Construction Contract Administration

The following is an excerpt from a Client contract; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and 
revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, bulletins (poster's comment: what ever those are as it is not defined in the Contract), approved change orders and construction change directives. "  My understanding is many owners want these "updated" sets as it gives them a nicly bundled "Contract Set" for any future litigation issues.Is this standard? Should we consider this to be an Additional service or at least ensure it's part of the CCA fee? I would actually change the paragraph to indicate; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, approved change orders and construction change directives. This RECORD Drawing (GC As-builts are not included) will be given to Owner at Project's completion." I may have answered my own question, but thoughts anyone? Has anyone done this progressive  update issuance?

The following is an excerpt from a Client contract; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and 
revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, bulletins (poster's comment: what ever those are as it is not defined in the Contract), approved change orders and construction change directives. "  My understanding is many owners want these "updated" sets as it gives them a nicly bundled "Contract Set" for any future litigation issues.Is this standard? Should we consider this to be an Additional service or at least ensure it's part of the CCA fee? I would actually change the paragraph to indicate; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, approved change orders and construction change directives. This RECORD Drawing (GC As-builts are not included) will be given to Owner at Project's completion." I may have answered my own question, but thoughts anyone? Has anyone done this progressive  update issuance?

To Joel's insightful remarks, I would add:

To me, the contract language implies an assumption that the "change documentation" will be generated from a Building Information Model that is being shared with the General Contractor and Owner, resulting in the Construction Documents being kept current more or less automatically (at least accordingly to the Client's understanding of Building Information Modeling). Perhaps the Client has borrowed language from a project with a shared BIM model. If that is not the type of the project in question, additional contract negotiations are definitely called for.

In any case, I think some discussion and negotiation is warranted surrounding the issues of: the time, effort, and practicality involved in issuing updated CD sets with every change; standard construction practice of requiring the General Contractor to track contract changes and record them in a record set (along with the transference of the costs and liabilities of this responsibility from party to party); and perhaps the number of changes expected.

The following is an excerpt from a Client contract; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and 
revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, bulletins (poster's comment: what ever those are as it is not defined in the Contract), approved change orders and construction change directives. "  My understanding is many owners want these "updated" sets as it gives them a nicly bundled "Contract Set" for any future litigation issues.Is this standard? Should we consider this to be an Additional service or at least ensure it's part of the CCA fee? I would actually change the paragraph to indicate; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, approved change orders and construction change directives. This RECORD Drawing (GC As-builts are not included) will be given to Owner at Project's completion." I may have answered my own question, but thoughts anyone? Has anyone done this progressive  update issuance?

To Joel's insightful remarks, I would add:

To me, the contract language implies an assumption that the "change documentation" will be generated from a Building Information Model that is being shared with the General Contractor and Owner, resulting in the Construction Documents being kept current more or less automatically (at least accordingly to the Client's understanding of Building Information Modeling). Perhaps the Client has borrowed language from a project with a shared BIM model. If that is not the type of the project in question, additional contract negotiations are definitely called for.

In any case, I think some discussion and negotiation is warranted surrounding the issues of: the time, effort, and practicality involved in issuing updated CD sets with every change; standard construction practice of requiring the General Contractor to track contract changes and record them in a record set (along with the transference of the costs and liabilities of this responsibility from party to party); and perhaps the number of changes expected.

The following is an excerpt from a Client contract; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and 
revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, bulletins (poster's comment: what ever those are as it is not defined in the Contract), approved change orders and construction change directives. "  My understanding is many owners want these "updated" sets as it gives them a nicly bundled "Contract Set" for any future litigation issues.Is this standard? Should we consider this to be an Additional service or at least ensure it's part of the CCA fee? I would actually change the paragraph to indicate; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, approved change orders and construction change directives. This RECORD Drawing (GC As-builts are not included) will be given to Owner at Project's completion." I may have answered my own question, but thoughts anyone? Has anyone done this progressive  update issuance?

To Joel's insightful remarks, I would add:

To me, the contract language implies an assumption that the "change documentation" will be generated from a Building Information Model that is being shared with the General Contractor and Owner, resulting in the Construction Documents being kept current more or less automatically (at least accordingly to the Client's understanding of Building Information Modeling). Perhaps the Client has borrowed language from a project with a shared BIM model. If that is not the type of the project in question, additional contract negotiations are definitely called for.

In any case, I think some discussion and negotiation is warranted surrounding the issues of: the time, effort, and practicality involved in issuing updated CD sets with every change; standard construction practice of requiring the General Contractor to track contract changes and record them in a record set (along with the transference of the costs and liabilities of this responsibility from party to party); and perhaps the number of changes expected.

The following is an excerpt from a Client contract; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and 
revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, bulletins (poster's comment: what ever those are as it is not defined in the Contract), approved change orders and construction change directives. "  My understanding is many owners want these "updated" sets as it gives them a nicly bundled "Contract Set" for any future litigation issues.Is this standard? Should we consider this to be an Additional service or at least ensure it's part of the CCA fee? I would actually change the paragraph to indicate; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, approved change orders and construction change directives. This RECORD Drawing (GC As-builts are not included) will be given to Owner at Project's completion." I may have answered my own question, but thoughts anyone? Has anyone done this progressive  update issuance?

While I do agree, depending upon how the contract is written, the contract drawings should be kept up to date.  That said, I do disagree with the following:

"All this is no longer valid:  producing a sketch on a 8,5" x 11" takes the same time as producing a full drawing, and both can be transmitted with the same speed.)"

As a full time CA, who travels to multiple job sites, in my back pack is an 8 1/2 x 11 gridded pad and my drawing instruments.  It is much, much quicker for me to sketch a detail in the field, take a picture with my phone or iPad and email to the contractor.  They love it as they don't have to wait for a drawing to be formally issued.  My laptop does not even have Revit nor to my team members want me working in the model.  Don't summarily discount "old school" ways of doing things.

To Joel's insightful remarks, I would add:

To me, the contract language implies an assumption that the "change documentation" will be generated from a Building Information Model that is being shared with the General Contractor and Owner, resulting in the Construction Documents being kept current more or less automatically (at least accordingly to the Client's understanding of Building Information Modeling). Perhaps the Client has borrowed language from a project with a shared BIM model. If that is not the type of the project in question, additional contract negotiations are definitely called for.

In any case, I think some discussion and negotiation is warranted surrounding the issues of: the time, effort, and practicality involved in issuing updated CD sets with every change; standard construction practice of requiring the General Contractor to track contract changes and record them in a record set (along with the transference of the costs and liabilities of this responsibility from party to party); and perhaps the number of changes expected.

The following is an excerpt from a Client contract; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and 
revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, bulletins (poster's comment: what ever those are as it is not defined in the Contract), approved change orders and construction change directives. "  My understanding is many owners want these "updated" sets as it gives them a nicly bundled "Contract Set" for any future litigation issues.Is this standard? Should we consider this to be an Additional service or at least ensure it's part of the CCA fee? I would actually change the paragraph to indicate; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, approved change orders and construction change directives. This RECORD Drawing (GC As-builts are not included) will be given to Owner at Project's completion." I may have answered my own question, but thoughts anyone? Has anyone done this progressive  update issuance?

Michael:  a quick sketch is fine as a stop gap measure.  But it seems to me you will want to follow that with a true change document (ASI, Bulletin, answer to an RFI, Change Proposal Request).   

Field sketches are a "shoot from the hip" solution, which can be very helpful to clarify conditions for the contractor, but which may also lead to plenty of problems.  For example:

Do they have a sketch number and date of issuance?  Does the drawing that this sketch modifies show now a new revision number for this sketch?  When other members of the CCA team are revising the drawings, will they be aware of the changes you introduced through this sketch?  Will the sketch be in conflict with other changes that other members of the team may have introduced in the documents before, and that you didn't see because you just drew the sketch on your pad?  

we are never going to abandon the ability to resolve a pressing problem via a an illustration, we are architects, after all!  But we need to use these tools judiciously, or we risk creating all sorts of problems.

Best regards,

While I do agree, depending upon how the contract is written, the contract drawings should be kept up to date.  That said, I do disagree with the following:

"All this is no longer valid:  producing a sketch on a 8,5" x 11" takes the same time as producing a full drawing, and both can be transmitted with the same speed.)"

As a full time CA, who travels to multiple job sites, in my back pack is an 8 1/2 x 11 gridded pad and my drawing instruments.  It is much, much quicker for me to sketch a detail in the field, take a picture with my phone or iPad and email to the contractor.  They love it as they don't have to wait for a drawing to be formally issued.  My laptop does not even have Revit nor to my team members want me working in the model.  Don't summarily discount "old school" ways of doing things.

