One of the practice questions states:
An architect is preparing the architect/consultant agreement for the structural engineer who was awarded the work on a new five-story office building project. The architect and structural engineer have never worked together before.
Which of the following terms of consultant compensation are a standard (unmodified) part of the architect/consultant agreement? Check the three that apply.
One of the correct answers is:
- Payment in accordance with the compensation provisions of the owner/architect agreement
(The terms of the architect/consultant agreement should parallel the terms of the owner/architect agreement.)
Now, I have a question: does “payment in accordance” refer to the same method of payment or does it only mean following the same schedule of payments as per B101 article 11.5 (at the end of each phase per)?
According to the explanation provided above, I would infer that it is recommended that the architect compensate the consultants following the same method of compensation agreed upon / specified in the owner/architect agreement (stipulated sum, percentage basis, hourly fee, cost-per-unit). So, as per B101 article 11.5, when compensation for basic services is based on a stipulated sum or a percentage basis, the proportion of compensation for each phase will be defined and accordingly used as a guide to pay the consultants.
But… for example, could the architect pay the consultants an hourly fee arrangement or a one-time payment per project completed, let’s say if their SOW is not large even though the owner/architect agreement is different?
I would appreciate your insight/comments. @kiara.kgal
Thank you very much in advance.
Hi @coachphilipcolwell and @coachthomasmasino,
Would you mind joining and helping me with the question above?
Hi @ylourdes84,
Thank you for writing in, and I appreciate your patience in my response!
To answer your first question, yes to both points - the consultant would be compensated in the same method and therefore, also the same schedule of payments as outlined in the owner/architect agreement. Think of the C401 (architect-consultant) as a parallel contract to B101 (owner-architect). When comparing the two contracts, architect (C401) is to owner (B101), as consultant (C401) is to architect (B101). This helped me understand the roles/relationships and contract terms more clearly when putting the two side by side.
The example you provided could be a possibility in a unique project situation, but it would not likely occur under the standard (unmodified) part of the architect/consultant agreement, as the question explicitly states.
When approaching questions on the ARE, it is important to pay attention to key phrases that could help guide you to the correct answer(s). Try not to consider hypothetical scenarios outside of what the question is specifically asking. It is also crucial to remember that you must select the most correct answer(s) of the choices provided. The 3 incorrect answer choices provided are easily eliminated, due to them all not aligning with the terms in the standard AIA contracts. Therefore, the remaining answer choices are the most correct in this specific scenario.
Check out AIA C401-2017 (Article 11) and The Architect’s Handbook of Professional Practice (pages 1056-1058) for further information about this topic.
Hope this helps!
Kiara Galicinao, AIA, NCARB
Black Spectacles