Other than the words and terms designated to be capitalized in the old Manual of Practice and the PRM, any one have a good comprehensive list of other construction and specification words and terms that need to be captialized?
Thanks for any help! rliebing@hixson-inc.com
Follow the normal rules. If anything, I see far too much capitalization, usually used inconsistently.
Some time ago I began to compile such a list, beginning with the terms capitalized in A201 (and a corresponding list of terms not capitalized). At least it’s a start…
A201 CAPITALIZED TERMS:
titles of AIA documents
references to specific parts of AIA documents
(e.g., Paragraph 12.2, Clause 11.1.1.2)
Architect
Owner
Contractor (the one under this Contract; other [separate] contractor(s) are not capitalized)
Subcontractor
Sub-subcontractor
Contract (or, Contract for Construction)
Agreement
Conditions of the Contract
General Conditions
Supplementary Conditions (and Special Conditions, etc.)
Contract Documents
Drawings
Specifications
Project Manual
Change Order
Construction Change Directive
Modification
Addendum (pl. Addenda)
the Work of This Contract (or simply, the Work)
Project
Contract Sum
Contract Time
Application for Payment
Certificate for Payment
Substantial Completion
Certificate of Substantial Completion
Not capitalized in A201:
bidding requirements
sample forms
submittals
schedule
progress payment
final payment
final completion
one-year period for correction of Work
lender
final completion (!)
I tend to agree with Sheldon. The normal rules require capitalization when refering to a specific thing or person. Thus “Project Manual” when it means this one for this Project, but “project manual” when writing of the thing in general. I wouldn’t capitalize “subcontractor” because (1) they are not usually part of the specific contract and (2) you are usually not writing about a specific subcontractor.
Lynn, I tend to agree with you, but only to an extent (we differ on “specific”). For example, I don’t capitalize “section” (of a project manual) except when it’s used with its title (section number and/or name) – e.g., I don’t capitalize it in “elsewhere in this section” even though it is indeed referring to a specific section (and even though MasterSpec does capitalize it when used that way).
With “persons,” though (roles, not proper names), certain ones are capitalized because they are parties to a contract or otherwise legally defined in a document, and capitalization is a matter of legal convention. That’s why I thought A201 was the best place to start…
Okay, this question was asked in this year’s CDT prep classes, and I didn’t (and still don’t) have a good answer. Why does the PRM seem to suggest capitalizing only the “initial letter” in multiple word nouns, such as Project manual, or Contracting officer? (5.8.8) It would seem to me to be (and I use) Project Manual and Contracting Officer.
This is an example of the Project resource manual being wrong; no Book is infallible…
Well written, Bob…because I thought “shop drawings” shouldn’t be capitalized since they are not specific nor part of the Contract Documents. But “Change Order” as a specific document and part of the Contract Documents, should be! Hmmm…nothing like a little inconsistency to spur debate.
I follow the general rule that if it is specifically defined in the Project Manual than it has initial capitals.
The exception is the various [defined] submittal items, ie, samples, manufacturer’s data, shop drawings, etc.
The convention observed in AIA documents is to capitalize words that are defined. This is consistent with the style taught in the drafing of legal documents. I ran into this issue with the legal staff of a coporate client. They wanted to provide the conditions of the contract with their standard form and had a fit when they noticed words were capitalized in the specs that they didn’t have defined anywhere in their form.
They decided the issue was so important that they switched over to AIA 201 to get the definitions in the front end.
A201 actually does capitalize “Shop Drawings” (as well as “Product Data” and “Samples”), but not the generic term “submittals” (or for that matter the category “bidding requirements”).
Speaking of inconsistency, there is at least one instance where A201 is inconsistent: It capitalizes “claims” (at least once, other than at the beginning of a sentence), but typically does not.
But let us remenber (as someone once said, I forget who), “Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…”
FWIW, I include this in my Supplementray Conditions:
1.3 CAPITALIZATION
Add:
1.3.2 Terms capitalized in the Contract Documents are one or more of the following:
.1 Specific in nature as defined in the Contract Documents or required (such as parties to the Contract or portions of the Contract Documents).
.2 Specific in nature by intrinsic meaning (such as proper nouns).
.3 Specific portions of the Project Site (such as room names).
.4 Headings (such as Paragraph names).
.5 Capitalized for graphic convention (such as text on Drawings)
Add:
1.3.3 The meaning of terms in the Contract Documents are not changed by the absence capitalization.
If absence of capitalization does not affect meaning, what happens when you have multiple contracts? The convention of capitalizing Contract and Contractor to distinguish them from the contract and contractor of a different contract is a great convenience. The alternative is to use “the contractor of the contract in which this sentence appears”, “the contractor of some other contract”, and similar phrases. And if capitalization doesn’t mean anything, why capitalize anything at all?
I also like “Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago.” Bernard Bereson
Since multiple contracts are separate and distinct, anything stated in one set of documents should have no bearing on any other set of documents.
Good point. Im sure the intent of Toms 1.3.3 Subparagraph is to cover all of the defined words which did not get the initial capitalization designation especially from sections prepared by other consultants. I would suggest to Tom that his 1.3.3 Subparagraph be deleted and make a solid effort to properly coordinate both his writings and those of others. If some words are missed, they should be deduced to a minimum.