AIA 201

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

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: Rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 26 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 04:50 pm:    <<All the jobs on my desk now were contracted with the 1987 AIA documents>> This comment was made in a recent thread and it caught my attention because I also still use the 1987 edition of A201. I resisted the change to the newer 1997 edition then and I still do. Like myself, a large portion of my specifier friends are still are not comfortable with the provisions of the 1997 edition and feel that it does not serve the needs of our clients [the architect] as well. Based on the comment above, which IIRC, was made by a contractor, I am still in the majority. Am I? More and more architects are signing owner-architect agreements which base their services on the 1997 edition presenting some conflicts in the administrative portions of the project manual. Are there any owners in this group that still choose the 1987 edition over the 1997 edition? ...and why? John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: Bunzick Post Number: 130 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 05:10 pm:    Other than one client who persists in its use, I have not seen a project in years with 1987 edition. You reference administrative conflicts - can you elaborate a bit on what areas? I've done specs and contract administration on 1997 version without incident. In fact, some procedures, such as CCDs are clearly an improvement over 1987. Unfortunately, there's always going to be some body of folks who have "problems" with any standard contract form - that's why Supplementary Conditions were concocted. At least we're not using some of the standard contracts developed by certain owner's groups - those are positively scary. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: Amays Post Number: 19 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 05:15 pm:    FYI...I have been told that it is considered a copywright violation by the AIA for using old out of date documents. You might want to check with AIA to verify the use of their older documents is considered this. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: David_axt Post Number: 163 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 07:43 pm:    I wouldn't think that it would be a copyright violation to use older documents, but where do you get them? You probably can't buy old AIA forms so you have to photocopy them....and that is a copyright violation. You may run into a problem of Contractor's being more familiar with the new documents and not the old ones. This presents another problem of the documents being interrelated. So do you have to use an old AIA A101 with and old AIA A201? John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: John_regener Post Number: 105 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 02:22 am:    See AIA's website for side-by-side comparison of AIA A201 1987 and 1997 editions: http://www.aia.org/documents/a201comparison.asp Tracy Van Niel Senior Member Username: Tracy_van_niel Post Number: 40 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 09:01 am:    David: Your comment about interrelation is correct. If the 1987 version of the A201 is used, the other corresponding documents need to be the same version. We still have one owner who uses the 1987 AIA contract so we have two Supplementary Conditions in our master; one for the 1987 A201 and the other for the 1997 A201. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: Sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 22 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 06:36 pm:    I was told by AIA that the old document is no longer supported, but is still protected by copyright. We have only one owner who insists on using the 1987 edition. For those projects we adopt it by reference, telling bidders they can review it at the owner's office. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: John_regener Post Number: 111 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 11:49 pm:    Can anyone report on the status of updating of A201 by AIA? Note that the CMa version of A201 is still dated 1992 and does not incorporate the significant revisions of the 1997 edition of the basic A201. I have MANY projects, public and private, where the Owner has a staff member who functions as a Construction Manager much more like the CMa (advisor) than a CM-at-risk. More and more, the architect's role during construction is being reduced to that of a consultant who the Construction Manager, Project Manager or Owner's Representative calls for interpretation of the documents or to solve problems the CM, PM or OR cannot or will not resolve alone. It is very much like the role of a Contracting Officer in military construction projects. And project owners more and more often don't want to pay for construction contract administration services by the architect and engineers. I wonder if AIA will be addressing this reality in the next edition of their A201 General Conditions? And yes, I am aware of that this is troublesome when considering professional registration and sealing/signing of construction documents. But it happens more and more frequently, especially as architects and engineers become less and less interested and involved in what happens on the jobsite. Richard HIrd (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Sunday, September 21, 2003 - 10:40 am:    Since we are seeing so many variations of project delivery methods, I wonder if it is possible, or advisable, for AIA to provide standard conditions for these variations. I have found that AIA 201 CMa never really fit the relations I was seeing in place. To try to adapt to the reality was even more difficult because I never found the parties willing to define responsibilities. They were only interested in maintaining their perogatives. I believe the CM, PM, Owner, or whoever is setting up the project management should author the Contract Conditions for the various parties and submit them for negotiation. Of course many larger design firms could perform this task, and if given the opportunity should do so, but I would hate to expect a smaller firm to have the expertise to do this. Standard forms just encourage them try to do so. This is usually a mistake. Steven T. Lawrey, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 12:06 am:    Ron, it sounds like you select the Form of General Conditions ("I still use the 1987 edition of A201. I resisted ..."). Clearly, selection of the General Conditions not the specifier's responsibility, it is the owner's responsibility. Afterall he/she is entering into a contract and must be free to stipulate the ground rules. If this is the case, you put yourself at risk to the owner for unintended events. This concept is presented in the Specifications Module of the CSI MOP. Most of our clients (healthcare and corporate) opt for the 1997 edition and we have encountered few problems during the CCCA phase. One client still prefers the 1987 edition and several others use a form developed by their project management team (essentially A201-1987 modified to afford more protection for the owner and somewhat less for the A/E). The AIA documents are based on experience and case law, therefore wouldn't latest edition would be preferred? Bob Johnson (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 01:10 pm:    John - AIA Contract Document News states following: New Documents Available with New Software which is supposed to be availabe any day: * New Interiors Family * Updated CMc A121 and A131 * New International Family Coming Soon in Early 2004: * New D/B Family * Revised CMa Family * New B141 Part 2 Scope Documents John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 129 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 06:42 pm:    Bob Johnson: My concern is that the fundamental relationships between parties identified in the construction contract documents be understood and that those relationships be consistent through the various AIA documents. Also, as legal interpretations evolve, that the documents be revised and refined. And that's just the AIA documents. There are others --- AGC, CMAA and EJCDC --- who also publish construction contract documents. Pehaps the new-and-improved CSI Manual of Practice will explain all this. In the meantime, I'm trying to figure out whether the differences in duties and responsibilities of the parties under design-bid-build, design-build (and its many permutations), construction management and multiple prime contracts mean major differences in how construction specifications are written. Bob Johnson (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 02:21 pm:    John: I suggest that you contact someone that is involved with the AIA documents regarding your consistency concern - Barbara Heller (David Metzger's partner) has been on the committee and was and may still be the chair. Another choice is to go the the lawyer on the AIA staff responsible for the document program. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 130 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 02:56 am:    Bob Johnson: Thank you. I found out enough to know that it will be 2007-2008 before A201 is next updated, although there are other documents in process to be updated before then.