Is a site walk required before issuing a certificate for payment?
Looking over the contracts (a201, b101, and g702). There is no clear language indicating that the architect must walk the site before issuing payment. This is the closest statements i can find: B101, 3.6.3.1: “the architects certification for payment shall constitute a representation to the owner, based on the architects evaluation of the work as provided in section 3.6.2...to the best of the architects knowledge, information and belief, the work has progressed to the point for payment.” But site visits are only meant to keep the owner reasonably informed of the work. And A201, 9.4.2 says that the certificate is not a representation that the architect has “ made exhaustive or continuous on site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the work” But the Ballast practice exam problems 582 and 586 say that it’s required just before a payment (or possibly right after). One says that the architect is legally and ethically required to see in person whether or not the project has progressed significantly. The other question claims that both that the certificate doesn’t represent the architect has inspected the work. But in the next sentence it says that A201 states that after i receiving an application, the architect must visit the site within 7 days, which I cannot find anywhere in the document. Anyone have a determination on the architects responsibility in this instance.?
-
It is required. If you read G702 carefully, the paragraph right above the architect’s signature states “…based on on-site observations…”
It also makes sense in real practice. In an on-site observation, the architect can clearly see the progress of the project, and the materials stored on site.
Gang Chen, Author, Architect, LEED AP BD+C (GreenExamEducation.com)
-
Gang,
I disagree.
I see the line you are referring to on G702 "based on sit observations".... however, it goes also according to the contract documents.
According to AIA contract documents, an architect is only required to visit the site on 2 occasions, and / or "at intervals appropriate to the project."
In my experience, and I believe it is written in some places, that an architect does not have to visit the site to certify that the project progress is appropriate to the payment request. An architect can use the contractor's schedule of values to determine the appropriate progress payment that is due.
Site observation is obviously recommended best practice, and in my opinion, needed to certify the project progress, but I am relatively certain that it is NOT required to process payment requests.
I would venture that the answer to this question would depend on the other provided contract documents for the question.
I am open to being proved otherwise.
Mark, Archizam
-
The ARE exams are based on AIA contract documents. G702, the paragraph right above the architect’s signature clearly states “…based on on-site observations…”
So, the field observations are required.
Of course, you can modify the AIA contract documents in real practice, but it is not for ARE exams.
Your following statement is NOT convincing unless you can provide evidence to prove it. Your statement of “I believe” is simply not enough:
“In my experience, and I believe it is written in some places, that an architect does not have to visit the site to certify that the project progress is appropriate to the payment request.”
Gang Chen, Author, Architect, LEED AP BD+C (GreenExamEducation.com)
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
3 comments