AIA language makes me want to ...

[Dancing Dan]

Am I the only one who wants to punch the architect after I read boilerplate AIA language? Just got a set of plans and specs, and I know they just cut and paste the specs (and I also know that the intent is to attempt to create a level playing field and protect the client), but why does it have to be written in such a patronizing tone? Here's one minor example:

Contractor shall purchase or award subcontracts on items covered by cash allowances to such firms and for such sums as are directed by Architect

I find these minor insults all through the documents. Keeps making Design/Build look more promising.

[Carl Sperry]

hurrumph, hurrumph, hurrumph!

[Overbuilders]

Am I the only one who wants to punch the architect after I read boilerplate AIA language? Just got a set of plans and specs, and I know they just cut and paste the specs (and I also know that the intent is to attempt to create a level playing field and protect the client), but why does it have to be written in such a patronizing tone? Here's one minor example:

I find these minor insults all through the documents. Keeps making Design/Build look more promising.

AIA language makes me want to...barf?

AIA language makes me want to...maim?

AIA language makes me want to...kill?

[David Meiland]

Dan, you need your own contract language that overrides that type of boilerplate. Or, have it removed from the set of plans you use as the basis of the contract.

Or, ask the architect to specify which firms and which sums he is OK'ing for which items. No need for you to submit anything first for approval.

I would never comply with stuff like that. Ever.

[Dancing Dan]

Yeah, this crap never makes it into the final documents. And for better or worse most architects are happy to bow out when construction starts. It's not even that I worry about what it means for me legally or financially, more that it just pisses me off before I even start looking at their plans.

"Architects shall submit all drawings to Contractor for ridicule before showing them to client. Their pencils shall be sharpened at a 75 degree angle. No plaid ties unless authorized previously."

[Dancing Dan]

AIA language makes me want to...barf?

AIA language makes me want to...maim?

AIA language makes me want to...kill?

Shoot Rush Limbaugh's dog.

[Ted S.]

If you ever really read through the AIA docs such as the A201 General Conditions you'd see the entire document puts the Contractor at a major disadvatage. From what I see most of it is not inforced, and if it were i think you would see the industry move away from the AIA boilerplate.

[Overbuilders]

The AGC helped to develop this:

http://www.agc.org/cs/contracts

[jud aley]

I don’t know about other states, but I was told by a construction lawyer here in Connecticut that if a contract does not have a proper “right of recission or right to cancel” attached on a separate piece of paper for each signee it is pretty much useless and would not hold up in court and I should sign AIAcontracts without hesitation because they don't have them.

I have never seen an AIA contract with a right of recission, has anyone else?

Dick, what do you know about this?

[Dick Seibert]

Jud:

I disagree with your attorney unless Connecticut has written something special into thier statutes, but I know nothing of Connecticut law and you should follow the advice of a Connecticut lawyer, in this case you might want to get a second opinion.

Rights of rescission apply to home solicitation contracts, they apply to improvements to homes, there was some debate in California whether they applied to new homes since by definition building a home is an "improvement" to the real estate. A couple of years ago our legislature cleared that up and a home improvement is now defined as an improvement to an existing home so they are not needed on new homes. They are only needed if the contract is signed in the home, so you don't need them if the contract is signed in your office or the architect's office, or the corner bar for that matter (competency to contract aside). I don't know what would happen if you sent the contract to the homeowner and they signed it and sent it back to you or the architect, but absent any precedents to the contrary I don't think a court would interpret the regulation as controlling if you weren't in the home when it was signed.

The safest thing you can do is sign an AIA contract since it is the industry standard, the AGC and the AIA have worked for many years to arrive at a mutually acceptable set of documents, the current ConsensusDOCS Richie Poor linked you to are the end result, all of these organizations have worked on them and approved them, If you draft your own contract you are just opening yourself to all kinds of costly litigation in which the owner will have a decided advantage, if you sign the AIA any ambiguities are resolved in your favor and against the architect's favor, I advise signing them as presented and go do your job without ever looking back, they only come up in litigation anyway, any specific conditions you may want should be placed in the specifications and incorporated along with the plans by reference into the contract. Any contracts you draft, or clauses you insert into contracts, are considered adhesion contracts or clauses giving the other side all the advantages in resolving ambiguities. Literally hundreds of attorneys have fought over every word in the AIA documents, don't go trying to throw a wrinkle in the contract, words in contracts don't necessarily mean what they mean in plain English, the courts have assigned meanings to those words over centuries and you can't go changing that.

Let's take Dan's example:

Contractor shall purchase or award subcontracts on items covered by cash allowances to such firms and for such sums as are directed by Architect

What can possibly be wrong by that, the architect is assuming all liability for all allowances, there is commonly litigation over allowances in construction disputes, you don't care, and don't want to care what the architect or owner spends their allowance money on, it's not yours, it's the owner's to do what he wants with. With that clause all you have to do is notify the architect to give you a list, in a timely fashion, of all subcontractors doing work covered by allowances, and the names of the suppliers where he wants you to buy covered materials, you are off the hook liability-wise for all of those things, if one of his subcontractors doesn't meet schedule you've got a claim for an extra caused by the delay, if a product he specifies is defective he is responsible, that clause was undoubtedly placed in there by the contractors' attorneys, probably after a fight with the architects' attorneys.

[swbuilder]

"Architects shall submit all drawings to Contractor for ridicule before showing them to client. Their pencils shall be sharpened at a 75 degree angle. No plaid ties unless authorized previously."

Thats good.

[oldguy]

In Connecticut, "Home Improvement Contractors" must be 'licensed' (read "registered") with the State Department of Consumer Protection. Technically any "home improvement" work must be specified in a contract which includes, among other things, a 3-BUSINESS-day right-of-recission clause (the exact wording is specified in the statutes).
In CT a home improvement contract is invalid in court if the contractor is NOT registered with DCP. In other words you can make and sign an otherwise completely legal contract, including the R-O-C clause, and complete the work above-and-beyond, and without the "license" the client can refuse to pay you.
Believe me. B-T-D-T Worked for someone years ago when I first went full-time as a carpenter/remodeler. This fellow did not believe in the validity of the small registration fee. At the end of the job, the client (who had been a law student and involved in the town) decided not to pay for the cost overruns which had all been agreed to along the way.
The GC never got his final money, and neither did I.
I got my "licence" within days after that.