Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 34-104 (2026)

Contract with architect; proprietary specifications; penalty; compensation

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The architect employed shall execute with the agent a contract to prepare working drawings and details and specifications for the proposed project, and to supervise its construction, unless the agent does not employ the architect to supervise the work.

B. An architect shall not use and the agent shall not allow the use of bidding, contracting or purchasing specifications proprietary to one supplier, distributor or manufacturer unless the specification includes both of the following:

1. A description of the essential characteristics of the products so specified.

2. A statement indicating the intent to consider alternative products which have the desired essential characteristics if such alternative products are identified.

C. Persons desiring to submit alternative product proposals for prior approval of the architect shall submit such proposals at least eight days prior to the original deadline for receiving bids. The architect shall consider and either approve or reject all proposals submitted and shall comply with the following requirements:

1. If, by the close of the fifth day prior to the deadline for receiving bids, the architect has approved any alternative product proposals, the bidding documents shall be modified to include the alternative products. The architect shall publish the modification in the same manner as the original bidding documents at least five days prior to the bidding deadline.

2. If the architect rejects an alternative product proposal, he shall give notice of the rejection to the agent prior to the deadline for receiving bids. Notice shall include a description of the rejected product.

D. A person who knowingly uses or allows the use of a bidding, contracting or purchasing specification proprietary to one supplier, distributor or manufacturer in violation of subsection B or fails to publish any alternate product as provided in subsection C, paragraph 1, or fails to give notice of rejection of an alternate proposal to the agent as provided in subsection C, paragraph 2 is liable for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars for each violation. The attorney general shall bring an action to recover such penalty in the name of this state in the superior court in the county in which the violation occurred.

E. If in the agent's judgment a satisfactory proposal is not received for construction of the project completely finished in accordance with the accepted plans and specifications, then the architect shall revise the scope or quality of the project, or both, as necessary to obtain a satisfactory proposal to construct the project.

F. If the proposed project is abandoned or suspended for a period of more than one hundred eighty days through no fault of the architect, he shall be compensated.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1967–2004 · leading case: W. Corr. Grp., Inc. v. Tierney, 96 P.3d 1070 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

W. Corr. Grp., Inc. v. Tierney, 96 P.3d 1070 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “This court reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the city, holding that because the agreement did not include a building cost limitation, and the architect prepared the plans according to the details dictated by the city, the terms of the contract and § 34-104 required…”

Guirey, Srnka & Arnold, Architects v. City of Phoenix, 449 P.2d 306 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 6× “The architect employed shall execute with the agent a contract to prepare working drawings and details and specifications for the proposed project, and to supervise its construction, unless the agent does not employ the architect to supervise the work.”

Sch. Dist. No. One of Pima Co. v. Hastings, 472 P.2d 44 (Ariz. 1970). · cites it 3× “By § 34-104 the State has prescribed the compensation which the State or any of its political subdivisions may lawfully pay an architect.”

L.G. Lefler, Inc. v. Tucson Airport Auth., Inc., 684 P.2d 904 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “The court arrived at this result because the fees which could be paid by a public agency, the school district, were fixed by A.R.S. § 34-104. Thus the school district was impliedly held to be an “agent” under A.”

Secrist v. Diedrich, 430 P.2d 448 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967). ““§ 34-104. “A. The architect employed shall execute with the agent a contract to prepare working drawings and details and specifications for the proposed project, .”

Sch. Dist. No. One v. Hastings, 466 P.2d 395 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 3× “Said paragraph also incorporates by reference A.R.S. § 34-104. According to paragraph B(l), if the architect prepared preliminary sketches and tentative designs and nothing further was done by him, then he was to receive li/2% of the proposed cost of the project.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 34-104(C) — 1 case

W. Corr. Grp., Inc. v. Tierney, 96 P.3d 1070 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “This court reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the city, holding that because the agreement did not include a building cost limitation, and the architect prepared the plans according to the details dictated by the city, the terms of the contract and § 34-104 required…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.