Agreement Between Architect And Engineer

C402 is different from C401 in many ways and is not a short or abbreviated version of C401. On the one hand, C402 maintains C727`s approach by not referring to the main agreement and by requiring the parties to define or annex a description of the scope of the consultant`s services. A second possibility, in which the C402 is different, is to respect the „Flow Down“ approach of C727 in most areas of the agreement. However, the 2018 update added a limited flow of the main agreement into two sections of C402: copyright and licenses and payment terms. In B101, the architect is required to license all consultants and thus grant the owner a non-exclusive license to use the consultant`s performance instruments for the construction, use, maintenance, modification and complement of the project. The licence allows the owner to authorize all others who provide services or construction work for the project to reproduce applicable parts of the service instruments. To prevent the architect from violating his contract with the owner, C402 forwards this license application to consultants. In this way, consultants also grant the owner a non-exclusive license for the use of their service instruments. The payment language has also been updated to better adapt to the C401 concept that payments to the consultant are made immediately after the architect has received payment from the owner.

When choosing the contractual form, it is important to understand all the options and choose the agreement that best meets the needs and objectives of the project. With C402, architects now have a third useful tool that they can complement to their ribbon of many tools. As projects become increasingly complex and consultants` expertise specializes beyond standard structural, mechanical and electrical construction, not all consultants fit under the roof of C401. This applies in particular to consultants who are only involved in a single project phase or who act as a direct arm of the architect`s design team, for example.B. as a specification recorder or hardware advisor. Agreements for these consultants need not necessarily be bound by 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. C402 has been available for many years as C727-1992. In 2018, it was digitized to reflect its status as a sub-convention within the conventional family of AIA documents.

The layout and language of C402 includes important organizations and content from B101 and C401. This is apparent from the table of articles as well as the sections that define protocols for the transmission and use of digital data and the sections defining the additional services provided by the consultant. An update to the language of C402 for dispute resolution added mediation as a condition precedent to binding dispute resolution. For binding dispute resolution, parties can now choose between arbitration, litigation or any other method such as B101. C727 was the only form of non-arbitral dispute resolution. C402 follows C727`s original intent and does not commit the Lead Agreement Dispute Resolution Advisor. For many architects introduced in the contracts, B101-2017 is the basic owner-architect agreement and the first tool an architect should wear in his tool belt. While it is important for architects to always enter into a written agreement with an owner, it is equally important for architects to enter into written agreements with their consultants. Enter C401-2017, the standard form of the agreement between the architect and the advisor, the second tool for the band of contractual tools. Although shorter than C401, C402 is still a robust agreement with sections that offer protection for both the architect and the advisor: scope definition, responsibilities of each party, copyrights, claims and disputes, termination and indemnification…