In a disagreement or dispute over scope of work, architects or engineers may try to apply what they meant to say if they cannot find anything in the documents that precisely indicates the item in question. Typically, some general conditions clause containing language to the effect that “It is the intent … to include all items necessary for proper execution and completion of the work,” may be relied upon by the owner.
The key to the applicability (or lack) of design intent as a means to fill gaps left in the design goes to whether the work could be “reasonably inferrable.” Design intent will apply only if the gap being bridged is so obvious that a professional contractor would not normally overlook it. Refer to “Trade Custom” (Section 3.4.5) and “Reasonable Review” (Section 3.5.4) for related discussion.
Applicability Test. To assess the applicability of design “intent” to force a contractor to complete work not specifically indicated, answer the following questions:
1. Can the remaining work shown be completed without the extra work in question?
2. Is there more than one way to complete the extra work?
3. Is the extra work not usually encountered by the type of trade now being considered to construct it?
An affirmative answer to any of these questions will throw into question the applicability of “intent.” For “intent” to apply, it will essentially need to satisfy the same test as that for trade practice (Section 3.4.5); that is, the work in question must be required with absolute regularity in all such cases.
Post your comment on this topic.