 |
The AIA Documents Committee is working now on
the 2007 editions of two important documents: B141 (Owner-Architect
Agreement) and A201 (General Conditions of the Contract for
Construction). They have solicited input from many quarters. The
AIA Technology in Architectural Practice (TAP) Advisory
Group submitted the comments below.
Context
TAP anticipates that the transfer of digital data among
project participants (design through construction) will soon be
more A more common practice than the distribution of paper
documents. Also, within five years we anticipate widespread
adoption of next-generation CAD systems that create an
"intelligent" building model capable of producing, for example,
accurate quantities for cost estimates and full 3-D models useful
for constructibility reviews and construction sequencing. The
architect, in preparing these intelligent models, will be
contributing much more than he or she does today toward ensure that
bids are based on accurate quantity takeoffs and that interferences
or construction sequencing issues will not affect the construction
schedule -- but only if the bidders have access to the information
in the electronic building model. The overall design/construction
process could become more reliable and predictable, with
substantial economic benefits to the owner and the
contractor.
We fear there will be a tendency, driven by valid concerns about
liability and insurability, to prevent such use of the architect's
design data. We believe this is the wrong answer and would
jeopardize the future of architectural practice as we know it. If
the architecture firm is not willing to deliver the potential value
of the digital building model, the owner will seek delivery
methods, probably contractor-led, that will deliver that value. The
role of the architect will be diminished.
We believe, rather, that the architecture firm's role and
compensation should be enhanced by these technology developments.
Obstacles to a free flow of data among the project participants
should be overcome so that the architecture firm can deliver the
full value of its work to the client and be rewarded
commensurately. The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
is addressing a similar issue related to structural engineering in
its 2005 Unified Manual of Steel Construction and might
serve as a resource.
Modest Proposal for a New Compensation
Method for Architecture Firms
Current AIA documents treat electronic data as direct equivalents
of drawings and specifications. Ownership is equated with the right
to use. With electronic data, a more flexible approach, similar to
software licensing, could be considered. Multiple types of design
data licenses might cover the following uses, among others:
- Use for the construction of a single project
(per current practice)
- Use to provide more information to bidders (by
the owner, who might provide quantities to the bidders, or by the
bidders themselves). This use is particularly valuable in that it
can reduce the contingency built into bids.
- Use by the contractor for construction-phase
activities such as construction sequencing, shop-drawing
preparation, and fabrication. This is the area AISC is
addressing.
- Use as a prototype building
- Use for downstream operations, maintenance, and
renovations.
The architecture firm might need to accept some
liability for expanded uses of design data, but limitations of that
liability could be defined in the license agreement. Doubtless, the
AIA will need input from the major insurers on this topic.
Licensing for use beyond construction of a single project would
entail additional fees. If the owner wants the digital building
model to be available for downstream uses, there might be a
maintenance fee that would compensate the architect for updating
the digital building model to as-built conditions and for
maintaining it over time. Internet technology would permit the
licensee direct and unlimited access to the building model for as
long as they pay the maintenance fee (e.g., annual renewal).
This creates the potential for new service and revenue streams for
firms as well as additional compensation for enhanced design
services. We understand that many design firms in the UK offer this
type of service. It also creates the potential for a new business
model for firms to specialize in the archiving and maintenance of
building models. For example, Canary Wharf is an 86-acre
development in the Docklands of London. Construction began in 1988,
and approximately 6 million net square feet of office and retail
space have been constructed to date, with a further 8.1 million
square feet under construction. Koetter Kim & Associates, an
architecture and planning firm, maintains the master digital model
of Canary Wharf. This model consists of 2-D plans of all elements,
registered to a master grid. This system was set up during the
initial project planning and has been carried forward ever since.
Design consultants may request specific plans in AutoCAD DWG
format.
Speculative projects, in which the original client has no long-term
interest, might be archived by third-party service bureaus, with
license fees to the design firm tied to use. Thus, new owners or
tenants could request access to information about the building for
a modest fee when working on a repair, renovation, or space plan.
There might be a "security deposit" requiring them to return
as-built information for the model update.
Impact on Documents
If the digital building model is to be used for downstream
activities post-construction, the quality of the "as-builts"
becomes critical. Responsibility for accurately recording
construction deviations from the as-designed digital model and
incorporating those changes into the as-built digital model must be
clearly defined contractually. Although this is frequently covered
in the General Conditions, we could find no explicit language in
either document addressing as-builts.
B141 (Owner-Architect Agreement)
Article 1.1: Initial Information should include description of
the type of digital model to be produced by the architect and the
activities it is anticipated to support (e.g., bidding,
fabrication, downstream renovations)
1.3.2: Instruments of Service needs to allow for the selection of
different levels of design data licensing, as described
above.
Article 1.5 Compensation: Discussion should be expanded to include
licensing fees for additional uses of design data. The associated
Compensation Worksheet should also be revised.
Articles 2.7: Facility Operation Services should add a paragraph
that on request of the owner, the architect will maintain a digital
building model.
Article 2.8: Schedule of Services should be revised to include
provision of digital models.
A201 (General Conditions of the Contract for
Construction)
1.6 Ownership and Use of Drawings, Specifications and Other
Instruments of Service: Language that these items may not be used
"without written consent" might need updating to reflect the
licensing concept.
3.17 Royalties, Patents and Copyrights: Language that the
Contractor "shall pay all royalty and license fees" may need
revision to exclude design data license fees paid to the Architect
by the Owner.
Best Practices
Whenever digital data is to be shared on a project, it is important
that the data format and version be determined in advance. Whenever
digital data is released to another party to the contract, the
purpose of that release should be clear. The originator of the data
transfer should maintain a "snapshot" copy of the data that was
transferred. These practices should be in place today.
In the future, it will become important to determine at project
initiation the downstream uses of the digital data, as described
above. This will have an impact on the design firm's staffing and
production methods.
|
