By Keith Robinson, FCSC, RSW, CCS, LEED AP
As specifiers, we are called into many uncomfortable meetings
with a request to clarify exactly what was intended by the written
words that we create as a part of the Project Manual... and are
often left with the uncomfortable feeling that the only reason we
are at these meetings is to be “the person” to blame where a
satisfactory conclusion has not otherwise come to fruition. This
is not an unusual feeling for anyone that has been assembling
or administering construction specifications for any amount of
time, but this particular interpretation is used way too often and
without sufficient thought about how this hierarchy exists. Hence
the ~ (tilde) and ¿ (upside down question mark) in the title indicating
the sarcastic bent of the word really in the title line and in
other instances in this article.
There is no doubt about the “Order or Priority of Documents”
arising in the event of conflict within the Contract Documents,
which is defined in our standard CCDC forms of contract. The
issue with this statement is the difference of our “general understanding
of conflict” versus the “legal interpretation of conflict”.
Since I am not a lawyer; the discussion presented is merely an
opinion. The word “conflict” as used in the contractual instance
is the legal interpretation where there is a breach of contract.
Essentially someone is about to be sued, and the conflict refers
to the process of resolving the dispute. The word “conflict” as
used by the general (non-lawyer-ish) understanding is any disconnect
between the specifications and the drawings, a disagreement
between facts and an individual’s interpretation of the documents,
or any perceived disagreement (or argument) during the
administration of the project that doesn’t actually form a breach
of contract (but has the potential if not resolved amicably).
It is important to accept that there needs to be a line in the
sand; a point of decision making, to enable fair and equal interpretation
of the documents. The specification is being used as
the tool for this demarcation based on the accepted order of
priority. The question and sarcastic inference at the start of this
column comes about when the specification is inconsistent with
the graphic representation (drawings) and where we need to
move the discussion to a more controversial line of discussion.
What happens when the drawings are correct and we do not
want the spec to rule? What about the unintentional disconnects
that occur when the drawing notes are too specific – should the
drawing notes be considered a specification? If drawing notes are
specifications – then what happens to the book (specifications)?
Our standard CCDC forms of contract offer us backup to
support of the graphic representation and accompanying notes
by stating “Contract Documents are complementary, what is
required by one is required by all”. We humbly march forward
feeling self confident that we are justified in switching the ruling
documentation (in the eyes of the constructor) from the specification
to the drawing, and now we are steering towards a conflict
in the true legal sense... a potential for breach of contract.
In arriving at a more reasoned approach to interpreting the
contract documents, we need to understand what a specification
is and what a drawing is. Strange as those notions are given
that we are an association of specification writers. It is the start
of a historical tour of events leading to the interpretation of the
working-drawings and specifications that we have today.
Some of the earliest interpretations of the word “drawings” are
referenced in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s (1) as “the workingdrawings
contain the graphical information placed on sheets of
vellum or other reproduction” with the intent that everything
else on the drawing sheet are considered words. Those words
had specific context leading to our predecessors (2) and to our
current interpretation of the order of priority of documents. The
current interpretation was derived from the following concerns
(quoted in the language of the time) in the late 1800’s:
- Of the exactness requisite in the practical profession of architecture,
and how far it is influenced by the correctness of
specifications and working-drawings
- Of the disputes and expenses which arise from badly drawn
specifications
- Of the trouble and vexation which an architect occasions to
himself by a badly drawn specification; and on the propriety of
general clauses in specifications
- Of marginal references in specifications and contracts, their
convenience, and their tendency to insure the correct performance
of the work; and of the care with which specifications
should be copied into contracts
- Of the advantages which would result, if copies of the working-drawings
and specifications for all works, were deposited
somewhere for the public and private reference
- Of the evil and depressing influence which bad building has
upon architecture
- Of the influence which contracting for the erection of buildings
has upon architecture
- Of the present state of architectural mechanical knowledge
- Of the question, “Have we improved in our Practical Building
through specifications?”
Seems we are challenged with similar concerns in today’s
construction environment and causes one to ponder from this
historical information, “Why haven’t we seen progress in our
documentation in the last 125 to 150 years to address these
concerns?” Fortunately, both of these publications laid out the
principles of interpretation that are used by CCDC, and which
we are familiar with in today’s common usage of the order of
precedence of the documents:
- Words add clarity and content to graphical representations
and working-drawings.
- Words are understood in their general and popular usage.
- Words commonly accepted by trade usage are understood as
standard or technical terms and have precedence over general
or popular usage.
- Specific and defined terms take precedence over standard or
technical terms.
- Typed words take precedence over printed words (think of
old style drawing methods where words were hand printed).
- Handwritten words take precedence over typed or printed
words (handwriting is considered as reflecting the immediate
thoughts selected by the parties themselves to express their
joint understanding of the meaning of words).
The disconnect in today’s interpretation is that the word “drawing”
is taken to be the “sheet of paper” that we bind together as a set
of working-drawings rather than the graphical content on those
sheets as was the original interpretation. When words are added
to the graphical content, they become an integral component of
the specification information that adds clarity to the drawings.
Words printed on the drawing must match the words written
into the specification...this disconnect arises by our failure to
recognize that drawing notes are specifications.
This becomes a bigger issue given our need to add more detail to
the drawing notes than is necessary to convey clarity or content,
especially considering the weight provided to the specification
under contract. The more detailed the drawing notes are, the
greater the likelihood of creating discrepancies and potential for
disputes as a result of those discrepancies.
So what is the solution to this dilemma?
Communication, another word that everyone thinks they perform effectively, but
which so often fails in the process of delivering the message. The
ultimate irony is that we are failing to communicate because of
our need to provide overly descriptive notes on our working drawings
and failing to forward a message, speak with or otherwise
send smoke signals to the person responsible for the written
words that actually take precedence, and ultimately provides the
communication to the person that delivers the finished project.
Do we assume that the specification isn’t as good as the contract
gives it credit? Do we overcompensate by adding descriptive text
and sequential context to drawing notes that ignores the flow of
communication that is supposed to occur between the drawings
and the specification? This becomes a self fulfilling conclusion...
the specification is no good, because no one thought to communicate
the project requirements into the written document... so
the contractual significance of the specification is lost to the big
recycle bin in the back rooms, basements and back alleys of so
many buildings.
Sounds like an action plan for BIM concepts and software – a
solution
finally sounds like a discussion for a different column.
(1) Handbook of Specifications, Practical Guide to the Architect,
Engineer, Surveyor and Builder in drawing up Specifications and
Contracts for Works and Constructions; T. L. Donaldson Ph.D.,
published by Atchley and Co., published in 1860. Also viewable online,
University of Michigan HathiTrust Digital Library
(2) Specifications for Practical Architecture; Frederick Rogers, Architect,
published by Crosby Lockwood and Co., published in 1886.
Also viewable online, Internet Archive
Download the entire issue for this article and more.
For more issues, visit our website or visit our archive for past issues.
