The CSU maintains standard-form agreements for use on CSU projects to facilitate timely acceptance by all parties and to ensure that various policy and legal requirements are met. Each standard-form agreement type has been vetted for form and consistency and accepted for use by the CSU’s Office of General Counsel. CSU agreements are consistently applied and have a long-established record of use.
For the reasons above, the CSU expects to use its agreements without modification and generally seeks to limit agreement language revisions to an annual update cycle. Scope adjustments to individual agreements may be considered to address non-standard conditions such as project restarts, project assumptions and disaster recovery efforts.
Any adjustment made must be highlighted in a special section of the Scope of Work titled “Modifications to Agreement” and reviewed by the Office of General Counsel.
CPDC strives to maintain consistent, balanced and understandable agreements and welcomes suggestions for potential improvements.
Invoice Form may be used and shared by University for consistency.
The Architect/ Engineer fee formula found within Exhibit B spreadsheet of various agreements found below is based on a logarithmic formula found in Appendix C of the SUAM. The values are generated based on the building classification as well as two assigned coefficients. Click on the
link to the Appendix C for these coefficients.
Design-Bid Award: Owner/Architect Agreement
| CSU Architect/Engineer (A/E) Agreement | A/E design services for major capital projects. | Intended as the “owner/architect agreement” for major capital building projects. Typically not appropriate for use on minor capital projects or supporting design services due to extensive deliverables defined in agreement. |
CSU Project Architect/Engineer Agreement
(For Design-Bid Award) |
Word (last revised 5/28/21) |
Rider A - General Provisions
(For Design Bid-Award) |
Word (last revised 6/3/21) |
Exhibit A: Scope of Work
Provided as a suggestion for format and outline of content. Each Scope of Work must be written to reflect the specifics of an individual project. |
Word (last revised 1/14/14) |
Building Schedule Classification
Exhibit B: Schedule of Lump Sum Fees
Exhibit C: Project Schedule
Includes instructions for completing exhibits and revision history |
Excel (last revised 1/14/14) |
Exhibit D: Procedure Manual for CSU Capital Projects
|
PDF (last revised 12/2/11) |
Construction Manager at Risk (CM@Risk): Owner/Architect Agreement
| CSU Architect/Engineer (A/E) Agreement for CM@Risk Project | A/E design services for CM@Risk major capital projects | Intended as the “owner/architect agreement” for CM@Risk major capital building projects. Typically not appropriate for use on minor capital projects or supporting design services due to extensive deliverables defined in agreement. |
CSU Project Architect/Engineer Agreement
(For CM@Risk)
|
Word (last revised 5/28/21) |
Rider A - General Provisions
(For CM@Risk) |
Word (last revised 6/3/21) |
Exhibit A: Scope of Work
Provided as a suggestion for format and outline of content. Each Scope of Work must be written to reflect the specifics of an individual project. |
Word (last revised 1/14/14) |
Building Schedule Classification
Exhibit B: Schedule of Lump Sum Fees
Exhibit C: Project Schedule
Includes instructions for completing exhibits and revision history |
Excel (last revised 1/14/14) |
Exhibit D: Procedure Manual for CSU Capital Projects
|
PDF (last revised 12/2/11) |
Small Project Agreement (SPA): Owner/Architect Agreement
| CSU Small Project Agreement (SPA) | A streamlined version of the A/E Project Architect/Engineer Agreement. Provides full design and construction administration services. Can be used on any construction delivery method for which the CSU holds the A/E agreement. | For use on any CSU design/construction project. Optimized for projects with total costs under $5 million. For reports and special studies a Service Agreement is more appropriate. |
CSU Small Project Agreement (SPA)
|
Word (last revised 5/28/21) |
Rider A - General Provisions
|
Word (last revised 6/3/21) |
Exhibit A: Scope of Work
Provided as a suggestion for format and outline of content. Each Scope of Work must be written to reflect the specifics of an individual project. |
Word (last revised 1/4/18) |
Exhibit B: Schedule of Lump Sum Fees/Payment Schedule
Includes instructions for completing exhibits and revision history |
Excel (last revised 1/4/18) |
Exhibit C: Hourly Rate Schedule
Suggestion for format; expand or edit the document to reflect the specifics of each project. |
Word (last revised 1/4/18) |
Service Agreement
| Service Agreement | Design services for Minor Capital or Job-Order Contract (JOC) projects; supporting design services for any project CEQA, feasibility, master plan studies; and miscellaneous professional services and specialty design services such as geotechnical, hazardous material reviews, acoustical, laboratory or other design studies, testing or inspection and services | Service Agreements do not contain the comprehensive framework of deliverables identified in the CSU A/E Agreement, therefore campuses must use care to develop Service Agreement Scopes of Service to comprehensively describe:
- scope of work
- project schedule
- deliverables
- fee
- payment times
- special conditions such as extent of cost estimates to be provided, listing of consulting engineer disciplines to be provided as a part of the work, extent of outside agency plan reviews required, extent of bidding support required, extent and frequency of construction administration support required, and extent of as-built documents required
|
Service Agreement
A generic agreement for professional services in support of capital projects |
Word (last revised 5/20/21) |
Rider A: General Provisions
|
Word (last revised 2/14/24) |
Exhibit A: Site Survey
|
Word |
Exhibit A: Geotechnical
|
Word |
Exhibit A: Asbestos Abatement Survey
|
Word |
Exhibit A: Generic Scope of Services
|
Word |
Exhibit B: Schedule of Lump Sum Fees/Payment Schedule
| Word
|
Exhibit C: Hourly Rate Schedule
Suggestion for format; expand or edit the document to reflect the specifics of each project.
