Addenda is always a part of contract?
If there was no questions during Bid process - then there will be no need for Addenda, right?
This question states that the architect is "organizing the contract documents".
But it is unknown if there will be a need for Addenda at this point, so how we can include it?
-
Wow, I'd love to see NCARB comment on this - as it is written the answer is wrong. The addenda would be a likely choice if the question posed that bidding concluded, since Addenda can become part of the contract documents once the project is awarded.
I see what NCARB is trying to do here - they are trying to get you to narrow down the choices that are provided by the Architect vs. other contractual parties (Architects do not typically provide cost estmates in the Bidding phase, nor do they provide shop drawings). However, it does not work the way the question is written.
-
Addenda can be issued to reflect architect- or owner-initiated changes at any point during the procurement period. See page 704 of AHPP.
Alternatively, if unsure of an answer, always cross out the answers you know are incorrect. In this case, we know that A, C, & F are incorrect, as none of them would ever be issued as part of the procurement documents.
-
Hi Roman,
This question is poorly worded. After completing the design there wouldn't be any addenda until AFTER it went out to bid. Also what do they mean the 'design of a 2 story mixed-use historic building'?? If it's historic, it's already been built. It should say the "renovation" or "rehabilitation" of the historic building.
There is no correct answer to this incorrect question. Ugh...
Rebekka O'Melia, R.A., NCARB, B. Arch, M. Ed, NOMA, Step UP ARE 5.0 Courses
-
This is a very good point Rebekka. I have read this question several times in different area's of the practice and study information. It's where one might spend time reviewing the questions to remove incorrect answers and through a process of elimination arrive at the correct or in this case the answers that are contractually correct ignoring the logic of the incorrectly stated scenario!
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments