Yesterday, 02:45 PM
Conflicts Between Drawings and Specifications
In construction contracting, especially on public infrastructure and commercial projects, discrepancies between the specification book and the construction plans are not uncommon. These documents are intended to complement each other, but when they conflict, determining which governs can be contentious. A typical example involves bedding material for drainage pipe: the plans may call for ¾-inch washed rock, while the spec book allows sand or blow sand, explicitly excluding crusher fines.
This raises a critical question: if the contractor follows the spec book and ignores the plans, can they be held liable? The answer depends on the contract language and the governing hierarchy established in the project documents.
Contractual Hierarchy and Interpretation Clauses
Most formal contracts—especially those based on AIA (American Institute of Architects) templates—include a clause addressing discrepancies. A common version reads: “In the event of a conflict between drawings and specifications, the greater quantity or higher quality shall govern unless otherwise directed by the Owner.” This clause shifts the burden of interpretation toward the more stringent requirement, often favoring the plans.
In practice, this means:
Communication Protocol and Chain of Command
Contractors are advised to respect the chain of command. If hired by a GC, all communication should flow through them unless the contract explicitly allows direct contact with the architect or engineer. Bypassing the GC—even with good intentions—can be perceived as undermining authority and may lead to retaliation, such as delayed approvals or reduced pay requests.
One subcontractor reported a $10,000 deduction from his invoice after contacting the architect directly to resolve a bedding material dispute. Although the architect approved the work, the GC penalized the subcontractor for bypassing protocol.
Spec Books and Copy-Paste Pitfalls
Spec books are often reused across projects, leading to irrelevant or outdated provisions. Architects may copy boilerplate language from previous jobs without tailoring it to current site conditions. This can result in contradictions, such as specifying sand bedding in the specs while showing gravel in the drawings.
To mitigate this:
In construction, the question of whether the spec book or the plans govern depends on contract language, quality hierarchy, and owner interpretation. Contractors must navigate these conflicts carefully, using RFIs, documentation, and clear communication to protect their interests. While the spec book often sets the baseline, the plans may dictate the final execution—especially when they demand higher standards.
In construction contracting, especially on public infrastructure and commercial projects, discrepancies between the specification book and the construction plans are not uncommon. These documents are intended to complement each other, but when they conflict, determining which governs can be contentious. A typical example involves bedding material for drainage pipe: the plans may call for ¾-inch washed rock, while the spec book allows sand or blow sand, explicitly excluding crusher fines.
This raises a critical question: if the contractor follows the spec book and ignores the plans, can they be held liable? The answer depends on the contract language and the governing hierarchy established in the project documents.
Contractual Hierarchy and Interpretation Clauses
Most formal contracts—especially those based on AIA (American Institute of Architects) templates—include a clause addressing discrepancies. A common version reads: “In the event of a conflict between drawings and specifications, the greater quantity or higher quality shall govern unless otherwise directed by the Owner.” This clause shifts the burden of interpretation toward the more stringent requirement, often favoring the plans.
In practice, this means:
- If the plans specify washed rock and the spec book allows sand, the washed rock may be deemed higher quality
- The owner or architect has final authority to interpret which standard applies
- Contractors must submit RFIs (Requests for Information) before proceeding when discrepancies arise
Communication Protocol and Chain of Command
Contractors are advised to respect the chain of command. If hired by a GC, all communication should flow through them unless the contract explicitly allows direct contact with the architect or engineer. Bypassing the GC—even with good intentions—can be perceived as undermining authority and may lead to retaliation, such as delayed approvals or reduced pay requests.
One subcontractor reported a $10,000 deduction from his invoice after contacting the architect directly to resolve a bedding material dispute. Although the architect approved the work, the GC penalized the subcontractor for bypassing protocol.
Spec Books and Copy-Paste Pitfalls
Spec books are often reused across projects, leading to irrelevant or outdated provisions. Architects may copy boilerplate language from previous jobs without tailoring it to current site conditions. This can result in contradictions, such as specifying sand bedding in the specs while showing gravel in the drawings.
To mitigate this:
- Review both documents thoroughly before bidding
- Flag inconsistencies during pre-construction meetings
- Document all clarifications in writing
- Use digital photos and logs to support field decisions
- Always read the supplemental conditions—they often contain overrides to general clauses
- Maintain a change order log and track delays caused by document conflicts
- Protect yourself with written correspondence, not verbal agreements
- If necessary, refuse to proceed without written clarification to avoid liability
In construction, the question of whether the spec book or the plans govern depends on contract language, quality hierarchy, and owner interpretation. Contractors must navigate these conflicts carefully, using RFIs, documentation, and clear communication to protect their interests. While the spec book often sets the baseline, the plans may dictate the final execution—especially when they demand higher standards.
