AIA A201, 2007 Edition

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

Author Message Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 313 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 04:44 pm:    Back in 2007, when AIA A201 2007 edition was newly issued, I did a lot of investigation, attended seminars, etc., and decided to advise my clients to continue to use the 1997 edition as long as they can and do not to use the 2007 edition until they [the architect principals] have read, understood, and consulted with their attys about the new modifications to A201 and have prepared the appropriate Supplemental Conditions as needed for their projects/practices. After a brief consultation with a colleague [member of SCIP and a member of this discussion group] knowledgeable about the 2007 edition, I am curious to know if I am in the majority or minority on this issue. I know many government agencies and govt funded projects require the use of the 2007 edition. I strongly suspect that most architectural principals have not even read the 2007 edition [much less the 1997, or the 1987 edition for that matter]. How many here have fully endorsed the 2007 edition without major modifications? .....with major modifications? What SuppCond issues have you addressed or would like to see addressed but just haven't gotten around to it? Are there any lessons learned out there? Specification Writer Senior Member Username: specification_writer Post Number: 6 Registered: 01-2009 Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 05:09 pm:    AIA no longer supports A201 1997 edition. We have been forced to use A201 2007. We're in the laborious process of updating our supplementary conditions. Specification Writer Architect Washington, D.C. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 352 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 07:17 pm:    At the time each of the last two editions of AIA A 201 has been issued, there has been a great hue and cry about how bad the changes would be for the architect, and I have been personally told by many that they would not use it. Everyone dealt with it one way or another and gradually the new version was accepted (with appropriate supplementary conditions) across the industry. Mr. Beard is correct in recommending that architects become familiar with it; however, the ones who really need to become more familiar with it are the attorneys, especially those who don't do construction law on a regular basis. I have felt for a long time that my expertise was in architecture not law and did everything I could do to distance myself from developing contract conditions for anyone. This was based on some stuff I read in the '70s written by one of the first dual fellows (FAIA/FCSI). This is the attorney's domain, and if the owner sees fit to screw it up, the architect is only rarely going to do him/serself any favors by becoming mired in educating some beauxaux esquire who insists on inserting a (usually lenthy) provision about the contractor's providing a 1-year warranty that leaves his client much more exposed that he would have been if he left the standard "1-year correction period" intact. With the electronic version of the AIA documents, architects (and owners) are unable to hang onto and use "legacy documents" which is proabably a good thing. Get over it; educate yourself (and your clients as you have been doing); and move on so you can be ready for AIA A201 2017. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1091 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 08:28 am:    We went ahead and learned what we needed, created revisions parallel to those we used in the 1997 where appropriate, and now use it on all work where the AIA documents are used, including public projects. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 918 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 09:33 am:    What a great way to spell "Bozo"! Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1039 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 09:58 am:    We have had two sessions in our office which dealt in general with the changes in A201-2007-- both by our insurance carrier. Have tried 5 times to get attention of those above to move to 2007 docs with no response. Have passed along the pulling of support for 1997 by AIA. In re: changes required, I was told, "Oh, you can do that"! Answered No!. in best professional manner. Have now collected docs for others, but eventually [I hope sooner than later], I think, we will need our attorneys or insurance carrier to tell us specifically what we must do and how our Supplementaries need be. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 353 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 10:19 am:    It seems every time AIA updates its documents, the attorneys go nuts and start offering end-of-the-world seminars. I've been a to a few of these presentations, and I have yet to see anything that is all that serious. My impression is that the changes generally make sense, and thus far none of our clients has had any heartburn. But it's hard to charge a couple of hundred dollars for a seminar that says "don't worry." Some will grumble that the A201 is unfair to one entity or another, but those issues are insignificant compared to what I see in owner-generated general conditions, or in supplementary conditions for the A201 that are prepared by an owner's attorney. They typically absolve the owner of any responsibility and burden the architect and contractor with things beyond their control. They also like to include half of Division 01, along with bidding requirements. I keep hearing that specifiers aren't qualified to work with conditions of the contract, but the work done by owners and their generalist attorneys suggests a good specifier will do a better job than an attorney who is not familiar with construction documents. I'm curious; am I missing something? What horrible things have you seen as a result of the 1997 or 2007 changes in AIA general conditions? Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1040 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 11:08 am:    Sheldon, I've seen nothing horrible, but as an old code official, and having to deal with attorneys many times over, I have seen them rip the code text apart up one side and dwon the other and literally make part of the code read directly opposite of what was meant-- and made it stick [and the code was not "bad"]. My reluctance is purely personal, conservative, and just that I do not feel comfortable or up to putting my firm in jeopardy by "tweaking without license" and making conditions that become untenable. For the most part, attorneys wrote the things, let them similarly rew-rok and dfenc them!! Besides would you like to live or work in a building desinged by an attorney-- if the thing would ever be able to get through the legal muck and get built? Richard Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 - 12:51 pm:    Having worked for a lawyer that was the head of our design firm, I was taught that the problem with a changed AIA document had more to due with lack of legal precedence then any ypothetical "unfair" concerns new documents create. When a new document is issued it needs to be challenged in court before you can evaluate it properly, and make proper exceptions thereto. That means possibly your time and your money, if you dare to be on the bleeding edge. Let the other guy do it. Further there is nothing wrong with using any previous version of any legal document. Now that AIA supports only electronic licensed versions it makes it awkward to do this, but it does not make it impossible, or illegal. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1043 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 - 02:09 pm:    Does the AIA license "blueprint" houses, so they can access the electronic forms, that are unsupported, for inserting into Project Manuals? We usually have fresh copies insert in this manner Doug Frank FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 244 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 - 02:18 pm:    Not sure what the big deal is. AIA document A503 - 2007, “Guide For Supplementary Conditions” makes it pretty simple to create a basic supplementary conditions document using recommendations of the folks who wrote the 201 in the first place. I’ve used that guide to create an office master supplementary conditions that includes the recommendations for modification by AIA as well as the necessary language to modify A210 to align with certain office standard practices, concurrent with our office “standard” Owner/Architect Agreement(s). Sure attorney input is necessary to ensure we’re not doing something stupid, but it just wasn’t that complicated. We send a copy of our 007300 Supplementary Conditions section to each project’s Owner and suggest that she review with her attorney and insurance advisor and let us know what changes they want to have made. Not a big deal (or am I too missing something?). Doug Frank FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate FKP Architects, Inc. Houston, TX John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1092 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 - 02:36 pm:    Ralph: No. AIA has pulled the plug entirely on prior editions of their documents. Richard: I believe that the AIA takes into account case law on their prior edition of the documents when creating updates. And of course, most of the document doesn't change. So the missing case law would be primarily on new provisions that are not based in prior precedent. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 262 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 - 03:14 pm:    Well, you are free to use whatever outdated version you want, however, if the current version has revisions, based on current case law, statutes etc., then you will have a tough time defending (in court) your choice to use an outdated version. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1093 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 - 04:15 pm:    I'm not sure you are free to use the old versions. They are copyright products of the AIA, and you must buy original paper versions from them, or use their software, as a mechanism to pay the royalties. Since you can't do either of those, you effectively cannot use them. (Unless you have an old stock of original printed versions that you are using up.) Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 263 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 - 04:28 pm:    good point John. I used "free to use" sort-of "tongue in cheek". With the electronic documents system you really can only legally use what you purchase from the AIA.