Potential Hidden Risk in “Standard” Architect Contracts
Standard forms don’t understand your project – they only assume it.
Design professionals often look for a “one-size-fits-all” contract for their projects. In the best case, that approach produces an agreement that does not fully reflect the project’s realities. In the worst case, it can leave critical legal risks unaddressed, exposing the parties to avoidable liabilities.
For decades, many architects have relied on standard contract forms developed by the American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) when entering into agreements with owners, contractors, consultants, and other project participants. While these forms are widely used and respected, their structure and assumptions can create hidden risks if they are not carefully reviewed and tailored to the specific project.
Overcomplexity of Contract Structures for Different Delivery Methods
Even before entering into a contract with an owner, design professionals face a threshold challenge: selecting the appropriate AIA form for the project. If the wrong form is chosen, the architect may find themselves obligated to perform duties that fall outside their original expectations and scope.
Beyond simply choosing the contract’s length or type, the architect must also determine the project’s delivery method and ensure that the contract properly reflects the architect’s relationships with consultants, contractors, and other project participants. Each of these carries meaningful legal implications.
An incorrect selection can significantly expand a design professional’s potential liability. For example, using a short-form AIA agreement for a complex high-risk project may result in the contract failing to address key issues that commonly arise in larger projects, but are not contemplated in the abbreviated template.
Similarly, an architect who intends to provide only design services may assume more responsibilities if they rely on a design-build form such as the A141 Owner/Designer-Builder agreement as a precedent. Because these agreements are structured around integrated design-build delivery models that consolidate responsibility for both design coordination and construction outcomes, using them without careful tailoring can inadvertently broaden the architect’s scope of responsibility.
Standard AIA Form Assumptions Can Be Hidden Pitfalls
Once an AIA form is selected, architects must still carefully review its default assumptions. These forms often contain built-in expectations about the architect’s scope and responsibilities that may not align with the project’s realities.
In the AIA B101, for example, the default language assumes the architect will retain structural, mechanical, and electrical consultants. If an architect does not plan to hire one or more of these consultants, the form should be updated accordingly.
Likewise, certain responsibilities – such as certification contractor payment applications or preparing estimates of the cost of work – may fall on the architect by default. If these services are not intended, they should be addressed to avoid confusion.
Standard AIA Forms Don’t Address Everything
Although the AIA forms are designed to be broadly applicable, they do not always reflect the specific legal requirements imposed by states and local municipalities. As a result, an architect who relies on an unmodified standard form may inadvertently omit provisions required in their jurisdiction.
For example, some states limit an architect’s ability to require deposits for residential projects, mandate specific dispute resolution disclosures, or require that owners be given a right to cancel the agreement within a certain period after signing the agreement.
Why This Matters
In essence, relying on AIA forms because they are industry standards can lead to avoidable contractual and legal risks. While these agreements can serve as a useful foundation, they are not substitutes for project-specific legal and risk analysis.
Rather than treating these agreements as “one-size-fits-all” solutions, design professionals can benefit from tools that allow them to align contracts with their actual scope of responsibility – while clearly understanding their obligations, risk exposure, and applicable local legal requirements.