Inside AGC CEO's Message
November/December 2007

AGC Membership Unanimously Votes Against AIA’s A201

Fundamental lack of collaboration contrasts with industry best practices

By CEO Steve Sandherr

Last month, our 600-member AGC board of directors unanimously voted not to endorse the 2007 edition of AIA’s A201 General Terms and Conditions document. For the first time in more than 50 years, a published edition of the A201 will not merit AGC’s endorsement. Considering this history, I was truly surprised by the total lack of support within AGC for the endorsement of the AIA document.

AGC took great care in coming to this extremely important decision. The AGC A201 Task Force and staff conducted extensive membership outreach through committees, divisions and chapters, as well as the AGC owner-advisory group named the Public/Private Industry Advisory Council. Significantly, 20 AGC chapters voiced their opinion to AGC National about the A201. At no time did any member, committee or AGC chapter ever advocate that we endorse the document.

Our membership expressed grave concerns that the new 2007 edition of the A201 significantly shifts risks to contractors and other parties outside the design profession. Some of the troublesome provisions in the new A201, which AGC has consistently recommended against for more than three years, include:

• New restrictions on obtaining owner financial information.
• Significant new liability exposures when carrying out owner-mandated means and methods, as well as when encountering hazardous waste.
• Numerous new technical requirements that carry dire consequences for not providing an architect-approved submittal schedule or for missing new deadlines for appealing initial decisions.

Importantly, there is a philosophical disagreement that all communications must funnel through architects, which leads owners and contractors to work in silos instead of together. This approach starkly contrasts with the more collaborative and innovative direction of our rapidly changing industry. This chasm will only grow during the expected 10-year life span of the A201.

Consequently, our membership concluded that the A201 does not positively serve the industry as a standard document because it does not fairly balance risk among all parties. AGC will provide preliminary suggested modifications to the new A201 at www.agc.org/contracts.

AIA has attempted to discount our unanimous vote against endorsement as being driven by revenue considerations, rather than the risk-shifting provisions that AIA has publicly acknowledged. Having had the pleasure and the benefit of working for AGC members for more than 20 years, I know our members’ decision was 100% based upon the merits of the document. Moreover, our recent endorsement of the EJCDC General Conditions document (2007 edition), which was collaboratively drafted with AGC, demonstrates that we consider endorsement based upon merit, not revenue.

We remain committed to working with AIA on any issue that has the mutual objective of ensuring client satisfaction. In doing so, we look forward to a process that allows for true collaboration and for actions that conform to this commitment.