Two published families of construction contract, AIA A201-2017 and ConsensusDocs 200, meet across five risks on one composite project in the Unit 3 comparison MT383 often assigns. Searches like "mt 383 unit 3 assignment example", "mt383 unit 3 sample" and "mt383 unit 3 example" land here.
What a finished MT383 Unit 3 standard form comparison looks like
A seven-page comparison built on one table: five rows, two columns, each cell quoting the relevant clause with its section number and edition. The rows cover concealed or differing site conditions, claims notice and time limits, consequential damages, indemnification and the path a dispute takes. The introduction explains the forms' origins briefly: AIA documents come from the American Institute of Architects, and ConsensusDocs was launched in 2007 by a coalition of owner, contractor, subcontractor and surety groups led by the Associated General Contractors. A201-2017 appears with its 21-day claim notice and its ten-year outer limit on claims measured from substantial completion. After the table, a page for each risk explains which party each form favors and why, then applies the difference to the Pavilion's own facts.
How a MT383 Unit 3 example is structured
Risk is the unit of comparison, not the document, so each row answers one question: when this goes wrong, who bears it, and what must happen first? Quoting both forms side by side keeps the analysis honest, and editions are named in every cell because clause numbers and wording change between releases. The dispute row carries the most weight. A201-2017 routes claims first to an Initial Decision Maker, the architect unless the parties name someone else, then to mediation as a condition precedent, then to whatever binding method the agreement selects; ConsensusDocs 200 begins with direct talks between the parties' representatives and offers an optional dispute mitigation step before mediation. Each difference is applied to the Pavilion's facts. What an owner would negotiate on either form ends the paper, framed as analysis rather than advice.
Five risks, two forms
Rows are chosen for the Pavilion: hidden soil conditions under the parking court, late claims, lost clinic rental income, a hoist injury and the payment standoff. Each row quotes the operative clause from both forms, with edition and section.
Who decides first
A201-2017 sends a claim to an Initial Decision Maker, by default the architect the owner hired. ConsensusDocs 200 opens with talks between senior representatives. The comparison asks how neutral a first decision can be from someone on one party's payroll.
Lost rent and the mutual waiver
Both forms carry a mutual waiver of consequential damages in some form, and the comparison shows what that means for the Pavilion: the owner's lost clinic rent from a late opening is likely waived unless liquidated damages were agreed.
Clocks on a claim
A201-2017's 21-day notice and its ten-year outer limit are set against the ConsensusDocs timing, with the comparison noting that a strict notice clause can defeat a sound claim that simply arrived late.
Points each side would negotiate
The closing page lists the clauses an owner and a contractor would each likely push to change on either form, from naming an independent decision maker to adjusting the waiver, framed as course analysis rather than advice.
Where marks go in MT383 Unit 3
Comparisons that describe each form in turn, one after the other, rarely reach the analysis MT383 graders want, leaving the comparing to whoever reads them. A risk-by-risk structure, with both clauses quoted in the same row, is the basic requirement. Edition accuracy matters: citing A201 without its year, or quoting language from an older release, costs precision because wording and numbering change. Weaker papers call one form owner-friendly and the other contractor-friendly and stop, while stronger ones show where each form actually shifts a specific risk and by how much. Applying the differences to the case facts, rather than to construction in general, separates analysis from summary. Recommendations framed as legal advice overstep; stating what each party would likely negotiate stays within course analysis.
Get a MT383 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Tell us which two forms your Unit 3 prompt compares and which risks or clauses it emphasizes, and attach any excerpts provided. With the rubric added, a first custom comparison arrives within 24-48h at no charge, quoting both forms side by side and naming the edition in every citation.
MT383 Unit 3 questions, answered
Do I need to buy the AIA or ConsensusDocs documents?
Usually not. Many courses supply excerpts, both publishers make sample or preview versions available, and textbooks often reproduce key clauses. Quote only what your materials provide and cite the edition. If the prompt expects clauses you cannot access, describe the provision from a reliable secondary source and say so rather than reconstructing wording from memory.
Which form is better for an owner?
It depends on the risk and the project. Each family allocates specific risks differently, and either can be modified heavily. Most sections expect a risk-by-risk answer rather than a verdict on the whole form, and a comparison that shows how negotiated changes could close the gap reads as more realistic than declaring a winner.
Should I cite section numbers?
Yes, with the edition, because numbering shifts between releases and graders check it. A citation such as A201-2017 Section 3.18 tells a reader exactly where to look. If your excerpt lacks numbers, describe the clause by its heading and edition instead, and avoid mixing clauses from different releases in the same comparison.