this study case through me off. I have never seen a B-201- what is this? And I am confused between the architect being a consultant and the other architect being the designer. How do we approach questions like this. I think this is the first time seeing this type of question. Generally, this practice exam was much harder than I anticipated. And I totally forgot the Net operating revenue and all those formulas. I REALLy hope I don’t get any questions about those- my weekness. They were in the PcM which I PASSED and was hoping I don’t need to meet this again 
@sevanb This question is testing contractual responsibility, not accessibility knowledge, which is why it may have felt unfamiliar. Contractual responsibility is a big concept to know and understand for PcM, PjM, and CE (and it even creeps into the technical divisions to an extent).
There is no “B201” contract - the correct answer choice was B101 (Owner–Architect Agreement). Because the structural engineer is an owner-hired consultant, the only place that defines whether the architect is responsible for coordinating that consultant (and therefore potentially liable) is B101, specifically the sections addressing coordination of the owner’s consultants.
The key hint is identifying who hired whom. Since the engineer is not the architect’s consultant, C401 (Architect-Consultant Agreement) does not apply; and since this isn’t about construction administration or contractor obligations, A101 and A201 are also out. On the ARE, when a question asks who is liable for a consultant’s work, the answer almost always points to the agreement that establishes that relationship.
Don’t stress too much about the financial formulas from PcM, as they show up much less in later divisions, and usually at a conceptual level rather than heavy math. You got this
Kiara Galicinao, AIA, NCARB
Product Coordinator
Black Spectacles