Nice listing Dennis. Glad to see I managed to second guess MF04 with what I have been doing the last many years including even a couple of the numbering sequences. I have always put all the forms of a various typse together up front and each form has its own ‘document’ number.
For those that keep dragging out the MOP about how the architect is responsible for including forms and conditions or coordinating them - that doesn’t really work very well if the Owner is not forthcoming or if the Owner is modifying his General and Supplementary Conditions right to the last minute.
Of course when we see them we review and provide comment. But when they take it upon themselves to prepare them, and our experience is about 60% of them seem to do this, then thre is nothing we can do about it.
And its just plain incorrect to make Division 1 coordinate with the Owner prepared Conditions when the Owner prepared conditions provide incorrect information about the Archtect’s obligations as relates to the Owner Architect Agreement. We will modify our Division 1 to the Owner’s requirements in all regards except that. We tell him where he has errors and should change his documents - or recommend he simply omit requirements that are inappropriate to the Conditions. But we are not ever going to obligate ourselves to efforts that contradict the Owner/Architect agreement. If the Owner udertakes to negotiate changes in our agreement or undertake supplementary services for additional obligations, then we will of course revise Division 1 accordingly.
To do otherwise will actually legally obligate you. If you write it, if you even just publish it, the legal system has decided that you are neither blind nor mute, so you buy what you write and publish.
MOP is not incorrect. In the best of all worlds, everything works correctly, the owner lets the architect prepare the documents with coordination through his legal and insurance groups, or there is clear and timely coordination with those that are preparing them and they are all nicely published in the Project Manual. But in the real world when coordination breaks down, when an owner does not wish to coordinate, or their idea of timely is a schedule for the front end that gets attached 3 days after the owner requires the project manual be printed for him and no coordination opportunity, then you have to protect yourself.
The MOP is about how projects are supposed to go, how we would like to see them go. The MOP is like a text book or a reference guide on the history of the best methods of practice. When other members of the construction group take it upon themselves to ignore these guides, it is foolish for the architect or the specifier not to move to protect themselves from the errors of others.
The MOP is a great guide and a great tool. I never miss an opportunity to even reference its suggestions to owners, lawyers, insurers and contractors who ignore it or force me due to their practices to deviate from its advice.
William