To Joel's insightful remarks, I would add:

To me, the contract language implies an assumption that the "change documentation" will be generated from a Building Information Model that is being shared with the General Contractor and Owner, resulting in the Construction Documents being kept current more or less automatically (at least accordingly to the Client's understanding of Building Information Modeling). Perhaps the Client has borrowed language from a project with a shared BIM model. If that is not the type of the project in question, additional contract negotiations are definitely called for.

In any case, I think some discussion and negotiation is warranted surrounding the issues of: the time, effort, and practicality involved in issuing updated CD sets with every change; standard construction practice of requiring the General Contractor to track contract changes and record them in a record set (along with the transference of the costs and liabilities of this responsibility from party to party); and perhaps the number of changes expected.

The following is an excerpt from a Client contract; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and 
revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, bulletins (poster's comment: what ever those are as it is not defined in the Contract), approved change orders and construction change directives. "  My understanding is many owners want these "updated" sets as it gives them a nicly bundled "Contract Set" for any future litigation issues.Is this standard? Should we consider this to be an Additional service or at least ensure it's part of the CCA fee? I would actually change the paragraph to indicate; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, approved change orders and construction change directives. This RECORD Drawing (GC As-builts are not included) will be given to Owner at Project's completion." I may have answered my own question, but thoughts anyone? Has anyone done this progressive  update issuance?

Gustavo,

Perhaps a bit of clarification is in order.  For the most part, my sketches are either a part of an RFI response or generate a confirming RFI, which then will end up as a part of a true change document.

On the contrary, my field sketches are not "a 'shoot from the hip' solution".  They are thought out in collaboration with the contractor and the team.  It is what I do for a living and have been for many years.  Them becoming a part of an RFI waylays your concerns regarding number, date of issuance, revisions number, etc.  The sketch gets incorporated into the documents by the team.

"Will the sketch be in conflict with other changes that other members of the team may have introduced in the documents before, and that you didn't see because you just drew the sketch on your pad?" That assumes I am not looking at the current documents with the current updates, which is not the case. I have the current documents available on my iPad.

Michael:  a quick sketch is fine as a stop gap measure.  But it seems to me you will want to follow that with a true change document (ASI, Bulletin, answer to an RFI, Change Proposal Request).   

Field sketches are a "shoot from the hip" solution, which can be very helpful to clarify conditions for the contractor, but which may also lead to plenty of problems.  For example:

Do they have a sketch number and date of issuance?  Does the drawing that this sketch modifies show now a new revision number for this sketch?  When other members of the CCA team are revising the drawings, will they be aware of the changes you introduced through this sketch?  Will the sketch be in conflict with other changes that other members of the team may have introduced in the documents before, and that you didn't see because you just drew the sketch on your pad?  

we are never going to abandon the ability to resolve a pressing problem via a an illustration, we are architects, after all!  But we need to use these tools judiciously, or we risk creating all sorts of problems.

Best regards,

While I do agree, depending upon how the contract is written, the contract drawings should be kept up to date.  That said, I do disagree with the following:

"All this is no longer valid:  producing a sketch on a 8,5" x 11" takes the same time as producing a full drawing, and both can be transmitted with the same speed.)"

As a full time CA, who travels to multiple job sites, in my back pack is an 8 1/2 x 11 gridded pad and my drawing instruments.  It is much, much quicker for me to sketch a detail in the field, take a picture with my phone or iPad and email to the contractor.  They love it as they don't have to wait for a drawing to be formally issued.  My laptop does not even have Revit nor to my team members want me working in the model.  Don't summarily discount "old school" ways of doing things.

To Joel's insightful remarks, I would add:

To me, the contract language implies an assumption that the "change documentation" will be generated from a Building Information Model that is being shared with the General Contractor and Owner, resulting in the Construction Documents being kept current more or less automatically (at least accordingly to the Client's understanding of Building Information Modeling). Perhaps the Client has borrowed language from a project with a shared BIM model. If that is not the type of the project in question, additional contract negotiations are definitely called for.

In any case, I think some discussion and negotiation is warranted surrounding the issues of: the time, effort, and practicality involved in issuing updated CD sets with every change; standard construction practice of requiring the General Contractor to track contract changes and record them in a record set (along with the transference of the costs and liabilities of this responsibility from party to party); and perhaps the number of changes expected.

