated documents shall govern over earlier documents of the same type.
Yeah, isn't that what I was saying??? Also, for Design-Build projects a different CCDC document is used - not CCDC 2.
CCDC 2 is for Stipulated Sum contracts.
The above sequence applies while in Construction (for tendering, any screw-up between documents or insufficient info, an addendum is issued. We have had instances happen where a contractor would build something that he saw on a drawing - a screwed-up drawing, so we would have to point out the above sequencing to him - at our own shame! Shiet happens.
looks like you edited your comment while I was making mine. I don't have a design-build contract on hand atm to verify... most of the time there is another sup condition doc added with client specific stuff.
Dec 21, 20 5:02 pm ·
·
apscoradiales
CCDC 14. You can still have all kinds of Supplementary Conditions with that document.
"...communication over assumptions will win the day..."
Naturally, communication is important, but you put four people in a room, and all four will have a different opinion on what was said, what wasn't said, what was alluded to, what might have been, what might have not been...
In order to circumvent all that, we spell it out - as I noted above - big details govern over small details, specs govern over drawings, General Conditions govern over specs, and Supplementary Conditions govern over General Conditions. Naturally, they all compliment each other, but when push-comes-to-shove or in case of discrepancies, that's how we deal with it. I cannot recall the last time we had issues with "what governs" or conflicts between various document; we usually have other issues...substitutions, sitting on shop drawings, "holding" the GC, and such.
Dec 21, 20 3:49 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
You've now set yourself up so that errors in the more governmental documents fuck you harder. I'd rather get an RFI.
Bunch of Nursing Stations in a hospital eded up getting the wrong P. Lam finish. How? Drawings listed all the P. Lams on millwork drawings. Specs duplicated it. Enter a artsy-fartsy architect who instructs the spec writer to change the spec re p.lam on nursing stations but doesn't change drawings "that would take too long, and besides the specs govern". Shop drawings get approved with the p.lam shown on our millwork drawings. Millwork contractor does as per shop drawings.
Dec 21, 20 5:09 pm ·
·
apscoradiales
results might have ended up different in US?
Dec 21, 20 5:24 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
That example is simply the architect fucking up. Having certain documents govern might save you once and damn you the next time. An RFI / ASI won't. Even if it results in a CO, even if it's additional cost, it's still better than the governance hierarchy, which rewards bad behavior such as you describe, "that would take too long, and besides the specs govern."
"... I think "militaristic precision" needs to be qualified every time it get's used from here on out..."
You are referencing boutique practice, I am referencing a "gotta put food on the table" DESIGN-BUILD practice. There was no time to debate much. "Bang, bang, bang, done! Next!"
One more thing, General Notes are often more hurt than help, and many of my colleagues love them because they hate specs, which is a bit like hating your right leg.
Dec 21, 20 4:42 pm ·
·
atelier nobody
Yep, whenever I see a drawing set with a whole sheet of general notes, I know I'm in for a long day of redlining.
Dec 21, 20 5:17 pm ·
·
apscoradiales
Agree. Never put them on drawings. that's what specs are for. That said, if it's a dinky little house-addition type of a job, General Notes suffice...Specs would be too expensive for the client to pay for.
I appreciate the answers, but I think I was a bit lax in the wording of my post.
I'm a registered architect and have been in private practice quite some time. I am very familiar with all of the documents and have found clever ways to CMA, both in the specs and drawings, as well as in the contracts.
The reason I asked this question was because I was recently reviewing another firm's general notes and there appeared to be notes that in my mind belonged in the contract for construction. To me, if those notes did not exist in the contract, or if they were somehow different or conflicting, the firm owner would have no recourse. The contractor would say- "so what if if it was in the drawings, it wasn't in my contract..."
One such note read as follows:
"THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATE A FINISHED PIECE OF WORK OF SUCH CHARACTER AND QUALITY AS REASONABLY INFERABLE FROM THEM. THE CONTRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE CONTRACT INCLUDES AN ALLOWANCE OF MONEY SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE PROJECT COMPLETE AND OPERATIONAL IN COMPLIANCE WITH GOOD PRACTICE AND AGREES THAT INADVERTENT MINOR DISCREPANCIES OR OMISSIONS OR THE FAILURE TO SHOW DETAILS OR TO REPEAT ANY PART OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENT FIGURES OR NOTES GIVEN ON ANOTHER SHALL NOT BE THE CAUSE FOR ADDITIONAL CHARGES OR CLAIMS."
