I actually think that is good practice and I advise my clients (mostly architects) to insist on it. Meeting minutes, no matter how detailed, are always subject to argument - sometimes direct argument ("that isn't what I said" and the like) and sometimes indirect arguments ("I never received those notes"). A document that expressly approves the completion of a phase of service and authorizes the start of the next phase is pretty hard to argue against on any level.
I like the idea of drawing a baseline at each phase of service. Indeed, the owner can make changes thereafter, but those changes will require some sort of fee adjustment. The issue is never making the changes (or shouldn't be - an architect should be willing to malke whatever number of changes an owner wishes so long as he/she is compensated for doing it) it is always the additional compensation required to make changes later in the process when it requires changes to a previously completed phase of service.
Meeting minutes are better than nothing, but express approval is the best. I have made a lot of money arguing over what meeting minutes mean - no matter how tight you think they are they can always be argued. An express writing accepting the phase of service and authorizing the next is tough to argue against.
As for AIA contracts and Institute policy, understand that neither are always aimed at your best legal interests but instead are a compilation of a number of sources of commntary. The AIA cotnracts are a good basis for a busines relationship, but experience will often teach you that they can be improved on. I would never recommend that an architect presume that AIA documents or institute policy (whatever that might be) are automatically geared to the architect's best interests.
I do CE sessions on how the AIA documents might be improved. This is actually one area I include. Preventing arguments works for the benefit of all. As such, it works to the benefit of the owner as much as the architect.
-------------------------------------------
Frederick Butters FAIA
Attorney
Southfield MI
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 10-24-2010 19:09
From: David Moehring
Subject: Client signatures at end of design phases
We have simply added on each document to be sign-off a owner name and date line, which is typically not provided on drawings or programs.
In a recent experience for a institution, the lead persons for the User Agency were all required to sign and date on the documents. The key purpose was to show a concensus of the design at a milestone of a design phase. It did not stop, however, the client or user agency from making changes beyond that point. Nor did we enforce additional services for design changes beyond the signature. Many users asked to sign such a document fear that they are signing off on a design not fully developed by the AE or not yet fully understood by the Users.
Unless a signature is provided as a requirement of the contract or the Institution's policy, I do not believe a sign-off buys you any more leverage than clearly documented meeting minutes.
-------------------------------------------
David Moehring AIA
Architect
Co-Chair AIA Chicago Practice Management Knowledge Community
-------------------------------------------