I had an interesting question today from an architect colleague. She sent this clip from a contract with the owner. The question is: “What is the risk to the Architect” who is referenced as the Consultant in this clip. What is your opinion?
I’ll invite my colleague to the forum.
As we all know, AIA A201 does not establish an order of precedence. If the owner insists, AIA recommended Supplementary Conditions gives Drawings and Divisions 2–49 of the Specifications equal weight, with the architect to decide conflicts.
IMHO, giving drawings precedence over specifications increases the architect’s risk. In general (and I concede this is a sweeping statement), more experience is needed to specify than to draw. And so mistakes—whether of omission, commission, or coordination–are more likely to be found in drawings than in specifications.
“Any and all drawings” sounds like it was written by an attorney with little experience in construction contracts.
Here is my email reply to my colleague.
This is an odd approach. Remember with an order of precedence, the order may answer the questions and the answer may not be what is actually intended. Example: Drawings say vinyl windows. Spec says composite with performance data. You get vinyl without any guarantee of performance.
I’d say the risk will be if the drawings name products that are also specified – making sure that both are the same. The caution would be to ensure that the drawings are using keynote terms to identify products so the specs will be the place where products are identified. The exception may be the finish schedule where products are often named on the drawings. Be sure they are not named in the spec if this is the case.
“Any and all drawings” have precedence over “written specifications” means … what exactly???
All drawings including the sketch you made at a jobsite meeting?
Any (read your CSI manuals) is pretty much a forbidden word. Any means I get to choose.
“Written” specifications as opposed to what other kind? I see a big future for mimes in the construction industry.
Agree with Metzger - that attorney needs some remedial writing classes.
George nailed it. And as David pointed out, an order of precedence can easily set up an unintended conflict that might not allow a good resolution for the client.
Hi everyone. Thank you for your input! I had to set up my 4specs account so I could finally jump in to the topic.
Anyway, I am the architect who emailed Dave the original question. While I agree that the drawings and specifications need to align Dave Metzger and George Everding bring up valid points which were running through my brain. This “any and all” statement is too open-ended. Why have specifications then? Show/note everything on the drawings and include a large general statement on each sheet in bold font stating “GC will install all products, materials, systems used on and in the exterior or interior of the building per manufacturers written instructions,” or something along those lines. Except for Div 00 and 01 written specifications seem moot on a project like this.
I also wondered if we should address this in the RFP response, i.e.: how we intend to approach the specifications given this statement -we decided to and requested that sentence be deleted from the contract.
Here’s an example (site benches) I once heard from a wise old architect:
Design Intent:
Specified but not shown on drawings = quality defined for zero quantity of products. Contractor owes the owner zero benches.
Drawn on site plans but not specified = quantity defined for products of undefined quality. Contractor provides:
