Using the Words “All” or “To Be” in your Construction Documents
Yep…I’m old. I admit it. I have been working in the architectural field since 1986. I worked every summer in college at a variety of different sized firms, working on different types and sizes of projects, and truly learned from the old school guys…. (A little secret…Yes…I even did hand drawings using ink on mylar with a pin bar). Over those years I absorbed as much information as I could and put it to use as fast as I could get it.
One of the few things I was specifically taught was that architects, engineers, and interior designers should avoid using the terms “ALL” and “TO BE” in construction drawings and specifications for several reasons:
Lack of Specificity
– Using “ALL” or “TO BE” are vague and can lead to misinterpretation by contractors[1]. It does not provide clear direction on the exact scope of work.
Specific callouts and references should be used instead to clearly define the extent of work required[1]
I have a lovely anecdote that I like to use. We had a project where our engineer, without realizing what he was doing, had used the term, “TO BE PAINTED” on some structural steel on our Project. The contractor was smart, and did not include that in his bid as it was left to his interpretation. During the construction, a change order arrived for $85,000, to paint the steel. The Project Manager for our firm got in a very unpleasant discussion about this and after speaking with our E&O attorney, as well as the attorney for the client, it had to be acknowledged that even though a question was never generated during the bidding phase, they had no choice but to acquiesce to the additional fee. Had the term “FINISH PAINT” been used, there would not have been a problem. The contractor indicated that “TO BE” meant someone else was going to paint it after the installation was completed.
I have never forgotten that experience.
Potential for Errors and Omissions
– By using “ALL” or “TO BE”, the designer takes on liability for any items that may have been missed or not explicitly shown on the drawings[1].
If an item is not specifically called out but falls under the broad umbrella of “ALL”, it can lead to errors, omissions, and disputes[3].
When you stop to think about it, “ALL” is superfluous. You don’t need to use it. Is there a time you worked on drawings that all of the wood trim was not required to be painted? It would be easier to key note that trim and then under the key note indicate, “WOOD TRIM. FINISH PAINT”. This already implies the wood trim gets painted. I cannot tell you how frequently I have found these terms in Construction Documents and have to bring this to light to not only architects, but also engineers and interior designers. You have to be very careful on how you create your documents as it can result in additional costs to your Owner, and possible litigation against you and/or your firm for E & O complaints.
Difficulty in Pricing and Bidding
– Construction drawings and specifications form the basis of pricing for contractors.
– Ambiguous terms like “ALL” and “TO BE” make it difficult for contractors to accurately price the work, as the full scope is not clearly defined[1][3].
This can lead to higher pricing to account for unknowns, or change orders and disputes later in the project.
Another wonderful example in my time is working with a team where they had integrated the term “ALL” in many, many, many (you get the point) locations on the Drawings. I had brought this issue up, only told to be quiet as this was “the way they did things for years.” After the contractor had started the work, another one of those fun change orders showed up. This time, it was for a whopping $112,500 for providing a great many stainless steel access panels (this was a fairly large project by the way). We got into reviewing the issue and the contractor pointed out that the identifier of “ACCESS PANEL” had not been called out with the term “ALL ACCESS PANELS”. So many other items had been labeled with the term “ALL”, that when this one wasn’t they had only bid for the one access panel that had been indicated. ( I really think this is one reason I have lost my hair to this day).
Legal and Contractual Issues
– Construction documents are legal contracts between the owner, designer, and contractor.
– Imprecise language like “ALL” and “TO BE” can lead to legal issues and disputes if there are misunderstandings about the scope of work[1].
– Using specific language protects all parties and ensures the contract documents are clear and enforceable.
In summary, architects, engineers and interior designers should use precise language and specific references in construction documents. Broad terms like “ALL” and “TO BE” introduce ambiguity that can lead to errors, omissions, pricing issues, as well as a few legal disputes. I implore you all to take the time to think about what it is you are trying to convey. Look in to the “Four “C’s” from The Construction Specification Institute…make your documents Clear, Concise, Correct and Complete. If you can answer this after reviewing your documents, there should be no concern that your documents are well thought out and create a tight set.
Sources
[1] Opinions on the term “Interior Architecture” – AIA KnowledgeNet https://network.aia.org/communities/community-home/digestviewer/viewthread?CommunityKey=f5f03acd-d26c-46ef-a01c-58769916263f&MessageKey=60892912-3447-49c3-85a5-fceccf3c05c4&tab=digestviewer
[2] Avoiding conflicting roles amongst Architects, Interior and MEP … https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/avoiding-conflicting-roles-amongst-architects-interior-arvind-dang
[3] One Interior Designer Fights Back | Forum – Archinect https://archinect.com/forum/thread/43919/one-interior-designer-fights-back
[4] These Types Of Interior Designers Are Dangerous https://www.idbs.online/these-types-of-interior-designers-are-dangerous/
[5] [PDF] Statutory Exemptions to the Practice of Architecture – AIA Professional https://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2016-04/StateXStateLawMatrix-Practice-of-Architecture-Statutory-Exemptions.pdf