Thoughts?
Dec 21, 20 5:21 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
"Contemplate" ??? What the ever-loving fuck?
You -> Contract -> Owner
Contractor -> Different Contract -> Owner
So which contract is this speaking of?
The architect doesn't have the standing to alter the contractual language of GC to owner.
That’s the kind of stuff I tell people to delete without even giving it a second thought. Someone thought they were really special to think of that and cover their ass, but it’s completely unnecessary and in 5 minutes with the contract I could cite you chapter and verse why. Next?
The biggest CYA note is the "contact the architect" one. Basically, if the GC doesn't and does their own thing, they own it.
Dec 21, 20 6:51 pm ·
·
atelier nobody
Many, many years ago, there was an article in either CADence or CADalyst about (the mechanics of) putting general note blocks into drawings. For the accompanying photo, someone came up with "example" general notes that were freakin' hilarious - I really wish I had saved it.
The only one I remember was, "Contractor shall notify Architect before doing anything stupid." Another one was something like "Use plenty of anchor bolts."
General (Contract) Requirements vs Requirements on Drawings
The AIA A201 is the general form of agreement between owner and contractor. But let’s says the Architect puts in his general notes requirements that come into conflict with requirements in that contract. How is that resolved? It almost seems like the general notes need to be coordinated with the requirements of the contract for construction, but is seems like that is impossible because in a traditional design bid build situation, drawings are usually produced before the bid goes out. So what prevails? How is this issue revolved?
AIA A201 (or whatever form you use) supersedes your notes on the drawings or even specs. In order to modify the form, you do Supplementary Conditions, and then they govern.
How to make sure drawings don't conflict the form? A good, experienced Job Captain would take care of that by making sure drawings are done accordingly. Also, before you lift a pencil (or a mouse) to do drawings and specs, you MUST know what kind of a contract you have here. If you do not, you will end up with lots of conflicts. If that happens, you have to look at the form and any supplementary conditions to figure out what is going on. In other words, in case of conflicts, Specs govern over drawings, General Conditions govern over drawings and specs, and Supplementary Conditions govern over everything else before.Never say on your drawings, "This work is by Others" or "Material supplied by Others". That's for other documents to qualify.
I've done a fair number of design/build jobs in the past - worked for the largest design/build firm in Canada at the time. Before we would start the drawings, we would be given a set of design drawings, and an Outline Spec done by the Project Manager. Then, we simply follow that. If we drew one more foot of a concrete curb than what the outline specs or design drawings called for, George would come down and ask us, "Are you paying for that? If not, why are you showing it?" You learn very quickly what discipline is all about!!!
The way it ended up in that firm, George (or any other Project Manager) would already have tendered the job - or considered using our own forces - based upon his Outline Spec and Design Drawings. Working Drawings were done only to tidy-up some loose ends, and get a Building Permit from. It was a well run place with militaristic precision. Everybody knew what their purpose was in the firm. We also had all the consultants "under one roof".
A201 is not the same as B201. I think you might be referring to the latter.
"in case of conflicts, Specs govern over drawings, General Conditions govern over drawings and specs, and Supplementary Conditions govern over everything else before"
Bzzzt. Nope. Conflicts require communication, not assumptions. Drawings and specs are complementary, neither supersedes the other. This is spelled out in the General Conditions.
From the A201:
So many words and assumptions, I'm not even going to touch it. I'm just here to say that the Army took nearly a year to design a face mask so I think "militaristic precision" needs to be qualified every time it get's used from here on out.
SP got it pinned.
The conflict resolution between drawings and specs is a lot easier though than when you start having conflicts with contracts though. It's not in the contract, they are not doing it without $.
^^THIS^^ The language in Pete's first paragraph is sometimes added in the Supplementary Conditions, but is not standard. Standard language assumes the Contract Documents are coordinated, but since we know perfect coordination never happens, the requirement is for the Contractor to submit an RFI, the Architect to make an interpretation, and may lead into the standard Claims procedure.
