CE: Administrative Procedures & Protocols: Question 58
I initially thought the correct answer was B or C (AIA A201 5.2.3), and since the owner specifically “expressed a desire to avoid change orders and time delays,” I chose C.
However, the correct answer is A (AIA A201 4.2.6?). While I understand that A is a valid choice, wouldn’t B or C be a better answer in this case? Am I missing a point in the reasoning?
I’d appreciate any clarification you can provide.
Thank you!
-
When it comes to construction, the specifications always take priority over drawings or other changes to the documents. The installation system needs to be installed as outlined in the specifications, and the alternate system would have needed to be approved for installation if it's not the primary one referenced in the specs. It's the architect's role as an agent of the owner to interpret and make determinations on issues regarding the contract documents.
The approval of the system from the manufacturer has no bearing between the parties bound by signed contract documents and the specs, and the second option prompts a change order that the owner wanted to avoid. The first option has no change order associated because it's the contractor's responsibility to install systems as specified. It will cause a delay to re-install, but the contractor acted independently from the documents they agreed to and resolving the issue falls solely on their shoulders.
-
In response to abruno168, the drawings and specifications are complimentary and one does not outweigh the other in any stage of the project. The contractor should issue an RFI to the architect if there is a discrepancy. between the two.
I believe the answer is A because it is the architect's duty to reject nonconforming work; such as a materials installation system that does not match the specifications. The owner can accept or reject the nonconforming work, but the architect can only reject it. The owner can overrule the architect and accept the system proposed by the contractor, but to the extent of question 58 above, the architect must reject the work and require the general contractor to follow the specifications/contract documents.
Hope this helps :)
-
"the architect's duty to reject nonconforming work; such as a materials installation system that does not match the specifications. The owner can accept or reject the nonconforming work, but the architect can only reject it."
That is exactly what I wanted to know! I also found this rule in another study material. Now I really understand it. Thank you!!
-
I see that this question has already been answered in the best possible ways, but I wanted to share my take, from the standpoint of an ARE taker. If I got this question and only knew a little about the contracts (meaning I wasn't sure what are the contractual obligations of architect and contractor as per AIA contracts in this scenario) I would still immediately eliminate option C, and guess between option A and B, increasing my chances from 33% to 50%. Because even if I didn't know the exact responsibilities of the architect in this scenario as per the contract, I know that the manufacturer doesn't hold much legal weight in a scenario where contractual relationships are between the owner-architect, and the owner-contractor. So getting manufacturer's input can give parties to make a better decision and in real life it may have an impact on decision making but in ARE world, you should treat this a bit of a black and white issue. Did the question mention any contractual involvement of the manufacturer? Besides, most manufacturers in the real world stand behind their materials, so you can't get anything written or verbal from them discrediting their materials or installations anyway. So, just from a test-taking perspective, I think option C should be eliminated because the question is trying to measure the test-takers' understanding of the architect's contractual obligations.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments