Laserfiche WebLink
.r <br />This paragraph is written so that the Owner must give notice to the Architect if the Owner <br />determines that Contingent Additional Services are not required. We would change this <br />to require the Architect to get the Owner's approval before commencing such services. <br />3.3.1.3 <br />We would attempt to have this paragraph deleted from the contract. If not possible, we <br />would modify the language to require that the Owner be provided a reasonable amount of <br />time to render decisions. <br />3.3.3 <br />This clause is confusing. It should be simplified to add clarity. We would probably look <br />to modify "negligence or other errors or omissions" to "fault or failure" similar to the <br />language in 3.1.1.1. <br />3.3.4 <br />Architect is including "Providing services in connection with evaluating substitutions <br />proposed by the Contractor and making subsequent revisions to the drawings" as a <br />Contingent Additional Service. It is absolutely inevitable during the course of <br />construction that the Architect will have to provide services relating to substitutions <br />proposed by the Contractor. It seems unreasonable to exclude such a minor service as <br />part of the contract. We might add language such as ". .. which requires significant <br />additional time by the Architect". The second part of this sentence relates to the previous <br />issues with paragraphs 2.4.5 and 3.4.16. The Architect intends to view (and invoice for) <br />any as-built work as additional services. <br />3.4.9 <br />Architect includes "Providing services in connection with the work of a construction <br />manager or separate consultants retained by the owner" as an Optional Additional <br />Service. This language is vague and open-ended. This language allows the Architect to <br />charge, as additional services, for any work "in connection" with M1VIDC or a~ other <br />consultants the County and Transit may hire-such as an estimator. <br />3.4.13 & 3.4.14 <br />The O~~vner(s) need to determine what role the Architect will play in programming and <br />space planning and logistically how space planning will be~budgeted and performed. <br />There is currently a tenant improvement allowance, and it is not considered part of the <br />Contractor's "hard costs", which is the basis for the Architect's contract. Is programming <br />and space planning to be included as part of the base contract? If so, how will the 6% be <br />applied? Will the percentage be applied to the allowance, estimates or actual expended <br />TI Construction costs? How will the speculative space be treated? There are different <br />ways to handle this; the County and Transit will just need to determine the best way to <br />approach this scope of work. <br />3.4.16 <br />See 2.4.5 <br />~ <br />