Durability + Design
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on LinkedIn Like us on Facebook Follow us on Instagram Visit the TPC Store
Search the site

 

DURABILITY + DESIGN BLOG

Comment |

Misconception Series—Drawings, Specs Are Complementary

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2018

By Letsfixconstruction.com


More items for Good Technical Practice

Recently, I was preparing a masonry architectural specification section for a remodel project. The project has an existing CMU wall that is to receive a small area of new CMU infill. It’s an exterior structural wall, and the architectural drawings indicate that the infill CMU is to be grouted solid.

I asked the structural engineer if we need reinforcing bars (rebar) in the cores of the CMU. I told him that I would delete rebar from the spec section if we don’t need rebar, so that the contractor knows he doesn’t need to provide it.

Images: davincidig / Getty Images

“Drawings and specifications are complementary and what is called for by one shall be as binding as if called for by both.” This is according to the general conditions of the contract for this project, which is a typical provision in construction contracts.

The engineer said, “You can just leave it in the specs. If the rebar isn’t on the drawings, they’ll know they don’t need it.”

NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

“Drawings and specifications are complementary and what is called for by one shall be as binding as if called for by both.”

This is according to the general conditions of the contract for this project, which is a typical provision in construction contracts.

So, if rebar isn’t required for that wall, there should be no rebar in the spec or on the drawings. If rebar is in the specs, even if it’s not on the drawings, rebar is required by the contract. If rebar is on the drawings, even if it’s not in the specs, rebar is required by the contract.

Design professionals need to completely comprehend this concept, and for some unknown reason, many don’t. Contractors need to completely comprehend this requirement, and for an understandable reason—it’s not in their best interest at times—they don’t always seem to grasp this.

The lead design professional on the project—the entity who is performing construction contract administration—is the party who must enforce the contract documents, including the specifications. This party has to understand the relationships among contract documents before he or she can properly enforce them. If the specifications and drawings have been prepared to be complementary, and are clear, concise, correct and complete, they will be easy to understand (for all parties) and easy to enforce.

Unless the design team intends for something to be included by the contractor in the project, it shouldn’t be in the specs (or drawings). There shouldn’t be a bunch of things in the specs “in case we need them” if we don’t actually intend for them to be in the project, because by doing that, we’ve taken the first step to our documents’ not being taken seriously by the contractor.

If there is extra information in the specifications, the contractor will assume that the specifications are boilerplate specifications that are reused on all projects, and are not specific to the project, and will ignore all the specifications.

If there is extra information in the specifications, the contractor will assume that the specifications are boilerplate specifications that are reused on all projects, and are not specific to the project, and will ignore all the specifications.

Also, the architect should enforce the provisions of the specs and the agreement and the conditions of the contract, or else these documents won’t be taken seriously. We have to say what we mean, and prove that we mean what we say.

If the contractor starts ignoring the specifications, the architect or engineer who’s doing construction contract administration will have a much harder time trying to enforce the specs. When the specs include a lot of inapplicable things, the contractor will start ignoring the specs, because guessing at the intention of the specs, or constantly asking about the intention of the specs, will be a waste of the contractor’s essential time. (Of course, the contractor is usually contractually obligated to ask for clarification in the case of conflicts in the documents, but it’s not fair for design professionals to knowingly issue documents with conflicts.)

So, architects and engineers, remember that the drawings and specifications are complementary and what is called for by one is as binding as if called for by both. Enforce this during construction.

And, architects and engineers, don’t put extra stuff in the specs. It wastes your time and the contractor’s time during construction, and it may waste the owner’s money.

About the Author

Liz O'Sullivan is an independent specifications consultant in Denver, at Liz O'Sullivan Architecture LLC. A licensed architect in Colorado since 2002, she's been preparing project specifications as a consultant to other architects since 2008. O'Sullivan is a member of AIA, CSI and SCIP. She is a Certified Construction Specifier (CCS), a Certified Construction Contract Administrator (CCCA), a LEED Accredited Professional (LEED AP BD+C) and is NCARB-certified. This post originally appeared on O'Sullivan's website.

ABOUT THE BLOGGER

Letsfixconstruction.com

Let's Fix Construction is written by a collective group of construction professionals involved in letsfixconstruction.com, an online impartial platform to provide forward-thinking solutions to many longstanding issues that have plagued construction. Organizers and contributors seek to better the industry by sharing knowledge, while creating open and positive communication and collaboration. Many of the posts have appeared first on letsfixconstruction.com and are republished on Durability + Design with permission. Author information is available at the bottom of each blog entry.

SEE ALL CONTENT FROM THIS CONTRIUBTOR

   

Tagged categories: Contractors; Contracts; Specification; Specification writing; Specifiers

Comment from Michael Pace, (11/19/2018, 9:43 AM)

Hi Liz, Thank you for your excellent blog on this continuing issue. I see the "catch all" specs everyday and wonder how GC'c actually figure what to include for and how to price the project. Buildings will continue to be complicated but there is no excuse for mismatched specifications and drawings.


Comment Join the Conversation:

Sign in to our community to add your comments.

Advertisements
 
Keim Mineral Coatings
 
Mineral Silicate Paints + Stains Fuse to Concrete
 
• Forms permanent chemical bonds
• Becomes part of the concrete
• Will never peel
• Looks completely natural
 

 
Novatek Corporation
 
Novatek Portable Air Filtration Systems
 
Air Scrubbers/Negative Air machines for restoration, abatement, dust & odor control, hazardous contaminant removal from job sites to clean rooms and hospitals. Portable, affordable!
 

 
Shield Industries, Inc
 
FireGuard® E-84 Intumescent Coating - Shield Industries, Inc
 
Trust the certified protection of the industry’s most innovative intumescent coating FireGuard® E-84 to provide you with the 1 and 2 hour fire ratings you need.
 

 
 
 

Technology Publishing Co., 1501 Reedsdale Street, Suite 2008, Pittsburgh, PA 15233

TEL 1-412-431-8300  • FAX  1-412-431-5428  •  EMAIL webmaster@durabilityanddesign.com


The Technology Publishing Network

Durability + Design PaintSquare the Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings Paint BidTracker

 

© Copyright 2012-2018, Technology Publishing Co., All rights reserved