Main differences between C401™–2017 and C401™–2007

AIA Document C401—2017, Standard Form of Agreement Between Architect and Consultant, has been revised to coordinate with the 2017 Owner-Architect Agreements. A few of the key changes are discussed below:

 

• Allows for AIA Document E204™–2017, Sustainable Projects Exhibit, and any applicable Sustainability Plan to be incorporated as a part of the Agreement when used on a Sustainable Project.

• A new section requires the parties to develop protocols for the use of, and reliance on, a building information model or portion thereof. Use of, or reliance on, a building information model without established protocols will be at the using or relying parties sole risk. This provision requires the use of AIA Document E203–2013 and AIA Document G202™–2013, Project Building Information Modeling Protocol Form, for the establishment of these protocols.

• New language has been added to clearly state that the Consultant’s and Architect’s duty to indemnify one another does not include the additional duty to defend, which was the intended meaning of C401–2007.

• The dispute resolution provisions have been edited to clarify the applicable processes if a claim between the Architect and Consultant is either unrelated to a dispute between the Architect and the Owner, or the Consultant is legally precluded from being a party to the binding dispute resolution process required in the Owner-Architect agreement. C401–2007 required the Architect and Consultant to resolve such claims by first proceeding to mediation in accordance with the mediation requirements set forth in the Prime Agreement. If the claim was not resolved via mediation, the Architect and Consultant were then required to proceed to the binding dispute resolution process selected in C401–2007. If the parties selected arbitration, the arbitration was to be held in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Prime Agreement. C401–2017 no longer references back to the Owner-Architect agreement for the mediation and arbitration requirements and instead separately states those requirements in the Architect-Consultant Agreement.

• A fill-point has been added for the parties to identify the termination fee, if any, that the Architect would pay to the Consultant in the event of a termination not due to the fault of the Consultant (e.g. termination by the Architect for its convenience or if the Consultant terminates because of an extended suspension of the Project) or in the event the Owner terminates the Prime Agreement.

• A fill-point has been added for the parties to identify a licensing fee, if any, that the Architect would pay to the Consultant if the Architect intends to continue using the Consultant’s Instruments of Service in the event of a termination not due to the fault of the Consultant (e.g. termination by the Architect for its convenience or if the Consultant terminates because of an extended suspension of the Project) or in the event the Owner terminates the Prime Agreement.

Download comparison »

Was this article helpful?
0 out of 0 found this helpful
Have more questions?
Submit a request