At the same time, it can be significantly more expensive to use a design- build or similar approach and it may be difficult to find a contractor willing to bear such risk. This creates an incentive every developer should hope to avoid, where the party in the best position to prevent damage to the work, the contractor, is not financially responsible at all for damage to the work caused by accidents or outside forces. While that leverage lasts only until final completion, it can still be helpful as many defects appear shortly after substantial completion. However, an A102 form is appropriate only if the architectural drawings and specifications have been finalized or are nearly-finalized at the time the construction contract is being developed. All of this leads directly to additional costs. Law Firms: Be Strategic In Your COVID-19 Guidance... [GUIDANCE] On COVID-19 and Business Continuity Plans. Another key shortcoming of the AIA forms is that they do not include an exhaustive or exclusive list of situations in which the contractor may be entitled to a change order. Key components of any successful construction project are selecting an experienced and capable contractor and entering into a well written and thought-out construction contract. At the same time, it can be significantly more expensive to use a design- build or similar approach and it may be difficult to find a contractor willing to bear such risk. If left unmodified, AIA forms provide that a developer may only withhold payment “to such extent as may be necessary in the [a]rchitect’s opinion to protect the [o]wner from loss for which the [c]ontractor is responsible.” A developer’s right to withhold should be based on its own reasonable judgment. Under form AIA language, if a contractor submits a claim, the architect must first review and decide upon its validity without “partiality” to the developer or to the contractor. Another common pitfall is using a form designed to be used between an owner and general contractor in a transaction between an owner and a different project participant, such as a project manager. Without detailed schedules, if claims arise with respect to a delay, the developer will be left in an inferior position to the contractor to reject such claims because it will not have the information necessary to truly evaluate the merits of the claim. Releasing retainage at final completion also gives the developer some leverage in ensuring that warranty work is completed diligently. While the AIA markets their forms as a balance of the interests of the owner and its contractual counter-parties, and can provide a framework on which a good construction contract may be built through modifications, the AIA’s one-size-fits-all approach often does not adequately protect the developer when issues arise on a construction project. Additionally, a fixed price contract may actually best serve the developer’s interests and needs, in which case an A101 is more appropriate. Requiring the contractor to submit detailed schedules at regular intervals preempts such gamesmanship and can provide significant leverage in a schedule-related dispute down the road. This is especially problematic if the basis of the dispute is the architect’s own faulty design. It also provides other design services ranging from civil and structural engineering to landscape design to permitting support services. Often when we discuss the project delivery system with our clients on the front end, we find that the contract provided to them is not well suited to what they envision. AIA Contract Documents Contract Relationship Diagrams May 2009. 8 is a substantial document, but this document favors the CM. AIA Document A133–2009 is coordinated for use with AIA Documents A201™–2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, and B103™–2007, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect for a Large or Complex Project.