This thread is part of Real-World Practice, our self-paced, case study feature that helps you apply your knowledge in realistic scenarios using references, layered questions, and targeted takeaways.
View the exercise here:
Risk Management, Legal Structures, and Contracts [Exercise A]
Use this thread to ask follow-up questions, share your approach, or engage with others studying the same content.
Please do not post screenshots or reproduce paid study material.
For tech support or account issues, email support@blackspectacles.com.
Could the answer to this exercise be that is “ Design - bid - build”? since the architect has already signed the B101 and the Negotiated alternative, GC will be selected at the end of SD ??
@conceptastudiollc I’m not sure that I fully understand your question. Can you please clarify? It would also be helpful if you could reference the specific question (1-10) of this exercise so that I can give you a thorough explanation.
Kiara Galicinao, AIA, NCARB
Product Coordinator
Black Spectacles
For question 4 of this, since architect (CPD) already signed B101 with client in the scenario description. Can they still use integrated project delivery method?
Welcome to the Black Spectacles Community @Xiuwen_Qi! Thanks for your question.
A true IPD agreement is a multi-party contract formed at the outset between the owner, architect, and contractor. If the architect has already executed a B101 (owner–architect agreement), that typically indicates a more traditional delivery structure is already in place.
In practice, transitioning to “true” IPD after signing B101 would be unlikely without restructuring the agreements. However, the question is more so testing the concept that IPD is well-suited for projects needing early collaboration and flexibility, not the contractual sequence in the scenario.
Hope this helps!
Kiara Galicinao, AIA, NCARB
Product Coordinator
Black Spectacles
Question 9 & 10
The prompt only describes a scenario in which construction cost estimate has increased and asks what the architect’s appropriate next steps would be. However, the explanation for one of the correct answers - propose add service - states that “Major revisions outside the original scope may warrant additional fee.”
though change in scope would be a valid reason for addition compensation, change in cost estimate is not. This ties into Question 10.
Same scenario. New, higher cost estimate requires revision. The correct answer is that the architect must revise to meet the budget with no addtional fee. “B101 places responsibility on the architect to revise designs when costs exceed the budget, unless the contract is formally modified.”
please explain the reasoning.
I have the same question Matthew.Ngo.
What is Black Spec. response???