This guide debunks the common misconception about document precedence and explains how drawings vs specifications work together as complementary contract documents. Understanding this drawings vs specifications relationship is crucial for both ARE success and professional practice, helping you avoid costly disputes and document coordination issues.
This podcast is also available on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts
Surprise – Pop Quiz!
Let’s start with something I hear all the time from ARE candidates and even experienced architects. See if you can answer this question correctly:
Here’s your question:
If there is a discrepancy between the drawings and specifications in a set of construction documents, which of the following takes precedence?
A) Drawings
B) Specifications
C) Whichever has the more stringent requirement
D) Neither – the architect must provide an interpretation
After years of coaching ARE candidates and moderating the ARE Facebook group, I’ve seen countless people select option B, convinced that specifications always win.
But the correct answer is D.
This isn’t just a trivial exam question – understanding this relationship correctly is crucial both for passing your ARE and for your daily practice as an architect.
The Drawings vs Specifications Relationship: What AIA Documents Actually Say About Document Hierarchy
Let’s start with the facts – what do the AIA A201 documents actually say about document precedence and construction document relationship?
AIA A201 – the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction – contains specific language about this in Section 1.2.1.
It states:
“The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all.”
Let that sink in for a moment.
If something appears in either the construction drawings OR the construction specifications, it’s required. You can’t ignore one document in favor of the other. This approach to document coordination is fundamental to proper contract interpretation.
This language has been consistent across multiple editions of A201 because it reflects how construction documents work together in contract requirements.
When contract discrepancies do occur, A201 doesn’t establish specification precedence or a rigid document hierarchy. The architect is responsible for interpreting any inconsistencies between documents through proper document interpretation.
This is about clarity and proper document coordination – not a rigid document precedence system.
The AIA could have easily included language establishing specs over drawings if that was the intent, but they didn’t create such an AIA document hierarchy.
Some construction contracts, like government contracts under FAR 52.236-21, do specify that “specifications govern over drawings” – but the fact that they need to add this clause proves there’s no universal rule in document precedence.
The Practical Reality
Now let’s talk about why this matters in the real world.
Imagine if specs always took precedence. Picture this scenario:
- Your drawings show an expensive custom lighting fixture
- Your specs only mention standard fixtures
- What would happen?
Contractors would deliberately bid based on the cheaper spec, knowing they could argue against the more expensive drawn detail later.
They’d use your own documents against you:
“Sorry, we don’t have to provide those fancy fixtures because they’re not in the specs, which take precedence.”
This creates a perverse incentive to find and exploit discrepancies rather than seeking clarification.
It gets worse when we think about payment applications.
- As the architect, you review and approve contractor payment applications
- If a contractor followed one document but ignored the other claiming “precedence,” you’d be in a real bind
- You’d have to either approve payment for incomplete work or deny payment for work that technically followed half of your documents
Can you see how this puts architects in an impossible position and undermines our authority?
The complementary documents approach properly allocates risk and responsibility:
- Contractors must flag discrepancies
- Architects must resolve them
This encourages communication and problem-solving rather than playing gotcha with contract loopholes.
Navigating Drawings vs Specifications: How the Complementary Relationship Works
So how do drawings and specs work together in practice?
Think of them as having different strengths but serving the same goal.
Drawings excel at showing:
- Spatial relationships
- Dimensions
- Quantities
- Visual details
Construction specifications excel at describing:
- Quality standards
- Performance requirements
- Technical criteria
Together they create a complete picture of what’s to be built.
A Real-World Example
I once reviewed a project where the structural drawings didn’t show any reinforcing in a masonry wall.
But the masonry specification clearly required rebar at specific spacing.
Under the complementary principle, the contractor had to provide the rebar because it was in the specs, even though it wasn’t shown on the drawings.
This is a perfect example of why an “either/or” approach doesn’t work.
- If specs always governed, the rebar would still be required
- But if drawings governed, it wouldn’t be – showing the flaw in a universal precedence rule
In well-coordinated documents, information is distributed logically – dimensions on drawings, material properties in specs.
But sometimes overlap is inevitable, which is why drawings vs specifications coordination is so important.
Neither document should be read in isolation – they’re two halves of a whole.
This is why exam questions often include both drawings and specs – they’re testing your ability to synthesize information from multiple sources, just like in real practice.
Resolving Drawings vs Specifications Conflicts: When Discrepancies Arise
So what happens when there is a conflict between construction drawings and specifications leading to document discrepancies?