The following is an excerpt from a Client contract; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and 
revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, bulletins (poster's comment: what ever those are as it is not defined in the Contract), approved change orders and construction change directives. "  My understanding is many owners want these "updated" sets as it gives them a nicly bundled "Contract Set" for any future litigation issues.Is this standard? Should we consider this to be an Additional service or at least ensure it's part of the CCA fee? I would actually change the paragraph to indicate; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, approved change orders and construction change directives. This RECORD Drawing (GC As-builts are not included) will be given to Owner at Project's completion." I may have answered my own question, but thoughts anyone? Has anyone done this progressive  update issuance?

Gustavo,

Perhaps a bit of clarification is in order.  For the most part, my sketches are either a part of an RFI response or generate a confirming RFI, which then will end up as a part of a true change document.

On the contrary, my field sketches are not "a 'shoot from the hip' solution".  They are thought out in collaboration with the contractor and the team.  It is what I do for a living and have been for many years.  Them becoming a part of an RFI waylays your concerns regarding number, date of issuance, revisions number, etc.  The sketch gets incorporated into the documents by the team.

"Will the sketch be in conflict with other changes that other members of the team may have introduced in the documents before, and that you didn't see because you just drew the sketch on your pad?" That assumes I am not looking at the current documents with the current updates, which is not the case. I have the current documents available on my iPad.

Michael:  a quick sketch is fine as a stop gap measure.  But it seems to me you will want to follow that with a true change document (ASI, Bulletin, answer to an RFI, Change Proposal Request).   

Field sketches are a "shoot from the hip" solution, which can be very helpful to clarify conditions for the contractor, but which may also lead to plenty of problems.  For example:

Do they have a sketch number and date of issuance?  Does the drawing that this sketch modifies show now a new revision number for this sketch?  When other members of the CCA team are revising the drawings, will they be aware of the changes you introduced through this sketch?  Will the sketch be in conflict with other changes that other members of the team may have introduced in the documents before, and that you didn't see because you just drew the sketch on your pad?  

we are never going to abandon the ability to resolve a pressing problem via a an illustration, we are architects, after all!  But we need to use these tools judiciously, or we risk creating all sorts of problems.

Best regards,

While I do agree, depending upon how the contract is written, the contract drawings should be kept up to date.  That said, I do disagree with the following:

"All this is no longer valid:  producing a sketch on a 8,5" x 11" takes the same time as producing a full drawing, and both can be transmitted with the same speed.)"

As a full time CA, who travels to multiple job sites, in my back pack is an 8 1/2 x 11 gridded pad and my drawing instruments.  It is much, much quicker for me to sketch a detail in the field, take a picture with my phone or iPad and email to the contractor.  They love it as they don't have to wait for a drawing to be formally issued.  My laptop does not even have Revit nor to my team members want me working in the model.  Don't summarily discount "old school" ways of doing things.

To Joel's insightful remarks, I would add:

To me, the contract language implies an assumption that the "change documentation" will be generated from a Building Information Model that is being shared with the General Contractor and Owner, resulting in the Construction Documents being kept current more or less automatically (at least accordingly to the Client's understanding of Building Information Modeling). Perhaps the Client has borrowed language from a project with a shared BIM model. If that is not the type of the project in question, additional contract negotiations are definitely called for.

In any case, I think some discussion and negotiation is warranted surrounding the issues of: the time, effort, and practicality involved in issuing updated CD sets with every change; standard construction practice of requiring the General Contractor to track contract changes and record them in a record set (along with the transference of the costs and liabilities of this responsibility from party to party); and perhaps the number of changes expected.

The following is an excerpt from a Client contract; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and 
revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, bulletins (poster's comment: what ever those are as it is not defined in the Contract), approved change orders and construction change directives. "  My understanding is many owners want these "updated" sets as it gives them a nicly bundled "Contract Set" for any future litigation issues.Is this standard? Should we consider this to be an Additional service or at least ensure it's part of the CCA fee? I would actually change the paragraph to indicate; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, approved change orders and construction change directives. This RECORD Drawing (GC As-builts are not included) will be given to Owner at Project's completion." I may have answered my own question, but thoughts anyone? Has anyone done this progressive  update issuance?

Gustavo,

Perhaps a bit of clarification is in order.  For the most part, my sketches are either a part of an RFI response or generate a confirming RFI, which then will end up as a part of a true change document.

On the contrary, my field sketches are not "a 'shoot from the hip' solution".  They are thought out in collaboration with the contractor and the team.  It is what I do for a living and have been for many years.  Them becoming a part of an RFI waylays your concerns regarding number, date of issuance, revisions number, etc.  The sketch gets incorporated into the documents by the team.