I'm only going to say nice things about APS's post so . .
apscoradiales wrote:
"Also, before you lift a pencil (or a mouse) to do drawings and specs, you MUST know what kind of a contract you have here. If you do not, you will end up with lots of conflicts. If that happens, you have to look at the form and any supplementary conditions to figure out what is going on.”
This is good advice.
.apscoradiales wrote:
“Never say on your drawings, "This work is by Others" or "Material supplied by Others". That's for other documents to qualify”.
This is good advice.
“Never say on your drawings, "This work is by Others" or "Material supplied by Others". That's for other documents to qualify”.
This is good advice.
If I had a nickel for every time I've had to explain this to an engineer...
BulgarBlogger, A201 is not the "general form of agreement between the Owner and the Contractor." It is the "General Conditions of the Contract for Construction" or just "General Conditions" for short. The general form of agreement will be something else, like A101 for example.
I'm assuming that if you're talking about using AIA docs between contractor and owner, you likely have an AIA agreement between architect and owner too. You'll see there that one of the architect's basic services under the Construction Documents Phase is to "assist the Owner in the development and preparation of [...] (2) the form of agreement between the Owner and Contractor; and (3) the Conditions of the Contract for Construction (General, Supplementary and other Conditions)" (See AIA B101-2017 3.4.3). For example, #2 would be A101, #3 would be A201 and any edits to it.
This means that A) you should know what it says in the agreement and general conditions, and B) you should be preparing your general notes (and construction documents) to coordinate with, rather than conflict with, the owner's agreement and the conditions of the contract with the contractor. It also means that if you don't know what the agreement says, you're not fulfilling your duty to the owner.
But what if you do have something in the documents that conflicts anyway? Well, SneakyPete is exactly right ... communication over assumptions will win the day. In addition to what he pointed out, you can also check out paragraph 3.2.2 of A201-2017 for clarification of what the contractor should do if they discover an error in the contract documents. Hint, it's not look at a list or assume that one portion governs another, it's to promptly report the error as an RFI.
Also, the thread title referring to "General [...] Requirements" is confusing as well. The General Requirements are Division 01 of the specifications, which you should be preparing anyway so they do not conflict with the Conditions of the Contract, or with the rest of the contract documents.
Bottom line, you should know what all of these documents say, and you should prepare your drawings and specifications so as not to conflict with them. No one should be saying one document is more correct than another in the case of any conflicts (and there will inevitably be conflicts ... our standard of care is not perfection), instead you should be communicating with each other.
SneakyPete,
Wow, really is different in US!
We have a pecking order, and that is clearly spelt out in the Front End of the Specifications, and in a 'round-about way in the CCDC document.
NS, has that changed now?
The question was clearly about AIA contract documents ... what does CCDC have to do with this? You don’t see me pontificating about Consensus Docs and how they are different.
I would have thought they'd be very similar. Obviously not. Learnt something today. We do put on a note on drawings, "Contractor to report all errors to the Architect before proceeding with Work", but it doesn't really mean much legally. Also, the Contractor will tell you, "We're not checking your drawings. We just build according to them". And they are 100% right.
Aps, CCDC2, General conditions part 1.1.7 as follows:
If there is a conflict within the Contract Documents:
1.The order of priority of documents, from highest to lowest, shall be:
2. Drawings of larger scale shall govern over those of smaller scale of the same date.
3. dimensions shown on Drawings shall govern over dimensions scaled from Drawings.
4. later dated documents shall govern over earlier documents of the same type.
Yeah, isn't that what I was saying??? Also, for Design-Build projects a different CCDC document is used - not CCDC 2.
CCDC 2 is for Stipulated Sum contracts.
The above sequence applies while in Construction (for tendering, any screw-up between documents or insufficient info, an addendum is issued. We have had instances happen where a contractor would build something that he saw on a drawing - a screwed-up drawing, so we would have to point out the above sequencing to him - at our own shame! Shiet happens.
looks like you edited your comment while I was making mine. I don't have a design-build contract on hand atm to verify... most of the time there is another sup condition doc added with client specific stuff.
CCDC 14. You can still have all kinds of Supplementary Conditions with that document.
APS - you where stating that the above was for AIA contracts. That isn't so.
"...communication over assumptions will win the day..."
Naturally, communication is important, but you put four people in a room, and all four will have a different opinion on what was said, what wasn't said, what was alluded to, what might have been, what might have not been...