|
Word
|
Task Order Service Agreement for Professional Services (TOSA)
| Task Order Service Agreement for Professional Services | Supporting design services for any project. Ideal for design services on Minor Capital and JOC projects. | Same as Service Agreements plus the following:
- Agreement value up to $400,000 maximum
- Agreement term limited to one year
- May not issue multiple concurrent agreements to a single service provider.
|
| A complete agreement includes the Agreement, Rider A, B and C. |
CSU Task Order Service Agreement
|
Word (last revised 5/28/21) |
Rider A: General Provisions
|
Word (last revised 2/14/24) |
Rider B: Scope of Services, Term and Payment Schedule
Rider B, as presented, is pre-approved by the CSU Office of General Counsel. A campus may elect to add custom scope information in Rider B, Section 1.3, if desired. Changes to the rest of the document are strongly discouraged and will delay approval. Any changes or additions need to be highlighted and specifically approved by the Office of General Counsel. |
Word (last revised 7/12/16) |
Exhibit A: Task Order
Individual Task Orders must be composed by the campus to define a desired specific work task. The required content of individual task order is identified in Rider B, Section 1.2. |
Word (last revised 12/9/16) |
Campus Consulting Architects
Every CSU campus shall appoint a consulting campus architect. This appointment shall be an annual appointment starting July 1 of each year. The campus shall call upon the consulting architect to advise on both architectural and master planning issues that may arise during the appointment year.
Working with the CSU
The CSU makes professional appointments on the basis of demonstrated competence and professional qualifications. Professional appointments are made at the campus level.
As with any client, assuming a well-executed effort, past experience is a plus; however a firm with no higher education experience, but with demonstrated success in projects of similar size and complexity, should be readily able to make a compelling argument for serious consideration.
Campus capital projects come about from expressed campus need. This need is validated based on various entitlement formulas that are related to campus physical capacity and campus projected demand growth. A project feasibility study is often commissioned early on by the campus to help analyze need and justification for a particular project.
Once the internal decision to develop a project is made, a campus will convene a 3 to 9 member interview panel to make an appointment recommendation. The panel may include various ‘user’ representatives, but building technical representatives will represent a majority position.
The interview panel will use the Systemwide Prequalified List to develop an invitational RFQ listing of approximately 12-15 firms for initial consideration. In making their initial searches from the prequalified list, experience self rankings will be considered, along with the size and location of prospective firms. At this point, firms that have expressed specific advance interest on the project to the campus will also be considered. Non-public factors including: firm reputation, recent past performance and peer references is heavily weighted.
From the initial RFQ solicitation, a short list of 4 or 5 responding firms is selected for interview. The assumption is that any firm on the short list is technically capable of performing the work.
At this point it becomes a subjective evaluation confirming RFQ information and seeking the best fit based on interview performance. At the conclusion of the interviews, firms are ranked and the highest ranked firm is nominated for the commission. A confirming reference check occurs and assuming a positive outcome an agreement is proffered, executed and work begins.
The appointment of supporting consultants and appointments for minor capital projects may abbreviate some steps, but the process generally occurs along the same lines.