Words and Terms

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

Author Message Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 594 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 07:52 am:    Other than the words and terms designated to be capitalized in the old Manual of Practice and the PRM, any one have a good comprehensive list of other construction and specification words and terms that need to be captialized? Thanks for any help! rliebing@hixson-inc.com Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 255 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 09:54 am:    Follow the normal rules. If anything, I see far too much capitalization, usually used inconsistently. Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 179 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 10:13 am:    Some time ago I began to compile such a list, beginning with the terms capitalized in A201 (and a corresponding list of terms not capitalized). At least it's a start... A201 CAPITALIZED TERMS: titles of AIA documents references to specific parts of AIA documents (e.g., Paragraph 12.2, Clause 11.1.1.2) Architect Owner Contractor (the one under this Contract; other [separate] contractor(s) are not capitalized) Subcontractor Sub-subcontractor Contract (or, Contract for Construction) Agreement Conditions of the Contract General Conditions Supplementary Conditions (and Special Conditions, etc.) Contract Documents Drawings Specifications Project Manual Change Order Construction Change Directive Modification Addendum (pl. Addenda) the Work of This Contract (or simply, the “Work”) Project Contract Sum Contract Time Application for Payment Certificate for Payment Substantial Completion Certificate of Substantial Completion Not capitalized in A201: bidding requirements sample forms submittals schedule progress payment final payment final completion one-year period for correction of Work lender final completion (!) Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 557 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 10:22 am:    I tend to agree with Sheldon. The normal rules require capitalization when refering to a specific thing or person. Thus "Project Manual" when it means this one for this Project, but "project manual" when writing of the thing in general. I wouldn't capitalize "subcontractor" because (1) they are not usually part of the specific contract and (2) you are usually not writing about a specific subcontractor. Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 180 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 10:35 am:    Lynn, I tend to agree with you, but only to an extent (we differ on "specific"). For example, I don't capitalize "section" (of a project manual) except when it's used with its title (section number and/or name) -- e.g., I don't capitalize it in "elsewhere in this section" even though it is indeed referring to a specific section (and even though MasterSpec does capitalize it when used that way). With "persons," though (roles, not proper names), certain ones are capitalized because they are parties to a contract or otherwise legally defined in a document, and capitalization is a matter of legal convention. That's why I thought A201 was the best place to start... George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 303 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 10:37 am:    Okay, this question was asked in this year's CDT prep classes, and I didn't (and still don't) have a good answer. Why does the PRM seem to suggest capitalizing only the "initial letter" in multiple word nouns, such as Project manual, or Contracting officer? (5.8.8) It would seem to me to be (and I use) Project Manual and Contracting Officer. Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 181 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 10:43 am:    This is an example of the Project resource manual being wrong; no Book is infallible... Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 558 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 10:48 am:    Well written, Bob...because I thought "shop drawings" shouldn't be capitalized since they are not specific nor part of the Contract Documents. But "Change Order" as a specific document and part of the Contract Documents, should be! Hmmm...nothing like a little inconsistency to spur debate. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 188 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 12:11 pm:    I follow the general rule that if it is specifically defined in the Project Manual than it has initial capitals. The exception is the various [defined] submittal items, ie, samples, manufacturer's data, shop drawings, etc. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 131 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 12:13 pm:    The convention observed in AIA documents is to capitalize words that are defined. This is consistent with the style taught in the drafing of legal documents. I ran into this issue with the legal staff of a coporate client. They wanted to provide the conditions of the contract with their standard form and had a fit when they noticed words were capitalized in the specs that they didn't have defined anywhere in their form. They decided the issue was so important that they switched over to AIA 201 to get the definitions in the front end. Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 183 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 12:19 pm:    A201 actually does capitalize "Shop Drawings" (as well as "Product Data" and "Samples"), but not the generic term "submittals" (or for that matter the category "bidding requirements"). Speaking of inconsistency, there is at least one instance where A201 is inconsistent: It capitalizes "claims" (at least once, other than at the beginning of a sentence), but typically does not. But let us remenber (as someone once said, I forget who), "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." Tom Good architect CDT, SCIP, www.VGBN.org Senior Member Username: tom_good Post Number: 6 Registered: 11-2006 Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 12:31 pm:    FWIW, I include this in my Supplementray Conditions: 1.3 CAPITALIZATION Add: 1.3.2 Terms capitalized in the Contract Documents are one or more of the following: .1 Specific in nature as defined in the Contract Documents or required (such as parties to the Contract or portions of the Contract Documents). .2 Specific in nature by intrinsic meaning (such as proper nouns). .3 Specific portions of the Project Site (such as room names). .4 Headings (such as Paragraph names). .5 Capitalized for graphic convention (such as text on Drawings) Add: 1.3.3 The meaning of terms in the Contract Documents are not changed by the absence capitalization. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 256 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 12:54 pm:    If absence of capitalization does not affect meaning, what happens when you have multiple contracts? The convention of capitalizing Contract and Contractor to distinguish them from the contract and contractor of a different contract is a great convenience. The alternative is to use "the contractor of the contract in which this sentence appears", "the contractor of some other contract", and similar phrases. And if capitalization doesn't mean anything, why capitalize anything at all? Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 559 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 12:55 pm:    I also like "Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." – Bernard Bereson Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 189 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 01:34 pm:    Since multiple contracts are separate and distinct, anything stated in one set of documents should have no bearing on any other set of documents. <And if capitalization doesn't mean anything, why capitalize anything at all?> Good point. I’m sure the intent of Tom’s 1.3.3 Subparagraph is to cover all of the defined words which did not get the initial capitalization designation especially from sections prepared by other consultants. I would suggest to Tom that his 1.3.3 Subparagraph be deleted and make a solid effort to properly coordinate both his writings and those of others. If some words are missed, they should be deduced to a minimum.