§ 11.6 When compensation identified in Section 11.1 is on a percentage basis, progress payments for each phase of Basic Services shall be calculated by multiplying the percentages identified in this Article by the Owner’s most recent budget for the Cost of the Work. Compensation paid in previous progress payments shall be adjusted based on subsequent updates to the Owner’s budget for the Cost of the Work.
What happens in the scope of the project doesn't change, but the initial Cost of the Work throughout design ends up being low? I get the point of the clause is to protect the Owner and Architect, but what if my client just wants to use the actual bid amount, and then we both agree to retroactively bill to that amount? Looking for a way to modify this clause. Curious if other have done the same.
Chad Miller
Oct 19, 22 5:22 pm
Maybe you could modify the clause to have a line that states the architects compensation will not be below a set amount? Such as an initial cost of work estimated to be _____ and the architects fee is to be a of __% of the cost of work with a minimum fee of ______?
You need to be very careful changing AIA contracts though. I'd get an actual lawyer involved.
Good luck.
polarwwon
Oct 20, 22 10:34 am
Thank you for the response! I would like to more directly tie it to the bid amount. There is a clause in the old 2007 version that is a bit clearer on this end.
Definitely not a bad idea to have a lawyer review it.
Chad Miller
Oct 20, 22 10:51 am
We typically have this type of language in our proposal letter. The B101 references proposal letters.
polarwwon
Oct 20, 22 11:01 am
I thought the commentary in this article, specifically under 11.6 was interesting. They are suggesting even with the native language of the contract that at the end of the project, the architect will be able to invoice the owner for any difference between what has been paid to date and the amount missing in the fee, should the cost come in higher.
It just seems this aspect of the contract could be a bit clearer, but perhaps the proposal letter is where I make this clarification as you have suggested.
§ 11.6 When compensation identified in Section 11.1 is on a percentage basis, progress payments for each phase of Basic Services shall be calculated by multiplying the percentages identified in this Article by the Owner’s most recent budget for the Cost of the Work. Compensation paid in previous progress payments shall be adjusted based on subsequent updates to the Owner’s budget for the Cost of the Work.
What happens in the scope of the project doesn't change, but the initial Cost of the Work throughout design ends up being low? I get the point of the clause is to protect the Owner and Architect, but what if my client just wants to use the actual bid amount, and then we both agree to retroactively bill to that amount? Looking for a way to modify this clause. Curious if other have done the same.
Maybe you could modify the clause to have a line that states the architects compensation will not be below a set amount? Such as an initial cost of work estimated to be _____ and the architects fee is to be a of __% of the cost of work with a minimum fee of ______?
You need to be very careful changing AIA contracts though. I'd get an actual lawyer involved.
Good luck.
Thank you for the response! I would like to more directly tie it to the bid amount. There is a clause in the old 2007 version that is a bit clearer on this end.
Definitely not a bad idea to have a lawyer review it.
We typically have this type of language in our proposal letter. The B101 references proposal letters.
I thought the commentary in this article, specifically under 11.6 was interesting. They are suggesting even with the native language of the contract that at the end of the project, the architect will be able to invoice the owner for any difference between what has been paid to date and the amount missing in the fee, should the cost come in higher. It just seems this aspect of the contract could be a bit clearer, but perhaps the proposal letter is where I make this clarification as you have suggested.
Edit: here is the link to the article