Construction specification writing might not be the sexiest part of architecture, but it’s absolutely critical to bringing your designs to life correctly. Despite its importance, most architects repeatedly make common mistakes when writing specifications—often because we never received proper training in construction specification writing. In this practical guide, I’ll share the top 10 common errors architects make when writing construction specifications throughout their careers and simple ways to fix them.
This podcast is also available on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts
Understanding Why Construction Specification Writing Matters
Let’s be honest—construction specification writing doesn’t get the spotlight in architecture school. While we spend countless hours perfecting our drawings, construction specs often feel like an afterthought. Yet these construction specification documents are just as crucial as your drawings in communicating design intent.
Many architects struggle with construction specification writing because of persistent myths and misconceptions. The truth is that construction specifications aren’t just boilerplate text you can copy-paste. They’re critical legal documents that define materials, quality standards, and execution requirements that bring your vision to life.
Effective construction specification writing is a cornerstone of strong quality management in architectural practice. When done right, proper construction specifications protect you, your client, and your design. When done wrong, poor construction specification writing can lead to conflicts, cost overruns, and even legal disputes that might involve your architect insurance.
Let’s dive into the 10 most common construction specification writing errors architects make and how you can avoid them.
Mistake #1: Poor Coordination in Construction Specification Writing
Ever been on a project where the drawings show one thing, but the construction specifications say another? This disconnect in construction specification writing creates confusion, RFIs, and sometimes expensive field changes.
Example: On a recent commercial project, the drawings called for a specific paint finish in offices, but the specs listed a completely different product. The contractor followed the specs, resulting in an unhappy client and costly repainting.
Drawings and specifications have a complementary relationship—they work together to communicate the complete design intent. One doesn’t override the other; they must be coordinated.
Solution: Implement a cross-referencing process. When you specify a product in Division 09, make sure it matches what’s in your wall types and interior elevations. Create a coordination spreadsheet that lists key elements and verifies alignment between drawings and specs. In ARE Bootcamp, students learn about drawing and specification coordination as a fundamental practice skill.
Mistake #2: Ambiguous or Unclear Language
Vague terms like “high-quality,” “as required,” or “industry standard” might seem sufficient, but they’re open to interpretation—and that’s where problems begin.
Example: A spec that called for cabinets to be “high-quality craftsmanship” led to a dispute when the installed cabinets didn’t meet the architect’s expectations, but the contractor argued they met the vague criteria.
Solution: Replace subjective language with specific, measurable criteria. Instead of “high-quality,” specify “Grade A per AWI standards” or exact materials and construction methods. Have someone unfamiliar with the project review your specs for clarity—if they can understand exactly what’s required, you’re on the right track.
Mistake #3: Copy-Pasting – One of the Most Damaging Specification Errors
It’s tempting to simply copy-paste a manufacturer’s specifications into your project specs—after all, who knows their products better than they do? But manufacturer specs often include inappropriate options, irrelevant information, and marketing language.
Example: An architect copied a window manufacturer’s complete spec, not realizing it included options for hurricane-resistant glazing (not needed in the project location) while missing thermal performance requirements critical for the climate zone.
Different specification types require different approaches to customization. Whether you’re using prescriptive, performance, or proprietary specifications, each needs careful editing to match your project’s requirements.
Poor documentation also creates problems downstream during the submittal review process, leading to multiple revisions and project delays.
Solution: Always edit manufacturer specs with a critical eye. Delete irrelevant options, clarify which specific products are required, and add any project-specific requirements. Create a highlighting system to mark sections needing customization (e.g., yellow for options to select, red for sections to delete). CDT 101 teaches a systematic approach to proper specification editing.
Mistake #4: Inadequate Consideration of Site Conditions
Generic specifications that ignore regional and site-specific conditions are a recipe for failure. What works in Arizona might fail spectacularly in Florida.
Example: A spec calling for a standard exterior sealant led to premature failure in a coastal project where the high salt content in the air degraded the material within months.
Construction type requirements also vary by location and condition, making it essential to tailor your specifications to the specific project environment.
Proper planning for site conditions is also a critical part of project contingency planning—unexpected site conditions often lead to change orders and budget overruns.
Solution: Research material performance in similar conditions and incorporate this knowledge into your documents. Create regional specification supplements that address common conditions in your practice area. Consult with local contractors and manufacturers’ reps who know what works in your climate.
Mistake #5: Using Outdated Master Specifications
Code changes, product discontinuations, and evolving industry standards make specs a moving target. Using outdated master specs can lead to non-compliance issues and specify unavailable products.
