NH Construction Law
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Links

#24:  Design Specs and Performance Specs

1/4/2015

0 Comments

 
When a contractor bids on a set of construction specifications, he looks beyond what specific materials, configurations and connections are called for, and considers the means and methods his crew will employ to build the project.  Rarely are those means and methods dictated to him in the specs.  On those rare occasions when the specs dictate not only the “what” but also the “how,” deviations from the “how” specs are not allowed.  These are often called “design specs.”

Sometimes the desired end result of the construction is not only to “be” something (like a bridge or a residence), but also to “do” something―to perform in a specified manner (like a “clean room” or waste water treatment plant).  These are often called “performance specs.”

Courts have picked up this verbiage.  To quote from Stuyvesant Dredging Co. v. United States, 834 F.2d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1987), “Design specifications explicitly state how the contract is to be performed and permit no deviations.  Performance specifications, on the other hand, specify the results to be obtained, and leave it to the contractor to determine how to achieve those results.”  This makes it sound as though a set of specs must be one or the other.  The truth is that a given set of specs will often have elements of both.

The distinction is important when it comes to assigning blame for a project that doesn’t work out as planned.  If the contractor implements the precise design he is given, then regardless of how he implemented it and regardless of whether the owner or the contractor dictated the means of implementing it, the contractor is off the hook.  This is the so-called Spearin doctrine, named for the case of United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132, 136 (1918) (“But if the contractor is bound to build according to plans and specifications prepared by the owner, the contractor will not be responsible for the consequence of defects in the plans and specifications”).

Not only does the contractor have no liability when he implements the specs he is given, but he is entitled to be paid for his work
―even if the outcome is unsatisfactory.  This is the teaching of Perkins v. Roberge, 69 N.H. 171, 173 (1897), in which a contractor “agreed in writing with the defendant to build a baker's oven and furnace in a workmanlike manner, in accordance with a plan and specifications furnished by the defendant.  The oven was built by the plaintiff in accordance with the contract.  It did not work in a satisfactory manner on account of the fault of the plans.  The failure of the oven to work in a satisfactory manner being attributable to the defects in the plans furnished by the defendant, and not to the failure of the plaintiff to perform his contract, he is entitled to recover the contract price for the performance of his undertaking.”

The Spearin doctrine and the rule enunciated in Perkins apply to design specs, not to performance specs.  Consequently, contractors often find themselves arguing that a relevant spec is design and not performance based.  If, as some courts hold, design specs are those which eliminate contractor discretion as to the means and methods of implementation, the argument is a hard one to win.  In my view, such a focus on discretion is overblown.  The first question should always be whether the fault lies in the plans and specs themselves, or in how they were implemented ―and only in the latter case should we ask whether the means and methods of implementation were dictated or chosen.

Losing this argument is not always the end of the game for a contractor.  As Smith, Currie and Hancock’s Common Sense Construction Law (5th ed. 2014) notes, “an owner still can be liable for a contractor’s unanticipated difficulties under a performance specification if the contractor shows that the owner-furnished performance specification was impossible or commercially impracticable to achieve.  A performance specification is commercially impracticable if it can be performed only at an excessive and unreasonable cost.”  I’ll be blogging on this at a later date.


0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Frank Spinella

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.