C402 differs from C401 in several respects and is not a short or abbreviated version of C401. On the one hand, C402 maintains the C727 approach by not referring to the main agreement and by requiring the parties to define or attach a description of the scope of the advisor`s benefits. Although c401 shorter than C401, C402 is still a robust agreement with sections that offer both the architect and the advisor protection: perimeter definition, each party`s responsibilities, copyright, claims and litigation, termination and compensation. The C402 is suitable for consultants who offer limited volume or specialized services that do not go through all typical design steps, such as consultants.B. consultants who provide renderings, planning services, feasibility studies, specification services, hardware schedules, elevator analysis and safety design. If an architect has to link an advisor to the main agreement or if consultants are involved in a project from conception to construction, C401 is appropriate. The C401 is also intended for consultants who provide the usual and usual mechanical, electrical and structural services or consultants who hire their own sub-advisors. Because projects become more complicated – and if consulting expertise is specialized beyond standard, mechanical and electrical design – not all consultants fit well under the roof of the C401. This applies in particular to consultants who are involved in only one phase of the project or to consultants acting as the direct arm of the architect`s design team, such as. B a specification recorder or hardware advisor. Agreements for these advisors do not necessarily have to be attached to the terms of the main agreement between the owner and the architect. In such cases, architects should choose C402-2018, the standard form of the agreement between the architect and the advisor for special services. When selecting the type of contract, it is important to understand all the options and choose the agreement that best meets the requirements and objectives of the project.
With the C402, architects now have a third useful tool that they can add to their contract tool belt. An update to the C402 language on dispute resolution added mediation as a precondition for mandatory dispute resolution. With respect to mandatory dispute resolution, parties can now choose from arbitration procedures, disputes or any other method such as B101. C727 failed because of conciliation as the only form of dispute resolution. C402 follows C727`s original intent and does not bind the consultant to the dispute resolution of the main agreement. AIA agreements are not as impartial and balanced as they may seem. First, the AIA is an organization that, according to its website, represents “the professional interests of American architects” and formal agreements reflect such interests. In addition, the aIA form agreements have been subject to numerous revisions since the introduction of the first forms, and each revision has shifted the balance of owners to architects and contractors.
This ongoing change is partly due to the fact that the Association of General Contractors is working with the AIA to develop multi-type agreements. As expected, this has resulted in formal agreements that tend to favour the architect and contractor over the owner, as the following two examples will show. C402 has been available in C727-1992 for many years. In 2018, it was re-numbered to reflect its partial agreement status within the conventional family of AIA documents. The layout and language of the C402 contain important organization and content from B101 and C401. This is evident in the article table as well as in the sections that define the protocols for the transmission and use of digital data and those that define the additional services of the consultant. For many architects who are introduced into the contracts, B101-2017 is the basic owner-architect agreement and the first tool that an architect should wear in his tool belt contracts.