"Will the sketch be in conflict with other changes that other members of the team may have introduced in the documents before, and that you didn't see because you just drew the sketch on your pad?" That assumes I am not looking at the current documents with the current updates, which is not the case. I have the current documents available on my iPad.

Michael:  a quick sketch is fine as a stop gap measure.  But it seems to me you will want to follow that with a true change document (ASI, Bulletin, answer to an RFI, Change Proposal Request).   

Field sketches are a "shoot from the hip" solution, which can be very helpful to clarify conditions for the contractor, but which may also lead to plenty of problems.  For example:

Do they have a sketch number and date of issuance?  Does the drawing that this sketch modifies show now a new revision number for this sketch?  When other members of the CCA team are revising the drawings, will they be aware of the changes you introduced through this sketch?  Will the sketch be in conflict with other changes that other members of the team may have introduced in the documents before, and that you didn't see because you just drew the sketch on your pad?  

we are never going to abandon the ability to resolve a pressing problem via a an illustration, we are architects, after all!  But we need to use these tools judiciously, or we risk creating all sorts of problems.

Best regards,

While I do agree, depending upon how the contract is written, the contract drawings should be kept up to date.  That said, I do disagree with the following:

"All this is no longer valid:  producing a sketch on a 8,5" x 11" takes the same time as producing a full drawing, and both can be transmitted with the same speed.)"

As a full time CA, who travels to multiple job sites, in my back pack is an 8 1/2 x 11 gridded pad and my drawing instruments.  It is much, much quicker for me to sketch a detail in the field, take a picture with my phone or iPad and email to the contractor.  They love it as they don't have to wait for a drawing to be formally issued.  My laptop does not even have Revit nor to my team members want me working in the model.  Don't summarily discount "old school" ways of doing things.

To Joel's insightful remarks, I would add:

To me, the contract language implies an assumption that the "change documentation" will be generated from a Building Information Model that is being shared with the General Contractor and Owner, resulting in the Construction Documents being kept current more or less automatically (at least accordingly to the Client's understanding of Building Information Modeling). Perhaps the Client has borrowed language from a project with a shared BIM model. If that is not the type of the project in question, additional contract negotiations are definitely called for.

In any case, I think some discussion and negotiation is warranted surrounding the issues of: the time, effort, and practicality involved in issuing updated CD sets with every change; standard construction practice of requiring the General Contractor to track contract changes and record them in a record set (along with the transference of the costs and liabilities of this responsibility from party to party); and perhaps the number of changes expected.

The following is an excerpt from a Client contract; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and 
revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, bulletins (poster's comment: what ever those are as it is not defined in the Contract), approved change orders and construction change directives. "  My understanding is many owners want these "updated" sets as it gives them a nicly bundled "Contract Set" for any future litigation issues.Is this standard? Should we consider this to be an Additional service or at least ensure it's part of the CCA fee? I would actually change the paragraph to indicate; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, approved change orders and construction change directives. This RECORD Drawing (GC As-builts are not included) will be given to Owner at Project's completion." I may have answered my own question, but thoughts anyone? Has anyone done this progressive  update issuance?

The following is an excerpt from a Client contract; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and 
revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, bulletins (poster's comment: what ever those are as it is not defined in the Contract), approved change orders and construction change directives. "  My understanding is many owners want these "updated" sets as it gives them a nicly bundled "Contract Set" for any future litigation issues.Is this standard? Should we consider this to be an Additional service or at least ensure it's part of the CCA fee? I would actually change the paragraph to indicate; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, approved change orders and construction change directives. This RECORD Drawing (GC As-builts are not included) will be given to Owner at Project's completion." I may have answered my own question, but thoughts anyone? Has anyone done this progressive  update issuance?

The following is an excerpt from a Client contract; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and 
revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, bulletins (poster's comment: what ever those are as it is not defined in the Contract), approved change orders and construction change directives. "  My understanding is many owners want these "updated" sets as it gives them a nicly bundled "Contract Set" for any future litigation issues.Is this standard? Should we consider this to be an Additional service or at least ensure it's part of the CCA fee? I would actually change the paragraph to indicate; "Architect shall (and shall cause its consultants to) routinely and progressively update and revise the Construction Documents to keep them current with all supplemental and change documentation during the Construction Phase including but not limited to closed addenda, requests for information (RFIs), ASI's, approved change orders and construction change directives. This RECORD Drawing (GC As-builts are not included) will be given to Owner at Project's completion." I may have answered my own question, but thoughts anyone? Has anyone done this progressive  update issuance?