The Spearin Doctrine

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Kim A. Bowman, CSI, AAIA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: archspecmaster Post Number: 12 Registered: 02-2005 Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 11:53 am:    Can someone tell me more about this? I have read a quick synopsis of what it means at this web address: http://www.irmi.com/Expert/Articles/2002/Slavens11.aspx I have a contractor disputing the AIA General Conditons and he is referencing the Sprearin Doctrine as such: "...Your letter closes by suggesting the AIA general conditions also support your reviewer. I would suggest that relying on that very fishy, untested language in the AIA general conditions is a dangerous, self-deluding tack. This language is merely the AIA's latest attempt to undermine the Spearin Doctrine that has governed the world of construction since the Supreme Court affirmed the case in 1918." This issue came about on some notes an architect put on the shop drawings for the contractor to field verify conditions, have a hardware consultant review drawings and specs, etc... I cited articles 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.7.3 and 3.7.4 in AIA A201, 1997 used on this project that relate to reviewing field conditions and the Contract Documents. I also cited paragraphs in 08710 that talk about field verification, etc... Whether he likes it or not, he is bound by the A201 as it was included in the Contract Documents. I have been in this business for over 30 years and have been doing nothing but writing specs for 23 years and this is the first time a contractor has mentioned the Spearin Doctrine to me in a refute against AIA A201 or the specs. I have been told that this guy is a bomb waiting to explode. But his 5 page response to me is absolutely unbelievable! He is president of a medium-sized construction company in Indianapolis. Any thoughts on the Spearin Doctrine?? Margaret G. Chewning CSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 50 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 12:06 pm:    Kim I googled "Spearin Doctrine" and found some interesting articles. essentially it states that the Owner warrants that the Construction Documents are sufficently complete and accurate to build the project. Sounds like you are dealing with a "lawyer-want-a-be". He may be just full of wind but you may want to get a legal person to look at it anyway just in case. Keep us apprised of what happens! Linton D. Stables, III, CSI, CCS Advanced Member Username: lstables Post Number: 5 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 12:20 pm:    Gerald Katz of Kats & Stone has presented some excellent seminars on this topic at CSI conventions and (I see by checking his website) at several contractors' conventions as well. His newsletters at http://www.katzandstone.com/newsletters/ may be of some use. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 102 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 12:21 pm:    My two cents. Margaret is absolutely correct. This lawyer want–to-be is trouble!!! contact a lawyer immediately and have a formal response written. The Sprearin Doctrine is not foreign to any construction lawyer. Being asked to verify conditions is not (I believe) what the legal basis of the doctrine is about. Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 171 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 12:55 pm:    Mr. Stables is qute correct. Mr. Katz, gave a session and talked a good deal about Spearin at the recent CSI convention. He had a handout for that session and is included on the CD of the Proceedings. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 137 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 01:03 pm:    I have a 3-page document on the Spearin Doctrine by Michael S. Holman, Esq. that I found during my research for a presentation I give to our office on deficiencies in documents. It explains the actual court case and its applications in other cases. If any one would like a copy, send me an email to ron.geren@gouldevans.com. Kim A. Bowman, CSI, AAIA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: archspecmaster Post Number: 13 Registered: 02-2005 Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 01:06 pm:    I have also done a search, since my first post, and found some pretty good articles about the Spearin doctrine. I now understand the Spearin doctrine and court case better than I did before. Yes, this guy is a lawyer-want-to-be. And it is only about verifying field conditions. He fails to realize that he has some liability whether he likes it or not. This is a huge addition to an existing school for IPS. Seeings how it relates to door hardware, I have a lot of field verification statements in the specs and match existing statements as well. The notes the reviewer put on the shop drawings were basically a reiteration of the general conditions and the specs. However, she added a couple of statements that upset him, like "...at no additonal cost." which really should not have been put on the shop drawings. And another note "...door and hardware supplier is responsible for meeting all rated conditions whether or not indicated on the schedule..." This note should not have been on the shop drawings either. He wrote a 2 page letter disputing 4 notes added on the shop drawings. I did not tell him that the shop drawings technically are not a part of the contract documents, as I feared he may use this against us sometime nearing the completion of this project. Thanks for your comments and guidance.... Helaine K. Robinson CCS Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 135 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 01:48 pm:    Hi Kim! Please email me at hrobinson@bhdp.com as I have some articles on the Spearin Doctrine for you. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 47 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 03:21 pm:    Kim, Please discuss with your shop drawing reviewer: Her notation "door and hardware supplier is responsible for meeting all rated conditions whether or not indicated on the schedule" may be a change in the terms of the Contract Documents. If a rated door (and therefore, hardware) is required by code, but not shown on the Drawings, it is not the Contractor's responsibility to provide it at no additional cost. The rated door should be added by appropriate contract modification (Change Order or CCD). As you correctly state, the shop drawings are not Contract Documents. Similarly, they are not the means by which one makes modifications to the Contract Documents. If it is a code requirement, it should be included in the design. If its not properly included, the contractor may be entitled to a legitimate extra. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 32 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 04:24 pm:    Just a word of caution - I think we should be careful about making comments about specific situations which might end in legal proceedings at a later date. It is certainly possible that the discussions in this forum might in fact become de facto expert witness testimony that no one is intending. Discussion of historical projects and describing current situations looking for advice is one thing, but providing opinions about specific actions that have taken place in situations like this may have unintended results. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 72 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 11:30 am:    I would tend to agree with RWJ (although I may be as guilty as others about offering an opinion). While this forum may represent a certain level of knowledge and expertise, there is some disagreement on many topics. Furthermore not all discussion may be applicable to particular situation. I would also strongly suggest that the application of the "Spearin Doctrine" to your particular project be discussed with a knowledgeable attorney (if they have a blank look after you mention "Spearin Doctrine," seek advice elsewhere). Its relevance will depend on the language in the design contract, the project's contract conditions, the type of client (public or private), and the jurisdiction (federal? state?).