Questions to clarify

Follow

rvgbrusa

January 03, 2020 21:09

Please could someone clarify why it should be used AIA G612 in lieu of AIA 201 regarding insurance info.

It looks like that AIA 201 provides much more and useful info than the AIA G612.

This question is from PPI online mock test.

Thanks for any help.

0

• 

  rvgbrusa January 03, 2020 21:24

  Another question.

  On the first print screen the answer direct the responsibility to the electrical engineer which is an architect's consultant.

  The second print screen is similar scenario, however the responsibility for errors is an attribute to the architect.

  Shouldn't the first case be the same?

  Print screen 1Print screen 2

  Any help is welcome.

  Thanks,

  0

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  HaythamNCARB January 06, 2020 17:07 (Edited January 06, 2020 17:08)

  AIA G 612 was created to inform the owner about the nature of the construction contract since the architect is not in the position to legally advice the owner about insurances as he / she won't have the sufficient experience in the insurance. So just guide the owner to the reference.

  The sub consultant is responsible to his work in front of the architects, if he did a mistake, the owner will sue the architect which in turn will sue the electrical engineer for negligence and breaching the standard of care. The electrical engineer will pay the fee for the damage to the architect and the architect will pay the owner. The prime architect holds vicarious liability for the consultant's mistake in front of the client. As per AIA B101 collaborating with a consultant will require the prime architect to coordinate the consultant's portion if work but AIA C 401 holds the consultant architect responsibility of the full scope of service.

  Hope this helps.

   

  1

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  rvgbrusa January 07, 2020 16:35

  Thanks Haytham for the clarifications.
  Regards.

  0

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  rvgbrusa January 08, 2020 17:59

  Any help on the question below?

  Am I overthinking.

  I thought the ensuring and enforcing work hours would be more related to productivity than a policy statement personnel which seems to be more generic management procedure.

  Any comments are welcome.

  Thanks.

  0

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  Jian Huang January 08, 2020 20:10

  Good Afternoon Ronaldo,

  "Ensuring work hours are followed precisely and enforced" is helpful for firm management and project management, it works as  checking the time spent on each project, which makes managers have a record to manage employee's workload, projects' budget and schedule, etc. While, it does not improve the employees'  efficiency directly. 

  As for "Creating a policy statement concerning personnel", a policy statement does give employees some guidance which can help people to work in a more efficient way after following the methods or instructions in the policy.

  Hope it is helpful.

  Sincerely

  0

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  rvgbrusa January 08, 2020 21:30

  Hi Jian.

   

  Thank you for the clarification.

  Regards.

  0

  Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.