Surety Bond Quarterly - Fall 2015 - (Page 23)

Feature AIA's New Teaming Agreement: ™ AIA Document C102 -2015 In union, there is strength. -Aesop BY ROBIN G. BANKS IN TODAY'S COMPETITIVE construction marketplace, opportunities abound for industry participants to pool their talents and resources to win a job. For example, a design-build contractor, structural engineer, and transportation engineer may seek to collectively respond to a railroad's RFP for a design-build reconstruction of a portion of an existing rail line and bridge. A developer, multiple specialty architects, and a design-builder may seek to cooperatively participate in a P3 development of a significant university campus expansion to support projected enrollment growth from 6,200 current students to 10,000 students by the year 2020, where mixed-use facilities will total up to 1.85 million square feet. Often, parties enter into a letter of intent or memorandum of understanding that expresses their desire to work together to pursue the project and, if successful, to perform the project. However, courts frequently refuse to enforce these illusory agreements because they are merely agreements to agree. For example, in the case of Cyberlock Consulting, Inc. v. Information Experts, Inc., 939 F. Supp. 2d 572, 575 (E.D. Va. 2013), a federal district court in Virginia found unenforceable a teaming agreement that (1) required the "negotiation and execution of a future subcontract" following the award of the project, (2) predicated the award of the work to the subcontractor on the "success of ... future negotiations," (3) conditioned the future subcontract on the client's approval, and (4) "suggest[ed] that the framework set out for the work allocation in a future subcontract potentially could change ...." In May 2015, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) added the "C102™-2015, Standard Form of Agreement Between Team Manager and Team Member for the Purpose of Responding to a Solicitation and Pursuing a Project" to its library of documents. This agreement allows multiple cross-disciplinary parties to form a team to provide services necessary to submit a proposal, in response to a solicitation, for a shared opportunity project. It is not limited to use on any one project delivery method and can be used for responses to requests for proposals, design competitions, design-build competitions or public-private partnerships. Most importantly, it seeks to avoid the traps that parties commonly fall into when entering into other types of teaming arrangements. The team manager and the team member Under C102, one party acts as the team manager; the other party, the team member. Teams may consist of two parties or many more. However, regardless of the number of team members, the team manager enters into separate NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SURETY BOND PRODUCERS | WWW.NASBP.ORG 23 http://WWW.NASBP.ORG

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Surety Bond Quarterly - Fall 2015

2015-2016 Executive Committee
NASBP Upcoming Meetings & Events
From the CEO - Resources: Forms, Opinions & Risk Management Practices
Practical Insights: What You Need to Know - Key Takeaways
Alternative Project Delivery, Alternative Risks
Contractors in a New Age of Product Delivery - Sharing Design Liability
DBIA Releases New Bond Forms for Design-Build Projects
AIA’s New Teaming Agreement: AIA Document C102TM–2015
ConsensusDocs Contracts Help Ensure Smooth Sailing
NASBP’s Seven Virtual Seminars on Leadership
Guidance in Addressing Ethical Dilemmas
Web-Exclusive Features
2015 NASBP Resource Directory
Index to Advertisers

Surety Bond Quarterly - Fall 2015