I concur with Kevin, at least on the use of the C401. We seldom have a need for his relationship, but when we do, we use the C401 as the template.
Bruce L. Williams-
Partner
FAIA, LEED AP
(206) 971 5541
mithun.com
Mithun/Pier 56
1201 Alaskan Way #200
Seattle, WA 98101
Mithun/Solomon
660 Market Street #300
San Francisco, CA 94104
------Original Message------
Yes, if you're creative in your thinking.
When we're faced with this scenario, my first inclination is to use the C401 which is normally an Architect-Consultant agreement, but if you redefine Architect and Consultant to mean Engineer and Consultant (who happens to be an Architect) it works just fine. I do it right on the cover page in the listing of the parties. C401 assumes that there is a robust Prime Agreement between the Owner and (in this case) the Engineer, and the Consultant's obligations are a sub-set of those described in the Prime Agreement.
If the Prime Agreement is a little thin on the Scope of the Architect's Services but the expectation is for complete Basic Services, I use a B101(or a B104 for simpler projects) and simply redefine the Owner as the Engineer.
If the project is very limited - say a quick study of something that doesn't require the design and documentation phases of B101 - we'll use the C727 and, again, redefine Architect to be our client, the Engineer.
AIA Documents are, mostly, built on the premise that the Architect is the leader so there isn't one that is specific to this purpose.
------------------------------
Kevin Miller AIA
GSBS Architects
Salt Lake City UT
------------------------------