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:
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.
@laura.lefevre.dharch In this exercise, you are to reference the executed AIA B101-2017 (reference provided) which indicates which supplemental services have been agreed upon and who will be providing those services, if at all. In this reference, you’ll see that § 4.1.1.10 Architectural interior design is Not Provided. This means that it was not included at the time of contract signing and if the client wishes to add it on at a later time, it will be considered an additional service.
Check out this post that our team put together regarding the difference between Supplemental and Additional Services:
Kiara Galicinao, AIA, NCARB
Product Coordinator
Black Spectacles
I am also not certain why the cost estimate doesn’t increase? even if the design is not included, but the material is (carpet). Even though we have no info about the material, we know it will increase the costs. Because installing (subcontractor) + materials ARE included in the cost of work.
@sevanb Great question! Yes, it can be assumed that the cost of the work should automatically go up because “custom carpet” sounds more expensive. But in this scenario, the question is really testing contract classification, not predicting actual market pricing.
Under the executed AIA B101 §4.1.1, interior design services are not included in Basic Services, so the architect’s work is classified as an Additional Service.
And the reason the cost of the work estimate stays “unchanged” is because the architect’s estimate is based on the scope already defined and authorized at that time; and this request is treated as a separate/additional scope that would need owner approval (and likely a contractor price update or change order) before it becomes part of the project budget.
In reality, a custom carpet pattern could increase construction costs, but until it’s formally added to the scope, the architect doesn’t revise the cost of the work estimate as a guaranteed increase.
Hope this helps!
Kiara
The scenario in this question lacks useful context to answer the questions correctly. The rates given to each employee are not specified to be billable rate or salary rates. Which should really be stipulated in the scenario.
I’m confused about question 8. The explanation for the correct answer states that you have to take the calculated billing rates and multiply them by the net multiplier before factoring in the utilization rates and number of weeks worked. However, other practice problems in the provided practice exams explains that net multipliers are already included in billing rates and should not be included in calculations. Why do other practice problems say net multipliers are included in billing rates but this practice problem does not?
@dmroze wrote in seeking clarification on Question 9. Check it out if you’re wondering the same thing!
@kathryn.a.santos Thanks for your question! You’re correct that billing rates already include the net multiplier, so it should not be applied again. In this question, the rates provided ($38, $32, and $29) are direct salary rates, not billing rates. The net multiplier is applied to convert these into billing rates, which are then multiplied by the utilization rate and the number of hours worked to determine the total amount billed to the project.
The key distinction is whether the question provides direct salary rates or billing rates. If billing rates are already provided, there’s no need to apply the net multiplier again. Hope this helps clarify!
Kiara Galicinao, AIA, NCARB
Product Coordinator
Black Spectacles
