C402 differs from C401 in several respects and is not a short or abbreviated version of C401. On the one hand, C402 maintains the C727 approach by not referring to the main agreement and by requiring the parties to define or attach a description of the scope of the advisor`s benefits. When selecting the type of contract, it is important to understand all the options and choose the agreement that best meets the requirements and objectives of the project. With the C402, architects now have a third useful tool that they can add to their contract tool belt. Another important difference between the C401 and the C402 is the standard of care. While C402 contains an updated language adapted to the standard of care defined in B101, C402 does not add the advanced language of C401, which states that if the standard of care in the Prime agreement differs from that of C401, the advisor follows the standard of the main care agreement. This further reinforces the limited reduction of the C402 agreement. For many architects who are introduced into the contracts, B101-2017 is the basic owner-architect agreement and the first tool that an architect should wear in his tool belt contracts. While it is important for architects to always execute a written agreement with an owner, it is equally important for architects to enter into written agreements with their advisors. Enter C401-2017, the standard contract form between the architect and the advisor, the second tool for the tool belt for contracts. If you refer to the fact that not all projects will have these services that are correct and that the customer/owner may require that these services be included in the project through a C401 agreement between Arch and an EC and/or LA. Because projects become more complicated – and if consulting expertise is specialized beyond standard, mechanical and electrical design – not all consultants fit well under the roof of the C401.

This applies in particular to consultants who are involved in only one phase of the project or to consultants acting as the direct arm of the architect`s design team, such as. B a specification recorder or hardware advisor. Agreements for these advisors do not necessarily have to be attached to the terms of the main agreement between the owner and the architect. In such cases, architects should choose C402-2018, the standard form of the agreement between the architect and the advisor for special services. An update to the C402 language on dispute resolution added mediation as a precondition for mandatory dispute resolution. With respect to mandatory dispute resolution, parties can now choose from arbitration procedures, disputes or any other method such as B101. C727 failed because of conciliation as the only form of dispute resolution. C402 follows C727`s original intent and does not bind the consultant to the dispute resolution of the main agreement. C402 has been available in C727-1992 for many years. In 2018, it was re-numbered to reflect its partial agreement status within the conventional family of AIA documents.

The layout and language of the C402 contain important organization and content from B101 and C401. This is evident in the article table as well as in the sections that define the protocols for the transmission and use of digital data and those that define the additional services of the consultant. A second possibility, which differs from C402, is how c727 is not tracked in most areas of the agreement. However, with the 2018 update, two sections of C402 were added to a limited stream of the Prime agreement: copyright and licensing, and payment terms. In B101, the architect is required to lower the licensing requirements to all advisors and thus grant the owner a non-exclusive license for the use of the advisor`s service tools for the construction, use, maintenance, modification and addition of the project. The license allows the owner to authorize all others who perform services or construction for the project to reproduce the applicable parts of the performance instruments.