In order to circumvent all that, we spell it out - as I noted above - big details govern over small details, specs govern over drawings, General Conditions govern over specs, and Supplementary Conditions govern over General Conditions. Naturally, they all compliment each other, but when push-comes-to-shove or in case of discrepancies, that's how we deal with it. I cannot recall the last time we had issues with "what governs" or conflicts between various document; we usually have other issues...substitutions, sitting on shop drawings, "holding" the GC, and such.
You've now set yourself up so that errors in the more governmental documents fuck you harder. I'd rather get an RFI.
Bunch of Nursing Stations in a hospital eded up getting the wrong P. Lam finish. How? Drawings listed all the P. Lams on millwork drawings. Specs duplicated it. Enter a artsy-fartsy architect who instructs the spec writer to change the spec re p.lam on nursing stations but doesn't change drawings "that would take too long, and besides the specs govern". Shop drawings get approved with the p.lam shown on our millwork drawings. Millwork contractor does as per shop drawings.
results might have ended up different in US?
That example is simply the architect fucking up. Having certain documents govern might save you once and damn you the next time. An RFI / ASI won't. Even if it results in a CO, even if it's additional cost, it's still better than the governance hierarchy, which rewards bad behavior such as you describe, "that would take too long, and besides the specs govern."
Everyday Architect,
"... I think "militaristic precision" needs to be qualified every time it get's used from here on out..."
You are referencing boutique practice, I am referencing a "gotta put food on the table" DESIGN-BUILD practice. There was no time to debate much. "Bang, bang, bang, done! Next!"
One more thing, General Notes are often more hurt than help, and many of my colleagues love them because they hate specs, which is a bit like hating your right leg.
Yep, whenever I see a drawing set with a whole sheet of general notes, I know I'm in for a long day of redlining.
Agree. Never put them on drawings. that's what specs are for. That said, if it's a dinky little house-addition type of a job, General Notes suffice...Specs would be too expensive for the client to pay for.
...and stuff.
I appreciate the answers, but I think I was a bit lax in the wording of my post.
I'm a registered architect and have been in private practice quite some time. I am very familiar with all of the documents and have found clever ways to CMA, both in the specs and drawings, as well as in the contracts.
The reason I asked this question was because I was recently reviewing another firm's general notes and there appeared to be notes that in my mind belonged in the contract for construction. To me, if those notes did not exist in the contract, or if they were somehow different or conflicting, the firm owner would have no recourse. The contractor would say- "so what if if it was in the drawings, it wasn't in my contract..."
One such note read as follows:
"THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATE A FINISHED PIECE OF WORK OF SUCH CHARACTER AND QUALITY AS REASONABLY INFERABLE FROM THEM. THE
CONTRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE CONTRACT INCLUDES AN ALLOWANCE OF MONEY SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE PROJECT COMPLETE AND OPERATIONAL IN
COMPLIANCE WITH GOOD PRACTICE AND AGREES THAT INADVERTENT MINOR DISCREPANCIES OR OMISSIONS OR THE FAILURE TO SHOW DETAILS OR TO REPEAT
ANY PART OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENT FIGURES OR NOTES GIVEN ON ANOTHER SHALL NOT BE THE CAUSE FOR ADDITIONAL CHARGES OR CLAIMS."
Thoughts?
"Contemplate" ??? What the ever-loving fuck?
You -> Contract -> Owner
Contractor -> Different Contract -> Owner
So which contract is this speaking of?
The architect doesn't have the standing to alter the contractual language of GC to owner.
If that note was produced by a licensed architect, they ought to lose their license.
Thoughts?
LOL!!!!!!!
That’s the kind of stuff I tell people to delete without even giving it a second thought. Someone thought they were really special to think of that and cover their ass, but it’s completely unnecessary and in 5 minutes with the contract I could cite you chapter and verse why. Next?
The biggest CYA note is the "contact the architect" one. Basically, if the GC doesn't and does their own thing, they own it.
Many, many years ago, there was an article in either CADence or CADalyst about (the mechanics of) putting general note blocks into drawings. For the accompanying photo, someone came up with "example" general notes that were freakin' hilarious - I really wish I had saved it.
The only one I remember was, "Contractor shall notify Architect before doing anything stupid." Another one was something like "Use plenty of anchor bolts."
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.