Editing AIA documents

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Margaret G. Chewning CSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 28 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 11:22 pm:    I have a BIG question, one that I should probably know but being one of the little guys, I've not really run into it yet. I have a project, fortunately still in review stage where my Architect client has a AIA electronic documents subscription. In my review of the printed review set I found the Architect had electronicly edited A201 (strikeouts and underlines) in addition to the Supplementary Conditions (00800) I had written. We did this indepentently, I did not know he was going to do this altho' he knew I was writing the SC. Found overlaps, conflicts and areas we each addressed independently. No wise cracks guys, I know, I need to talk to him. My question is this: Is it correct to use a edited version (strike out's and underlined adds showing) of the A201 to indicate the modifications required for the project without a 00800 Supplementary Conditions; or should we do it the way I know and learned, printing the AIA A201 intact without edits, modifying it with the 00800 Supplementary Conditions. In this day of electronics I am not sure of the correct (legal) solution for this issue. Thanks Margaret Chewning Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 107 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 06:49 am:    From my experience and training [by those who came before me] the A201 document is to be used "as printed" with no revisions. Any changes required are to be made via Supplementary Conditions in a separate document. I would also think that the copyright on the A201 prohibits any direct modifications, except by use of SCs. Now I have seen "modified A201s" produced by attorneys, but I do not feel this is proper or allowed; so neither would such be proper on the part of architects. Stephan Reppert CSI, CDT Intermediate Member Username: steprepp Post Number: 4 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 07:13 am:    You should use A201 as is and make any amendments and modifications in the Supplementary Conditions. When working for the School Board in Maryland we even created a section entitled Amendments to the General Conditions. We still used AIA Docs throughout but we had to also use state and county forms and follow their procedures as well. John McGrann Senior Member Username: jmcgrann Post Number: 29 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 08:31 am:    We have the AIA software, and it is designed to create versions of the original documents with comparative markings indicating the revisions. In my experience trying to create a readable general conditions document with comparative markings is impossible. The final Adobe documents are not “WYSIWYG” prints of the drafts created in Word. If you replace a paragraph in its entirety or try to replace a sentence, the software creates an underlined and struck-through mess in the final Adobe version of the document. There is an option to generate a “clean” copy with a listing of deletions and additions appended to the end of the document, but that can almost double the page count if changes are extensive and in my mind is not really desirable for a customized AIA general conditions document. If it were, the client or their attorney would be using their own custom general conditions document anyway. I complained to the AIA earlier this year but other than an acknowledgment of the complaint haven’t heard if they plan to address this issue. For now, we print them out in their unmodified state and include supplementary conditions. Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 83 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 08:44 am:    With the use of AIA’s proprietary software, it is perfectly acceptable (and legal) to modify A201, and all other AIA documents for that matter, for inclusion in the Project Manual. Modifications automatically show as strikeout and underline with the software. Including the modified document is much more clear as to what has been modified than simply using supplementary conditions, since the revisions are obvious without having to reference back and forth between documents. Of course the AIA software has never been at all “User Friendly”. There is a brand new edition available that runs more like a database than a word processor. It’s not very friendly either, and will Not open documents created in previous editions! However, using the software does come with reproduction permissions for general use (did you know it’s a violation of AIA’s copyright to post electronic AIA documents to an internet site? That’s right, and it applies to any and all types of sites, including wfe sites. A key issue, at least in my small mind, with electronic AIA docs is the ancillary AIA document that can be used to certify the validity of the electronic docs (although a lawyer may suggest that you don’t sign that certification). I have actually seen a purported an electronically edited A201 that was Not produced using the AIA Software, but was created in MSWord and strikeouts and underlines added manually!! There was absolutely no way to determine what actual changes, additions, or exclusions had been made without reading word for word, side by side, with a real A201. Having said all this, I find the cost, and complexity, of the AIA software to be more than I want to deal with. I use “Supplementary” documents to modify whatever “Included by Reference” AIA documents I need. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 6 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 09:08 am:    Margaret, To answer your question, I believe it is correct, under the following conditions: 1. The Owner has a licensed copy of the AIA software. 2. The edits are made by the Owner (presumably with the guidance of their legal counsel). 3. There are no violations of the copyright. In essence, the edits - underlined added text and strike-through deleted text - become the Supplementary Conditions. It is the electronic age that has made this process possible. Remember, the "Supplementary Conditions" vehicle came about as a way to modify a PRE-PRINTED (published hard copy) document, as an alternative to manually marking the thing up to the point of illegibility. And since the hard copy cannot be mass-reproduced without violating the copyright, multiple copies would have to be purchased ($$$) and the mark-ups would have to be made on each original. SO the electronic version solved that problem. Additionally, as long as the parties enter into an Agreement (with the modified electronic copy specifically listed as an attachment), I believe any court would uphold its validity. I do not believe the legal system would care if it were one contiguous document, edited, or two separate documents - one original and one supplement. The CONTENT is what matters. We have several clients that have their own subscription to the AIA electronic software, so it seems to have become common practice for large clients with ongoing building construction programs. One client took a rather innocuous 44-page A-201 and turned it into a 95 page mess. But, hey - they're the Owner! Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 108 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 12:40 pm:    Just a couple of insight items-- In the Commentary for A201, after discussing revision by electronic means, it states, "Generally the use of separate supplementary conditions is the more accepted practice at this time." And then the specific caveat in the Handbook and the Document itself-- "This document has important legal consequences. Consultation with an attorney is encouraged with respect to its completion or modification." Steven T. Lawrey, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Member Username: lawrey Post Number: 3 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 01:41 pm:    Margaret: I agree with David's comments. Supplementary Conditions may in fact be a "dinosaur" in the not too distant future. For more discussion on your post, please see the thread entitled "Supplementary Conditions" with last post on 11-11-03. Margaret G. Chewning CSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 29 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 02:29 pm:    Thanks to you all for some enlighting information. I did talk to my Architect and we are going with the AIA docs intact with supplementals. I checked out the thread Steven recommended. It too was enlightening, perhaps the edited docs will be easier to use eventually, but the copy I was reviewing was very difficult to read and had conflicts with Div 1. If electronic edits of the AIA documents are used, they must be completed as thoughtfully and concisely as we write our specifications. Thanks for the help guys Margaret Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 62 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 09:47 pm:    We stay with the growing consensus above - use of the AIA A201 in full. We use a separate Supplementary Conditions document, which is usually my master, edited for the project. That gives us a certain amount of controlled guidance over the clauses in the SCs, which often include a number that help to protect the design professional as well as the owner. BTW, we've given up printing the A201 in the Project Manual and just refer to it. For projects larger than a doghouse, the contractors have all seen it and have it around. Margaret G. Chewning CSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 31 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 10:02 pm:    Just an update on this issue. My architect client reversed on his decision about the supplementary conditions. He wants the A201 edited directly. After spending about 4 hours pulling the modifications from 3 different sources mandated from the funding source, checking for conflicts and problems, then making the hardcopy edits for the admin assistant to edit in AIA's program, I found the result "interesting". Still found some mandated modifications I do not agree with, but would have had even with the supplementals. Will let you know how it comes out. Richard Rivin (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 09:30 am:    Here's more information from CSI's Project Resource Manual,copyright 2005: Article 5.3.4:"Even though standard agreement forms, published by professional societies...will be utilized, the A/E should avoid including the agreement by reference only. It is more appropriate to include the actual agreement forms in the project manual. The possiblitiy of referencing an incorrect or out-of-date form is also eliminated if the forms are bound into the project manual." and from Article 5.4: "...The AIA and EJCDC electronic versions allow for direct modification of standard general conditions. The resulting project-specific general conditions contain both the original text and the supplementary modifications. In this case, there might not be separate supplementary conditions..." I tend to agree with David Coombs, that is, it is the CONTENT that matters, and in its most legible, user-friendly form. If working with Supplementary Conditions is one's habit, that approach may be the most user-friendly for the specifier, but not for a trier of fact, who must then "post" the Supplementary Conditions into the General Conditions in order to determine the actual meaning of the conditions agreed to by the parties to the agreement. Helaine K. Robinson CCS Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 90 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 04:12 pm:    I would think that using Supplementary Conditions is more user-friendly for both the Architect and the Contractor. Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 71 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 04:45 pm:    Personally, I think that editing the GC's directly is the way to go. If the changes are minor, leave it in line and strike out mode. If there are major changes, use the version that lists all the changes separately. It is such a hassle to try and read Supplementary Conditions side by side with the General Conditions. Even if you know A201 reasonably well, you practically have to redline the GC's to follow some changes. Why go through all that trouble? Not to mention the risk of mis-typing the paragraph number in the SC's Margaret G. Chewning CSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 34 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 05:22 pm:    Has anyone had any directly modified GC's tested in the claims and disputes process? Not just litigation, but mediation or arbitration too? Or is it too new a variation on the spec process? Margaret G. Chewning CSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 39 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 02:32 pm:    A quick update on this issue: I just found out from my client that after the lengthy discussion regarding the use of an electronicly altered A201, an addendum has been issued deleting the electronic version and inserting an unedited copy with the owner's sets of supplementary conditions. We'll see what happens.