After reading through these posts, I, like Lori Greene, feel the need to "throw in my 2 cents' worth."
As a professional specifier (Certified by CSI), I take exception, as well as would many of my colleagues in this field, to some of the comments posted here. While I don't disagree that some architectstake specifications lightly and produce poorly prepared specifications, I, and all the professional specifiers I know, take specifications very seriously and would never copy specifications from a previous project without considering the conditions and issues of the project at hand. Every set of specifications I edit is solely for the project for which it was prepared. Architects who consider specifications at the last minute and rush their preparation, or think that specifications are secondary to the drawings, are only opening themselves up to greater risk.
Most owner-contractor agreements state that specifications and drawings are complementary, and state "what is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all" (AIA Document A201-2007). Thus, if the drawings do not indicate the information, but the specifications do, then the contractor must provide it. For example, if the drawings only note "wood paneling" for a space that is required by code to have a Class A finish, but the specifications state that wood paneling is to have a flame spread index of 25 or less and a smoke developed index of 450 or less, then the contractor must provide wood paneling with a Class A rating. If the contractor installed wood paneling that did not have a Class A rating “because it wasn’t shown on the drawings,” then that contractor will have to replace all of the noncomplying paneling at his own expense, since the specifications, which are part of the contract documents, provided the qualitative requirements for the paneling.
I have frequently encountered comments from building officials and plans examiners asking for content appropriately located in the specifications be placed on the drawings. I have, on most occasions, argued successfully that the specifications clearly address the code requirements in question and that placing the information on the drawings is unnecessary. Drawings are to provide information on the location, size, quantity, and interrelationship to other building elements; specifications provide the detailed qualitative requirements.
As a current board member of CSI at the national level, I want to thank Mark K. for bringing up CSI and mentioning its organizational structure for specifications. The standard he mentioned is called "MasterFormat" (not to be confused with MasterSpec, which is the AIA's master guide specification system). MasterFormat locates specifications within divisions and sections based on the work result of the item specified. Using door hardware as an example, it is a work result associated with door openings, which are specified in Division 08 "Openings." Door hardware requirements can be found in Section 08 71 00 “Door Hardware.” Additionally, each section is organized per one of CSI's other formats called "SectionFormat." SectionFormat divides each specification section into three parts: PART 1 GENERAL, PART 2 PRODUCTS, and PART 3 EXECUTION. Understanding the organizational structure of specifications will make it easier to find the information you are seeking. Plans examiners would be well-advised to learn and understand this organizational structure of specifications.
Conversely, specifiers should know how to properly specify for code compliance within the specifications. As a matter of fact, I'm teaching a session titled “Common Pitfalls When Specifying for Code Compliance” at the CSI Academies in Indianapolis held March27-29.