Hi All!
I am in the process of bidding on an upcoming two-story residential project – 4,000 sq ft concrete, cmu, trussed roof etc. I am confident in my bid, and my ability to complete the project to everyones satisfaction, BUT…. this is an AIA A107-1997 Stipulated Sum Contract…and the 1″ thick contract and specifications manual is a bit intimidating.
This will be my first AIA Contract since starting on my own, I’ve managed projects under this type of contract in the past, but it feels a WHOLE lot different when it’s your name on the dotted line!
Any advice on this particular contract type, pitfalls etc. that I should look out for would be greatly appreciated.
Dennis
Edited 8/5/2003 6:46:19 AM ET by Dennis
Replies
I too was intimidated the first time I got one of those inch plus books. It is important to read one of those cover to cover at least once. About ten percent of the document is vitally important in that it tells you important information about the project, schedule, price, materials to be used, your responsibilities and the responsibilities of the owner and architect.
More important than the document is the actual expectations of the owner and architect. For instance, we have never been asked to submit shop drawings on a single project despite the fact that this was called for in every contract.
The architect is given broad authority to approve any change in the plans but often is too busy to understand and the many problems that need to be addressed during construction. Unless the architect can visit the site on a weekly basis or is close enough to pop in on short notice, the GC is often left on his own. If the owner is close at hand, they often make the decisions themselves despite the procedure set forth in the contract.
I realize that mine is just another uninformed opinion. Maybe we can get some input from someone who has followed the boilerplate to the letter. Large commercial contractors do this all the time, I'm sure. It is rare in residential work.
More important than the document is the actual expectations of the owner and architect.
IMHO, that are some of the best advice I've ever read here!
(Actually, a primary function of a contract it to help the parties to the deal lay and detail out their expectations for that very reason - boiler plate achieves deal efficiencies, but at the cost of mudding up expectation clarification.)
_______________________
10 .... I have laid the foundation like an expert builder. Now others are building on it. But whoever is building on this foundation must be very careful.
11 For no one can lay any other foundation than the one we already have--Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:10-11
Hi Schellingm!
Thank you for your thoughts. I called the architect yesterday expressed my concerns. He said that most of the provisions in the Specifications were part of his "standard package" of specs, cut-and-pasted from previous jobs. He said that on jobs of this size, he will not require the concrete samples, mock-ups, shop drawings or the 300 sq ft air-conditioned site office!
He was not willing, however to remove these requirements from the specifications "just in case". I think I will up my contingency % a few points as well...."just in case".
Thanks again,
Dennis
". I think I will up my contingency % a few points as well...."just in case"."
This is often the main result of a thick contract and spec book but the owner is usually more than willing to pay for this.
"This is often the main result of a thick contract and spec book but the owner is usually more than willing to pay for this."
What?
How many owners are willing to pay an extra 10% for concrete core test that is never done, and if done really not needed, and for an airconditioned office that is never used.
"How many owners are willing to pay an extra 10% for concrete core test that is never done, and if done really not needed, and for an airconditioned office that is never used. "
What they are paying for (probably not 10%, but could be) is a document drawn up by a neutral party which puts bidders on an equal footing. I can't ever remember using this contract in a job that was not bid out. The owners are hoping that the extra cost caused by this document will add to the likelihood that the project will have few problems. It may help but ultimately the success of the job will be determined by the folks designing, building and paying for the job.
He was not willing, however to remove these requirements from the specifications "just in case". I think I will up my contingency % a few points as well...."just in case".
Make a written record of the conversation - "Memo to File" and file it with you project docs and send a copy to him "FYI"
"Just in Case" Courets will generally not enforce contract provisions which the parties really didn't intend to be part of the contract -his memorialized oral waiver will buy you a lot of peace of mind - "just in case."
After the project is done, you might want to mention to him in a friendly, just in case sort of way how obnoxious his "just in case" attitude is - he's basically saying, "I want that stuff in the cointract just in case I want to start a fight."
_______________________
10 .... I have laid the foundation like an expert builder. Now others are building on it. But whoever is building on this foundation must be very careful.
11 For no one can lay any other foundation than the one we already have--Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:10-11
It is important to read one of those cover to cover at least once. Thta is excellent advice. The contractor is quite likely to find conflicts between the spec book and the plans, and somewhere it might say that one supercedes the other, but it would be worth bringing the error to the architects (and possibly customers) attention. The spec book might specify a particular brand of paint or lockset, define the required number of coats of paint, etc. Depending on the size of the archy's offfice, one person may have done the spec book and a different person the plans, and sometimess they don't communicate. Document all discrepancies in writing.
Do it right, or do it twice.
Hi Dennis - As an architect, I've heard the same concerns you've voiced many times, often from contractors signing the A107 for the first time. Take a look at the A101 and you'll feel better (the general conditions are about 1-in thick)!
We use the A107 quite a bit and all I can say is that it is fair to everyone involved. It doesn't favor anyone in particular. Each party is defined along with their responsibility. If they don't meet their responsibilities, there are provisions for action. We've seen this document protect owners form less than stellar contractors and we've seen it protect contractors from rotten owners (they're out there). But, that's just my experience. Have a lawyer review it for you for your own peace of mind.
As for the specifications, it drives me nuts when an architect is too lazy to edit his own specs. For your own protection, include with your bid a list of exclusions: the job trailer, concrete testing, etc. Make sure the list is referenced and included as part of the contract that you sign.
Good luck!
I've worked with this architect on a couple of projects before, in fact I built his house last year, so I know him quite well. I did not think that the overblown specs were a sign of laziness, I figured that he is just a bit overworked.
After reading all of the posts above, I called him back. He has asked me to document my concerns and note any discrepancies between the various documents. He then plans to issue an amendment to all bidders, just to make it fair to us all. I guess that this is one way for him to shed a bit of his workload!!!!!
I will comply, because this job is right for us. We can build this, we will get this job!
Thank to ALL for your posts,
Dennis
Edited 8/6/2003 12:51:20 PM ET by Dennis
So, you're going to do all that work for him (his work, basically), and he's going to issue it as an addendum to all the other bidders???? NO WAY!!!!
If the job is so "right" for you, either convince him of that (he obviously isn't convinced yet, since he's bidding the job to other GCs), or let everyone do their own quals to the contract as part of their proposals- the architect can then sort out who excluded what. Why should they all benefit from you doing the architect's legwork and making his plans/specs jive with each other, and with what he really wants??
Bob
Bob you're partially correct. If a bidder asks for clarification of a spec or drawings, the archy is correct in passing the answer to all bidders; for example a steel beam that's not identified on the plans. If a bidder finds an error in the palns or specs and advbises the archy, again it is prudent for the archy to advise everyone. However, if one bidder doesn't see the need for a jobsite office trailer, that's his business and he should include a qualification with his proposal clearly stating that it is not part of the bid.
Do it right, or do it twice.
I agree fully- in fact, I'm bidding a $55 million school (bid due tomorrow), which has generated over 500 RFI's from the various bidders, and 10 addendums. This is annoying enough, in and of itself, in that is shows that the drawings were far from complete when issued, and the contractors are all filling in the gaps and inconsistencies.
What Dennis has been asked to do goes even further, though. This is not a matter of clarifying inconsistencies, but rather asking the contractor to tell the architect what's really needed to do the job (concrete testing on a residence is overkill in most cases, for example). Why should one contractor be expected to review the specs, generate a list of what he feels is appropriate, and then have all the other contractors benefit from it? Either they all put together their own quals and let the archy sort through them, or let the archy take the time to prepare supplemental conditions to supercede the AIA GC's, thereby avoiding having to sort through the various lists of quals.
Bob
Hi All!
Just a quick update if anyones interested-
Contractor A $492,000
Me 494,500
Contractor C 498,000
The "Winning" Bidder 422,000
Contractor A and I were talking outside after the opening as the "winner" walked up. We continued our conversation about the 60K worth of impact resistant windows and the 30K worth of stairs, all the while watching our boy get paler and paler!
Was it Sonny that said that the worst outcome of these types of bids is to win by a large margin? Whoever it was, he was waaaaay right.
Dennis
around here he had a problem with people leaving money on the table, then change ordering. They got where they throw out the high and low bid and then go with past performance/price.