Example: A firm used their standard specs from three years prior, not realizing the building code had changed significantly, resulting in non-compliant fire-rated assemblies that required costly field corrections, particularly related to occupancy classifications.
Solution: Implement a regular update schedule for your master specifications. Date all master specification sections and set calendar reminders for reviews. Subscribe to code update notifications and industry standards changes. Consider using a commercial master specification system that provides regular updates.
Mistake #6: Poor Coordination with Other Design Disciplines
Architectural specifications must work harmoniously with structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing specs. When they don’t, interdisciplinary conflicts arise.
Example: The architectural specs called for a specific ceiling height, but the mechanical engineer specified ductwork that couldn’t fit within the plenum space, resulting in field coordination issues and schedule delays.
This coordination is especially critical with life safety elements like fire walls, fire barriers, and fire partitions, where proper specification and installation are crucial for code compliance and building safety.
Solution: Hold regular interdisciplinary specification review meetings. Create a coordination matrix that identifies overlap areas between disciplines. Have each discipline review related sections from other disciplines before finalizing documents. This cross-disciplinary approach prevents costly coordination issues.
Mistake #7: Detail Deficiency in Execution Sections
Many architects focus on the product but neglect the execution requirements. How a product is installed is often as important as the product itself, and poor execution often leads to construction change orders.
Example: A waterproofing membrane was correctly specified but failed because the execution section didn’t address substrate preparation, ambient temperature requirements, or cure times.
Solution: Develop detailed execution sections for critical systems like waterproofing, air barriers, and fire-stopping. Get contractor input on execution requirements during design development. Include step-by-step procedures for complex installations, complete with environmental conditions, preparation requirements, and quality control checkpoints.
Mistake #8: Lack of Clarity on Substitutions and Alternates
The phrase “or approved equal” without accompanying criteria is an invitation for substitution battles. Contractors will naturally propose less expensive alternatives, but without clear criteria, evaluating “equal” becomes subjective.
Example: A contractor substituted a less expensive lighting fixture claiming it was “equal” to the specified product, but the light quality and dimming capabilities were inferior, resulting in an unsatisfied client.
Solution: Establish clear criteria for acceptable substitutions. List critical performance characteristics that any substitution must meet. Use standardized substitution request forms that require contractors to provide side-by-side comparisons of specified products versus proposed alternatives. Consider specifying “no substitutions” for critical design elements.
Mistake #9: Communication Breakdowns Between Office and Field
Even the best specs fail if they’re not understood by those implementing them in the field. The gap between office and job site can be wide, often resulting in issues that appear later during the construction punch list process.
Example: A complex rainscreen system was properly specified, but field personnel weren’t familiar with the installation sequence, resulting in improper installation that had to be removed and redone.
Solution: Highlight critical specification requirements in pre-construction and progress meetings. Create one-page “Specification Highlights” for complex systems that summarize key points for field personnel. Consider field mock-ups for complex assemblies with all subcontractors present and establish clear protocols for construction observation.
Mistake #10: Mis-Specifying Sustainable Materials and Systems
Green building requirements add another layer of complexity to specification documents. Sustainable materials and systems often have special documentation requirements for certification.
Example: A project seeking LEED certification specified recycled-content materials but didn’t include the documentation requirements needed to verify and track these materials for LEED points.
Solution: Involve certification consultants early in the documentation process. Create sustainability specification checklists that address both performance and documentation requirements. Clearly communicate to contractors what sustainability documentation will be required with submittals.
Building Better Construction Specification Writing Skills
Improving your construction specification writing skills isn’t just about avoiding mistakes—it’s about enhancing your practice. Good construction specifications reduce risk, improve project outcomes, and ultimately create better buildings.
The myths surrounding construction specification writing often prevent architects from giving it the attention it deserves. But as we’ve seen, construction specifications are far from mere boilerplate—they’re essential tools for quality management in architecture.
If you’re new to construction specification writing, start with the basics by understanding specifications fundamentals. Understanding the fundamental purpose and structure of construction specifications is the first step toward mastering them. With practice and attention, your construction specification writing will improve, leading to smoother projects and better results.
Ready to take your construction specification writing knowledge to the next level? The Construction Documents Technologist (CDT) certification provides a solid foundation for mastering this critical skill. And if you’re preparing for the ARE, understanding construction specification writing is crucial for exam success, particularly in the Project Development & Documentation (PDD) division.
Whether you’re fixing one of these common mistakes or overhauling your entire construction specification writing process, remember that good construction specifications aren’t just about compliance—they’re about clearly communicating your design intent so it can be faithfully executed throughout the construction bidding process and beyond.
