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.
No comments:
Post a Comment