"The plans, specifications, shop drawings and other contract documents are intended to completely describe the work. Conflicts among them easily can, and do, arise. Many specification writers attempt to resolve these in advance by declaring an order of precedence among them. Typically, this may read something like this:
"If there is a conflict between contract documents, the document highest in precedence shall control. The precedence shall be: first, permits from other agencies as may be required by law, second , Special Provisions, third, Plans, fourth……………………………………. Sixth, reference specifications."
Recently the trend has been away from such specific requirements for one simple reason. We do not know, before they are revealed, what problems will arise. Declaring a specific order presumes we know how best to solve a problem, before we know what the problem is!
Consider using a different approach. The following has been found to work well on many contracts and is suggested.
"If a conflict, error, omission, or lack of detailed description is discovered in the contract documents, the Contractor shall immediately notify the Engineer (Architect) and request clarification. The Engineer (Architect) will resolve the conflict and make any corrections or interpretations necessary to fulfill the intent of the plans and specifications."
I agree that somewhere in the contract documents an order or precedence be clearly identified when conflict exists between drawings and specs. Better way is to define the order of precedence AND have a contact-the-engineer/architect note RWF7437 suggests. Alternately, one can specify that when conflict is encountered a more restrictive requirement shall govern.
whyun's advice is good. The contractor should be required to request clarification. As to the precedence, I think the drawings should come first as they should always be job specific, with the specifications unfortunately sometimes boilerplate.
When the *&%#@$ hits the fan, the attorney's always seem to look to the written word, whether notes on the plan or written specifications. I always try to put a couple notes about conflict & notification on the plans.
Courts will generally accept a reasonable interpretation of the drawings by the party who did not draft the documents. If you have the clause that the engineer interprets, that is probably best. However, generally the contractor would be entitled to a change order if cost or time is affected. I don't like the most restrictive clause. First, it is ocassionly subjective as to which answer is most restrictive, second, it really does not look at what is trying to being accomplished.
Generally the specs take precidence. Personally I would like to see the drawings have precidence, because as stated before, they are project specific and get a lot more review than the specs. What would be best would be for the engineer to point out the descrepancy to the engineer, and if the drawing is wrong, then dicuss a change.
.. The question is in practice how to build or construct to the correct solution, and avoid later technical problems and/or conflicts costing time and mony.
As suggested by others, one way is to determine the 'rank' of the differentiating underlaying speciifcations. An other is, also as suggested, to specify the problem as 'a minor' technical problem within the contract specification to be solved 'in normal good engineering practice' by the contractor.
The best way, in my experience, is to clear any possible misunderstandings immideately, by communicating directly in writing with the counterparts top project responsible person.
Not saying that this solution is the best in all cases a formulation something like the one below has worked for me in several cases, if the question cant be solved by a simple mail or telephone conversation:
Urgent! Production stopped awaiting your clarification/answer on following: Contract (paper one) stating:xxxx, Drawing (paper two) stating yyyy. Please clarify within zzzz. Consequences of delayed answer: (Production time will be prolonged aaaa, cost will be increased with bbbb / We reserve the right to require compensation for any cost or consequences / etc)
That approach may get a prompt response, but it does not benefit the project in the long run, because threats are always remembered. Just human nature.
when free and open communication is encouraged and facilitated, these issues usually get resolved well, regardless of what language is shown on the plans or specs. that is the goal of partnering. however, partnering is not always a priority and not all contractors, engineers or owners are good communicators. they may also not fully read the plans or specifications. This is where the problems begin. Sometimes the resident engineer is different than the design engineer and in these cases sometimes think they know everything. of course, they did not design it and probably have not read the entire spec. unless it is a really simple project, they can't possibly fully understand the project.
i always tool it as drawing overides spec. As a) drawing is more likely to be revised most recently b) the contractor cannot be expected to look at every drawing and compare with every clause in the spec. Would think it extremely harsh if the contractor is punished in court for following a drawing which if the engineer has carried out his duty properly should be correct.
People on the design side (engineers) tend to assume drawings should take precedence over specifications. When I used to work for a multi-discipline firm, the in-house spec writer was insistent that specs take precedence over drawings. For the time I worked for that firm, I took special care in reviewing the specs to ensure no conflict exists between my drawings and the specs.
I worked for uk contractor and drawing was always taken to overrule spec. and was taen that way by our sub contractors and main contractors. Remember the phrase clearly 'drawing overrules spec' being said to me many times. Should be flaged obviously, but would think if you built to drawings and then the designer tried to get you on some obscure spec clause. Think they'd be struggling to prove you liable. Particarly as they'd be admitting their error. Look at it this way, if you were designing something and made it structurally (or whatever your field is) sound and something in a spec that may change your assumptions or design and the contractor builds to that? You can build off drawings, cant build of specs.
A picture is worth 1000 words. Drawings....ALWAYS.
Fine, as in its a fine day
Fine, as in pay the traffic ticket.
You shouldn't have to rely on context when building something. The language of engineering and design is drawings. The language of spec writters and lawyers is
(@*%&(*$^#!^$&^
For us, the design drawings take precedence over standard specifications (and this is spelled out in our specs). Shop drawings, on the other hand, take precedence over nothing in particular, and if there's any doubt, ask. (The EOR's approval stamp on the shop drawings is very large because it contains long disclaimers that basically translate into "just because I approved this drawing doesn't mean you can assume it's right".)
Lately, Drawings and Specifications are equal on the list. A statement will be inserted stating where a conflict between the drawings and specifications occur, whichever is of greater value will take precedent. A tough statement in a competitive market where one is trying to be the low bidder.
Drawings are job specific and specifications tend to be boilerplate. On some projects, drawings say a certain material is acceptable as structural fill, but the specs say otherwise. These specs have the same verbage used on thirty or more other projects reviewed and have not been tailored to the project at hand. I would vote drawings over specs. if I had control over the priority list.
Clarification by the contractor prior to bidding is ideal; however, sometimes questions do not arise until the day before or the day of bidding. This may not allow for clarification prior to bid submission. Therefore, it is important to emphasize unsusual conditions in the documents and be consistent between plans and specifications. A costly dispute because of inconsistency in documents will cause a great project to become a nightmare.
A big part of the problem is that specifications today tend to say how to accomplish something rather than what they are really intended to do, which is stating what an acceptable result should be.
The last 4 large contracts I have been involved with has specifications over drawings and both over BOQ description. Interestingly one party wanted to follow the BOQ rather than the spec and drawings.
Biginch
I'm sure there are some strong opinions both ways on this but I think there is a place for method specs. Owners have realized over the years that certain methods result in acceptable quality products and others don't. They have been burned in the past by contractors saying - "we can do it this easier way and still get good quality". The end result doesn't always meet expectations. Then there is the resulting fight at the end of the project about whether it is good enough to be considered acceptable, whether it should be reconstructed, whether the contractor should be short payed for poor quality. Or perhaps the inspector thinks it is good enough and later on it isn't.
I would rather see the specs (or drawings) list the "unacceptable methods". Example - many specs disallow "jetting" to densify pipe zone backfill. While in some parts of the country, it is routinely used and successful.
