After my series on the Top 10 Changes to the AIA 201, I heard from the Chair of the Task Group for the A201-2017, Arlen M. Solocheck.  Arlen is also both an architect and in-house owner’s representative at Maricopa Community Colleges, where he is the Associate Vice Chancellor for Capital Planning & Special Projects.

Arlen’s Task Force was responsible for the Herculean task of updating the A201 from the 2007 version, a process that took over 3 years.  He writes:

As chair of the Task Group that updated the AIA A201, I want to provide some additional thought to your AIA documents update, #10, Hidden Conditions. The objective of most notices, claims processes, etc. in the A201 is to keep the work proceeding while problems are resolved. Delays due to any reason harm both the contractor and owner. Once hidden conditions are discovered, the contractor is to notify the architect, who then is supposed to observe the conditions. The longer it takes to provide the notice, the more the hidden condition may be modified, impacted, or delay other work as that work progresses. We suggest that parties who are concerned about adverse impacts from shortening the notice period also note that no solution, no additional pricing, etc. is required with the notice. All that 3.7.4 requires is notice. A contractor should know pretty quickly if he’s seeing something that he didn’t expect. All that 3.7.4 requires is for him to say that.  

Arlen also notes that the process involved in making changes to the AIA documents is extensive:

I want people to understand that AIA and our task groups don’t make quick, willy-nilly decisions and changes, but they come from a lot of discussion, balance, reviews, feedback, etc. from the entire 30+ person document committee, AIA staff attorneys, and dozens of outside liaison reviewers we have who read every word and offer literally thousands of review comments on our drafts.

We can’t catch everything, even over 3 years of working on the document, so we enjoy and respect the outside comments and analysis, including those after publishing the updated version. If we goofed something up, it goes into the list to review for the next update.  I like to add some of the behind the scenes thinking so that even if someone doesn’t necessarily agree with the change we made, at least there’s an understanding of the reason behind it. 

In the particular comments made in the article, the comment seemed (to me) to overstate the risk due to and reasons for the change. Your caution in the article is reasonable for readers and clients, but I wanted to balance it with what the language really requires and effectively that it did not change a lot of the risk from the prior version.  The big picture is that there’s a reason for proper notice to be given on a project and lack of that notice puts a contractor or owner in a bad position should the claim later be lost or denied due to lack of Notice. 

Arlen also commented on the changes to the notice provisions: 

In A201-2007, there was capital N Notice, small n notice, “notify”, etc. not used consistently. We tried to clean that up with how when notice (small n) needs to be made, how notice (small n) can be made (including electronic/email if agreed upon), and that only Notices for a claim (capital N Notices) must be made in writing with proof of receipt possible.  We felt that this was the kind of Notice that was important enough to continue as formal, in writing, and proof of receipt. 

Thanks, Arlen, for your dedication to the design community, and for sharing your comments with us today.  I invite other readers to ask questions (for Arlen or me) in the comment section, below.   

​