Coordination between the Owner-Architect Agreement and the Owner-Contractor Agreement is crucial for any successful project. In particular, the parties may overlook the provisions related to an Initial Decision Maker (“IDM”). When the fight breaks out, there are usually conflicting claims whether the quality of the design or the quality of the construction is to blame. Perhaps it is some of both. In Texas, the contractor does not sue the design team for bad drawings, and the design team does not sue the contractor for faulty construction. The owner is caught in the middle and must make important strategic decisions early. Should the owner fight with the contractor, the architect, or both?
Dispute Resolution Requires Coordination
One of the most critical areas requiring coordination is dispute resolution. Will both agreements require arbitration, or will litigation be the chosen method? If arbitration is the preferred route, does the agreement allow for the joinder of necessary parties? Problems arise when, for example, one agreement mandates arbitration while the other omits or explicitly deletes this requirement. Such inconsistencies are unfortunately common in the industry and can lead to complicated and prolonged disputes.
In an American Institute of Architects (AIA) form contract between the owner and contractor, for example, using the A101 Agreement and the A201 General Conditions, there are provisions for an IDM for initial handing of a claim between the owner and the contractor. Often, the owner and contractor agree on having the architect serve as the IDM. Sometimes this occurs without a conscious choice, as this is the default provision in those documents. However, the owner-contractor documents are typically signed long after the owner-architect agreement is signed. An owner might not select a contractor until long after the architect has been working on plans and specs.
Implications for the Architect
Did the architect agree to be the IDM in the owner-architect agreement? What if that agreement is silent on this subject, or the printed form had it, but it was deleted? Can the architect refuse to be the IDM if it was not spelled out in the owner-architect agreement, but it does call for it in the owner-contractor agreement? What are the implications for that in whatever is the current dispute? If a design mistake is part of the problem, does the architect as IDM have a conflict of interest? Architects usually do not want that role, but if they take it, they may consider it an extra service. But in a B101 owner-architect agreement, being an IDM is included in the architect’s basic service. Who will pay that fee if the architect demands to be paid an extra for taking on this work (and risk)?
Potential Solutions
One solution is to delete the IDM standard language and require the opposing parties to go directly to mediation before filing litigation or arbitration. Perhaps an even better solution, if the project budget merits it, is to pick an independent, well-qualified person up front to be the IDM. Pay them to do it with split fees, like an informal one-person, non-binding dispute review board.
Conclusion
Ultimately, when preparing the owner-contractor agreement, it is best to first review what was agreed in the owner-architect agreement and ensure that both documents are aligned. Coordination between these agreements can prevent significant headaches down the road.
- Partner
David Peden heads the firm’s Construction Section. He has extensive experience in litigation and arbitration of construction, insurance, surety and commercial issues.
David frequently represents owners, lenders, general ...
Recent Posts
- Owners’ Rights Pursuing Claims Directly Against Subcontractors/Vendors
- The Initial Decision Maker: Coordinating the Owner-Architect and Owner-Contractor Agreements
- Understanding the Texas Prompt Payment Act
- What do you mean I don’t own the plan?
- Key Considerations to Perfect Performance Bond Claims in Texas
- The Owner’s Dos and Don’ts When a General Contractor Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- The Sweeping Application of the Texas Construction Anti-Indemnity Act
- New Texas Legislation that Restricts Owner-Directed Change Order Rights Takes Effect September 1, 2023
- Strict Deadlines Apply to Motions to Vacate Arbitration Awards Under the Federal and Texas Arbitration Acts
- Texas Supreme Court Rules on Governmental Immunity in Construction Contract Dispute
TopicsSelect Category
ArchivesSelect Month
- October 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- September 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- October 2022
- September 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- November 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- August 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- March 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- October 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018