General Conditions w/Contractor alrea...

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

Author Message Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 79 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 10:05 pm:    I may have understood this better at one time, but I guess my brain is getting "full" and older information is getting worked out. The majority of my projects are large scale, with the Contractor brought on board usually in SD or early DD. So, in theory, the Contractor has already signed an agreement w/ the Owner, as has the Architect, and these agreements have already determined their respective roles and responsibilities which all parties have agreed to. What, if any, would then be the purpose of including the A201, or any similar General Conditions? Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 162 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 10:10 pm:    The contract for construction is a seperate item than the Contractor's contract for preconstruction services. The A201 applies to the former. Also, even if they only have one contract for the duration, it's still a 3rd party GC, not design build. There is another document that is specifically for large projects. I'm unfamilar with it, but perhaps worth a look in your case. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 392 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 10:12 pm:    Hey Robin: working late too, I see. There is no need to include the General Conditions in the Project Manual because they're already a part of the contract between Owner and Contractor. All you need to do is make sure your Division 01 is coordinated with the Conditions that are in place (I'm doing that right now with that little job you sent my way - Thanks). Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 80 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 10:16 pm:    Ron - That's been my train of thought for the past few years, but recently someone kept questioning me, so I started doubting my knowledge. Sometimes it seems strange that 90% of my projects don't have General Conditions. Any other thoughts anyone? (You're welcome Ron - I am sure there are more coming) Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 393 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 10:31 pm:    Almost all of the projects I do I don't include General and Supplementary Conditions because the contractor has already been selected (CM@Risk). Therefore, there's no need to put something in the manual that is already agreed to between the parties. The same goes for procurement documents and many of the typical contract forms (i.e. bonds). The only problem is that the Conditions of the Contract are the "Public" part of the Agreement, which all subcontracts must also comply with, and probably most subcontractors might never see because it wasn't available in the Project Manual. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 536 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2007 - 08:09 am:    The problem where there are no A201 General Conditions, is that the architect/design professional is often not addressed in the O-C contract [note: not all contracts are AIA docs]. Without A201 a lot of authority for the architect/dp is lost, as are other meaningful aspects contained in A201. We use a "pecking order" routine, stated in our Section 011100 that the owner's documents prevail; where they do not cover a situation, the specifications/drawings prevail, and where all of the foregoing do not address the issue, we will utilize A201. In this way, we cover all issues but still retain the important aspects of A201, our authority and other items not covered elsewhere. If it takes 54 pages of A201 to cover everything, it cannot usually be done in far less, vis-a-vis, the owner's docs alone. Despite who is hired first, etc. it is necessary for all parties to be addressed in project-wide documents, properly, completely and with correct interfaces. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 81 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2007 - 10:56 am:    Ralph: But, in theory, aren't the roles and responsibilities of the Architect already defined and agreed upon in the Owner/Architect agreement? Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 170 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2007 - 11:09 am:    Ralph: If I understand you correctly, the project has two general conditions to the contract: the Owner's and A201. Do you rename A201 to another name to distinguish it from the Owner's GC or do you append A201 to their conditions? My problem with Owner's conditions are that they are often really some GC's/CM's conditions. I have often seen projects run smoothly until final settlement when all hell breaks loose fighting over issues cleaverly buried in the contractor generated text. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 537 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2007 - 11:13 am:    That may or may not be true, Robin. If either or both the O-A contract and General Conditions are non-AIA, there is a problem. Also, since there is no C-A contract, there is an openeededness and it is soley A201 that brings all players and their duties and responsibilities together and interrelates them. We, of course, must "play" the owner's game as to documents, but in that we need not and should not create undue and increased liability for ourselves-- we do enough projects at minimal[??] profit, no sense to do them, too, with added risk! Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 394 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2007 - 11:28 am:    You have to remember that it is the Owner that has the Agreement with the Contractor, and the Conditions of the Contract are what the Owner has placed on the Agreement between those two entities--the Architect is not a party to that Agreement. However, the roles and responsibilities of the Architect are defined in A201 General Conditions, but MUST be coordinated with the Owner-Architect Agreement. Technically, the Owner cannot add responsibilities to the Architect in the General Conditions that are not agreed upon in the Owner-Architect Agreement. If an Owner-generated General Conditions document is used and it doesn't define the role and responsibilities of the Architect (for the Contractor's benefit), then the Owner-Architect Agreement will be the sole document that does. Therefore, it would behoove the Architect to enhance the Division 01 sections to ensure that the Contractor knows what those responsibilities are--Division 01 is provided to expand upon the Conditions of the Contract among other things, but if there's nothing to expand upon, then Division 01 becomes the only source of providing those conditions. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2007 - 01:02 pm:    My preference is to bind the General Conditions into the Project Manual for every project, but in lieu of that, I reference A201 (if this is what is being used) in Div 01 and offer copies to the Contractor. It is important that all players have ready access to the General Conditions - Subcontractors are featured in A201 and need to know what is required of them. It makes no difference whether a GC is brought in early or late - the General Conditions should be in the Project Manual for all to see and reference for the duration of the project. Steven T. Lawrey, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: lawrey Post Number: 64 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, February 02, 2007 - 01:47 pm:    The Agreement and accompanying General Conditions (negotiated contract or CM at risk) should be included in the Project Manual for the knowledge of the Architect during the contract administration phase. These documents carry just as much weight as the drawings and specs. Additionally, if Supplementary Conditions are used it is a good idea to publish this project specific information along with the base document. Also, I noticed that MasterFormat 2004 has place holders for CM agreements and general conditions. The only time I wouldn't publish the agreement and conditions of the contract is when the Architect is not contracted to the owner for CA, and that is a whole other discussion.