Is anyone aware of any guidelines for capitalization in specifications? It seems that normal grammar rules are often violated to capitalize key terms in a contract (Owner, Contractor, Engineer, Work, etc.) and I’m wondering if there are any guidelines for doing so. It seems one could go on forever capitalizing words that might have a specific meaning for a certain project. Are there legal implications in capitalizing certain words?
Any input or references to guidelines would be appreciated.
CSI Manual of Practice, Fundamentals and Formats Module, FF/170.3 Capitalization will answer your question very well.
Basically, you capitalize terms defined in the Contract Documents. ie. Archtect, Owner, Agreement, Drawings, Shop Drawings… when they are refering to the defined contract term.
Here are the terms I always capitalize (may have missed one or two since I’m going by memory):
Architect
Owner
Contractor
Contract Documents
Contract
General Conditions
Section (when referring to a specification)
Division (when referring to specifications)
Drawing
Substantial Completion
Work (when referring to the Work of the Contract)
I generally do not capitalize the terms submittals, shop drawings and product data. Within Division 1, there are a few other terms that I will capitalize:
Schedule of Values
Application for Payment
Change Order
Proposal Request
Construction Change Directive
Unit Price
Alternate
and similar terms.
I would agree: you capitalize if you are referring to a specific person or entity defined by the Contract (Owner, Architect) since that term stands in for their name. And, you capitalize specific forms you are referring to “Schedule of Values”, and the like, since these are also referring to a specific thing defined in the General Conditions.
Being my usual contrarian self, I prefer to use the generally accepted rules of the English language. I capitalize Owner, Architect, Contractor, as they refer to parties of the contract, but not: work, engineer, drawings, specifications. I capitalize section if I am saying “Refer to Section xxxxx”, but not if I am saying "as specified in this section.
If I am saying as called for in Alternate No. 1, it is capitalized, but not if I am saying "See Section xxxxx for description of alternates.
It’s easy to do, and it makes for easier reading. My eye automatically slows down at a capitalized word, so unless they are necessary or proper usage, I don’t capitalize words.
Thanks to all for your comments on capitalization. While opinions vary, it sounds like most agree to capitalize Owner, Architect, Contractor, etc. While I haven’t yet seen the CSI manual Curt mentions, it apparently recommends capitalizing terms that have a specific definition in a contract. This is where the gray area begins for me. I’m working on a project where the client has a fairly extensive list of terms that will be defined in the contract. The list includes common terms such as Road, Bridge, and Culvert. Does this mean these terms should be capitalized throughout the documents? If so, this could result in Much Capitalization. If not, where do we draw the line on what to capitalize? Any guidelines out there?
I wouldn’t start capitalizing every term that is defined in the document. I define several terms that I don’t capitalize. The full list from the Manual of Practice is:
Agreement
Architect
Article*
Change Order
Contracting Officer
Contractor (When a party to the Agreement w/ Owner)
Drawings
Engineer
Government (When a party to the Agreement)
Owner
Paragraph*
PART
Project
Project Manual
Room Names
Section (When refering to a specific Section)
Shop Drawings*, Project Data*, Samples*
Supplementary Conditions
Work (when referring to all the work of the project)
These words are not capitalized when they do not refer to the defined term.
The ones with * I do not capitalize either unless they are in the article/paragraph heading.
Jo’s slight divergence from my practice isn’t that different, actually. She writes:
"I capitalize section if I am saying “Refer to Section xxxxx”, but not if I am saying "as specified in this section. If I am saying as called for in Alternate No. 1, it is capitalized, but not if I am saying “See Section xxxxx for description of alternates.”
I concur with this approach. I think the most important thing is to be precise about the use of terminology. Thus, when I intend to specifically make reference to a certain concept of the contract, I try to use that term the way it’s defined, and to capitalize it. Thus, I use “Work” to mean all of the construction that the contract defines as “Work.” I will not capitalize an entity who is not party to the contract, such as sub-contractor or electrician.
In the engineering contract terminology that Andy Roe refers to, I would go back to the “precision” rule - make sure that when the defined terms are used anywhere else in the spec, they are used with the same definition that they are given in the contract. That way potential conflicts are minimized. If you must use the term in an intstance with a slightly different meaning, you can spell out that difference in the particular context. i.e. “culvert, except …”