Specs vs drawings 2

[WWTEng]

The question is which one of these govern in case of a conflict. Ideally the goal would be to avoid a conflict between the specs and the drawings, but if that was to happen, which would govern?

 

[nutte]

The AISC Code of Standard practice says that the drawings govern. But the Code of Standard practice may or may not be applicable to a particular project.

 

[cvg]

this is often spelled out in the contract general conditions and the correct procedure would be to bring it up to the engineer to resolve any issues

 

[IRstuff]

As a general rule, your document suite from the customer should include an "order of precedence" clause. For most aerospace developments: applicable laws, SOW, spec, then drawings. But, I can see other possibilities.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[JedClampett]

Here's an actual order of precedence that we add (it's not in 00700):
1. Addenda, if any; Supplemental Agreements; and Change Orders; the one dated later having precedence over another dated earlier.
2. Agreement.
3. General Requirements.
4. Other Specifications (DIVISION 2 and other DIVISIONS following it).
5. Drawings.
6. Supplementary Conditions, if any.
7. General Conditions.
So specifications have precedence. But this might not be the same for every contract.

 

[vmirat]

If it's with the federal government, specs govern over drawings.

 

[woodman88]

Here is a note from one of the companies I worked for GSN "Where discrepancies occur between plans, details, general structural notes and specifications. The greater requirements shall govern.”

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[WWTEng]

Woodman: I like that note.

 

[cvg]

you should not leave this type of decision making up to the GC and the inspector. In case of any discrepancy whatsoever, a RFI should go in for decision to be made by the engineer and then by the owner if that decision may result in a change order.

"In case of conflict between codes, reference standards, drawings and other Contract Documents, the most stringent requirements shall govern. All conflicts shall be brought to the attention of the Engineer for clarification and direction prior to ordering or providing any materials or labor. The Contractor shall bid
the most stringent requirements."

 

[dik]

Specs nearly alwayw govern over drawings with general conditions governing over specs and supplementary general conditions governing over these...

It's usually spelled out in most construction contracts which governs...

Dik

 

[woodman88]

cvg - Thanks for your note, I always wondered how legal the one I quoted was as it did not require input from the EOR. But the company wanted it stated that way.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[JStephen]

Most of the contracts I see call for the specs to govern.

In actual practice, the drawings are more often correct, as it seems they are more likely to have been drawn up for a specific job while the specs are boilerplate from the last job thrown in with minimal review.

 

[hokie66]

The Special Conditions of Contract should include a preference clause. I prefer for the drawings to overrule the specifications in the case of conflict, and write it that way. I wouldn't include woodman88's note, as defining "greater" is not always easy.

 

[dik]

Hokie... from my General Notes file:

CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUPPLY, INSTALLATION AND COORDINATION OF ALL MATERIALS AND WORK SHOWN IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

STANDARD DETAILS ARE PROVIDED TO ILLUSTRATE A SPECIFIC DETAIL OR CONSTRUCTION CONCEPT. THEY WERE NOT DRAWN SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS PROJECT AND MAY SHOW BACKGROUND DETAILS THAT ARE NOT IDENTICAL TO THIS PROJECT

IF THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN ONE OR MORE DETAILS OR REQUIREMENTS APPLYING TO THE SAME CONDITION, THE MOST RESTRICTIVE, AS DETERMINED BY THE [CONSULTANT | ENGINEER] SHALL APPLY

REFERENCE OR COMPLIANCE WITH A STANDARD SHALL MEAN REFERENCE TO THE CURRENT EDITION OF THAT STANDARD AS WELL AS SUPPLEMENTS AND ALL DOCUMENTS REFERENCED THEREIN UNLESS REFERENCE TO A SPECIFIC DOCUMENT VERSION IS MADE

Dik

 

[paddingtongreen]

We used to have a clause in the specs that said the drawings rule although one client insisted on an RFI.

Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.

 

[shobroco]

Unless the project documents state otherwise, around here the accepted standard is that specs take precedence over drawings,and drawings to a greater scale take precedence over a smaller scale. JStephen is right, specs are frequently (usually) boilerplate, but something must govern so the assumption is that a written description is the most specific and a detail is more specific than an overall plan or section. I.E the closer that you focus on something the more accurate you should be.

 

[BigH]

The projects I have worked on have a clause in the contract that lays out, as was stated earlier, an order of preference. Specs over Drawings. I've seen one contract where the BOQ was argued to overrule the specs! - someone was trying to design by the BOQ!!

 

[Ron]

As others have noted, should be spelled out in contract.

In general, a conflict is just a conflict and the author of the documents (architect/engineer) should decide the resolution of the conflict. It is not a contractor's decision.

Many codes have the "greater requirement or more stringent requirement" language.

 

[TLHS]

But a contractor can't necessarily determine what's more stringent for a given condition. The higher number isn't necessarily a more stringent requirement. Maybe an area's detailed as a ductile zone and adding more material would be a bad thing. Maybe you're trying to keep load off of an underground structure, so you have an area that necessitates a lower compaction.

A conflict normally either means that a drawing inconsistency has been made due to a missed change or typo, or the designing engineer missed a detailing issue somewhere. It happens, but I'm generally worried when someone else decides on a resolution. I'd much prefer an RFI.

 

[JedClampett]

I don't think the "more stringent requirement" clause is there to help make decisions, but to cover the engineer and the owner in case of conflicts. The contractor can't determine the most stringent design, but the contract says they have to cover the price of it.
If the contract didn't have that clause, the contractors would say they bid the lighter, smaller whatever design in case of conflicts and would be due a change order when the heavier design was necessary. It's not fair, but the owners write the contracts, not the contractors.