AIA A201 Section 3.2.2 is clear about the contractor obligations:
Contractors must carefully study both construction drawings and specifications before starting work.
When they find contract discrepancies, they must promptly report them to the architect through proper construction communication, often using RFIs (Requests for Information).
This isn’t just a best practice – it’s a contractual obligation in the construction administration process.
Proceeding without clarification puts contractors at risk in terms of risk allocation.
As the architect, you have the authority to provide document interpretation and decide which requirement applies through construction clarification.
The goal is to preserve design intent while being fair to all parties in construction conflicts.
Remember, you’re not bound by a universal “specification precedence” rule unless your specific contract establishes a clear document hierarchy.
Common Misconceptions About Drawings vs Specifications
Let’s address some common misconceptions about document hierarchy:
Misconception #1: “Specifications always take precedence over drawings.”
Reality: This level of document precedence is only true if your specific construction contract establishes such a hierarchy. Standard AIA document hierarchy treats construction drawings and specifications as complementary documents with equal weight.
Misconception #2: “If it conflicts, follow the more stringent requirement.”
Reality: While this is often a good guideline for document coordination (and AIA A201 leans this way), the architect has the final say in document interpretation when determining which requirement applies.
Misconception #3: “Only the specification book in the project manual matters in the end.”
Reality: Construction drawings contain crucial information that specifications often don’t, and courts have held contractors to things shown only on drawings through document conflict resolution processes.
Misconception #4: “If it’s not shown on the drawings, it’s not included.”
Reality: If it’s in the specs, it’s required as part of the contract requirements, whether or not it appears on the construction drawings (and vice versa). This highlights the importance of complementary documents working together.
Best Practices for Working with Construction Documents
For architects and project teams, here are some best practices for effective document coordination:
Establish clear division of content:
- Put dimensional information on construction drawings
- Put quality and performance requirements in specifications
- Don’t duplicate information unnecessarily to maintain contract document consistency
Use consistent terminology:
- Use the same terms in both construction drawings and specifications
- If a material is “Type A” in the specs, don’t call it “Type 1” on the drawings
Implement specification cross-referencing:
- Add drawing annotations like “See Spec Section 07920 for sealant requirements”
- Keep references current if sheet numbers or spec sections change for proper design document integration
Conduct construction document review:
- Compare drawings and specs before finalization through quality assurance and quality control processes
- Verify that products in specifications appear on drawings and vice versa
- Use checklists to compare schedules, finishes, etc. for construction document reconciliation
Maintain design team coordination:
- Ensure drawing teams and specification writers stay in sync
- When changes are made to one document, update the other to maintain proper document coordination
Pay special attention to Division 01 coordination:
- Ensure general requirements are consistently represented in both documents
- Clarify which document governs specific requirements when necessary
What This Means for ARE Candidates
If you’re preparing for the Architect Registration Exam, here’s how to approach this on the exam:
When you see a question involving both construction drawings and specifications:
- Don’t automatically assume one document has precedence over the other
- Look for contextual clues about which is more specific to the situation in terms of design intent
- Remember the complementary documents principle – both documents form the contract requirements
- The exam is testing your understanding of document coordination and interpretation, not arbitrary hierarchies
This knowledge applies directly to your future practice:
- Keep specifications and construction drawings coordinated to avoid document discrepancies in the first place
- Respond promptly to RFIs about contract discrepancies
- Understand proper risk allocation between parties when document conflicts arise
- This skill directly translates to being a more effective architect in construction administration
Our ARE 101 courses teaches you exactly how to handle these types of document coordination questions on the exam, with plenty of practice scenarios to build your confidence.
Conclusion
So here’s the truth about drawings vs specifications: construction drawings and specifications are complementary documents that work together in fulfilling contractual obligations.
The claim that “specs always take precedence” is a misunderstanding of how construction contracts actually handle document hierarchy and document interpretation.
Understanding the drawings vs specifications relationship will help you both on the ARE and throughout your career in construction administration and document conflict resolution.
This is what Young Architect is all about – teaching you the concepts and understanding of how things work in the real world of architecture through proper design document integration.
When you truly understand the “why” behind these drawings vs specifications coordination concepts, it’s so much easier than trying to blindly memorize things for the exam.
And remember, this isn’t just about passing a test. This is about becoming a skilled architect who can navigate construction conflicts and document discrepancies confidently in practice while maintaining proper construction communication with all parties.
