I think from an industry standard practice standpoint, this approach represents quite a paradigm shift that needs buy-in from all the players.
There are two things at play here: First, the ASI, which is one of the enumerated contract document modifications, per A201; and the PR, which is not. Combining these two actionable approaches into one document tends to muddy the contractual water, I think. Probably best to keep them segregated. Keep in mind - the Owner (not the Architect) determines the appropriate form of agreement between them and the Contractor, and, correspondingly, the General Conditions [of that contract]. Since the approach in question would require the Owner (or their legal counsel) to first - use A201 to begin with, which they are certainly not obligated to do; and second - alter the language in A201 to address the Architect's preference / practice, which - again - they are in no way obligated to do (aside from it being beyond the industry norm). On a similar note, what does the Owner-Architect Agreement say? Does it mention the contract document modification process explicitly, or does it defer to A201? If this new approach is not addressed in either, then the Architect will require buy-in from the owner to get it implemented into the CA process (which may be a hard sell). Even if you can sell it, it will still require buy-in from the Contractor. From my readings of the typical AIA O-A agreement forms, and A201, I see no language that suggest the Architect has the latitude to unilaterally implement this approach.
Second (and here's where I get blunt), the Architect/CCA should darn well know if something they are issuing (the ASI) or responding to (the RFI) will have the consequence of potentially adding cost to the project. I think most Owners (and contractors) will expect the Architect to have a reasonable grasp of such matters. There are few things that can compromise an architect's credibility (in the eyes of both the Owner and Contractor) more than to broadcast via a written instrument "we have no idea if this is a cost change or not, so Mr. Contractor you get to choose" - especially if there are no provisions in the various executed agreements that explicitly codify its use.
------------------------------
David R. Combs, Assoc. AIA, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP
Associate Principal, Director of Operations
Perkins + Will
Dallas TXDavidAssoc. AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Original Message:
Sent: 06-23-2016 09:51
From: J. Michael Leinback
Subject: Change Management during CA
In lieu of AIA forms G710 (Architect's Supplemental Instructions) and G709 (Work Changes Proposal Request), is anyone using a "combination" form would avoid the need for the architect to "pre-determine" whether a proposed change will result in additional cost? Such a form would provide for the contractor to respond with EITHER 1) an acceptance of the change with zero change to cost or time; OR 2) a proposal for a change in cost and/or time. Use of a single form would seemingly provide for simplified tracking of changes.
Thoughts?
------------------------------
Mike Leinback AIA
Senior Project Manager
Dewberry
Dallas TX
------------------------------