Blog Viewer

Specifications Language: Words to Avoid in Specifications

  
In resolving disputes between the parties to construction contracts, courts and arbitrators have frequently ruled that the wording of a construction contract, including its specifications, should be construed against the documents’ drafter, which is typically the owner and its design professional. This is because courts and arbitrators typically, of necessity, interpret that the drafter of the construction documents exercised appropriate skill, care, and professional judgment in developing the construction documents, using deliberately chosen words and phrases. 
 
This article presents words and phrases that should typically be avoided in construction documents, selected by this writer based on personal experience. Opinions and experiences by others may perhaps add to or delete from the words and phrases indicated below. This article is not intended as all-encompassing or comprehensive. 
 
“All” and “Every”
 
Many drafters of specifications and other construction documents frequently employ words such as, “all” and” every”. The likely rationale for this may be the desire to prohibit or limit contractor change proposals and claims that the drafter envisions will be submitted unless the contract language expressly indicates that requirements apply to “all” and “every” instance. However, terms such as “all” and “every” should typically be avoided, both because they are unnecessary and, when used inconsistently (as is often the case) can lead to unintended interpretations. 
 
Contracts typically require that the contractor perform all of the work shown and indicated in the contract documents for the associated contract price. Accordingly, there is no need to repeatedly indicate “all” and “every”, because the contract already requires that the contractor provide all of the work. 
 
The true disadvantage of using “all” and “every” is when they are selectively used, rather than used consistently in virtually every provision of the specifications and other contract documents. Indeed, seeing the words “all” or “every” in virtually every paragraph of the specifications would become tiresome. Using such words in some provisions and not others has the potential for a court or arbitrator to determine that omission of the word from certain provisions was intentional by the drafter, and that the owner is due “all” of a certain work element or activity only when the word “all” or “every” was expressly indicated. Thus, by selectively using “all” or “every”, a project owner and design professional may end up with a court or arbitrator determining that the contractor was obligated to perform “all the work” or “provide every item” only at locations where such phrasing was expressly used. One party might argue that "all materials" includes every possible material needed, while another might interpret it as only those explicitly indicated. 
 
“And/or”
 
Due to its vagueness, “and/or” should not be used in construction documents. “And/or” is a grammatical conjunction used to indicate that one, more, or all of the cases it connects may occur. Taken literally, “and/or” means one or more, or all of a string of words is required or possible. As such, it is indefinite and vague. The interpretation of "and/or" in contracts has been addressed in various court and arbitration decisions, often highlighting the term’s ambiguity.
 
For example, language in specifications may include, “Provide all necessary and/or required items for a complete system.” This could be interpreted as either, “Provide all necessary and required items…”, or “Provide all necessary or required items…” The first might be interpreted as requiring only necessary items as well as expressly required by the contract documents, which might be more exclusive and limited than may be intended by the drafter. The second might mean the contractor has the option to provide work that is either “necessary” or that is expressly required by the contract, but not both. Either of these interpretations is unlikely to be consistent with the intent of the owner and design professional. A better means of stating such a requirement might be, “Provide items as required, necessary, or both, for a complete system.” 
 
“Any”
 
“Any” should be avoided in construction contracts because it is indefinite and vague. When used in specifications or contracts, “any” may be interpreted as allowing either contracting party to make a determination, which is probably not what is intended by the drafter. For example, a common expression observed by this writer in construction specifications is “fix any defects discovered after installation.” Such a requirement might be interpreted as meaning, “when one or more defects are apparent after installation, select any single one of them, provide an appropriate remedy, and you have complied with the entire requirement.” The foregoing would potentially relieve the contractor from remedying all of the defects except the one selected by the contractor. In most cases, the drafter probably intended, “when defects are apparent after installation, fix or remedy all of them.” Better wording would likely be, “remedy defects that become apparent following installation.” 
 
“Attention of the contractor is directed to” and “special attention of the contractor” 
 
Many construction specifications include phrasing that admonishes the contractor to pay particular attention, or, “special attention”, to a certain contractual requirement, site condition, or other item. Such expressions should typically be avoided, because they may be interpreted as elevating the importance of certain contractual provisions over others. The intent of most drafters of specifications and contracts is that equal weight should be given to all requirements, without one particular provision being construed as more important than others. Indeed, AIA A201—2017, Standard General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, Section 3.5 (“Warranty”), and EJCDC C-700—2018, Standard General Conditions of the Construction Contract, Paragraph 7.17 (“Contractor’s General Warranty and Guarantee”) each require that all the work shall comply with the contract documents and shall not be defective. Neither draws any special attention to certain elements of the work, because all parts of the completed construction must comply with the contract. 
 
Accordingly, it is unnecessary to include language such as, “attention of the contractor is directed to”, or, “special attention of the contractor…”, using such language may have the potential to support a contractor’s subsequent contention that certain provisions of the specifications or contract were intended to be “more important” than others. 
 
Best” 
 
The word, “best, should typically be avoided in specifications because it is likely to be interpreted as establishing a higher standard of quality than is actually required by the construction contract. This writer has seen numerous examples of construction contracts and specifications with phrasing such as, “materials, equipment, and construction provided shall be of the best quality.” Such a requirement may obviate the need for most of the specifications, which often require a level of quality somewhat less than the “best”. In fact, “best” is an exceedingly high, and typically very expensive, standard that may be nearly impossible to achieve. Furthermore, exactly how to determine whether an item or element of the work is “the best” may be subjective. 
 
General conditions that are widely used in the United States do not require the subjective quality level of “best”. Rather, they require that the contractor comply with the contract documents. For example, Section 3.5.1 of AIA A201—2017, states in part, “The Contractor warrants to the Owner and Architect that materials and equipment furnished under the Contract will be of good quality and new unless the Contract Documents require or permit otherwise.” Similarly, Paragraph 7.04.B of EJCDC C-700—2018, requires “All materials and equipment incorporated into the Work must be new and of good quality, except as otherwise provided in the Contract Documents.” 
 
“Care should be taken” 
 
Many specifications advise the contractor that, “care should be taken” while performing a particular work activity. While drafters of such language doubtless intend to helpfully highlight for the contractor certain aspects of the work that the drafter believes are critical for achieving the required quality or that represent a special hazard to persons or property, such language is often undesirable. As discussed above in this article’s section titled, “’Attention of the contractor is directed to’ and ‘special attention of the contractor’”, both AIA A201 and EJCDC C-700  clearly and expressly require that all the work comply with the contract documents and not be defective. Therefore, there is no advantage whatsoever to attempting to direct the contractor’s attention to certain work activities that require special care to achieve the required quality. Doing so may have potential for an interpretation that the contractor did not necessarily have to exert care in performing the work unless the specifications or contract explicitly required it. 
 
Both Paragraph 7.13 (“Safety and Protection”) of EJCDC C-700—2018 and Article 10 (“Protection of Persons and Property”) of AIA A201—2017, make the contractor solely responsible for safety and protection measures associated with performing the work. Therefore, there is no need to direct the contractor’s attention to take particular care of performing any part of the work that has the otential to adversely affect the safety of persons or property. Again, highlighting that care should be taken in performing only selected activities could result in an interpretation that such care is mandatory only when the specifications or other contract document expressly calls the contractor’s attention to it. 
 
“Conformance” 
 
Many construction specifications include phrasing such as, “Perform [work activity] in conformance with the Specifications". The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1985) is the ordinary dictionary on this writer’s shelf, and defines “conform”, in part, as: “…1. To correspond in form or character; be similar. 2. To act or be in compliance; comply. 3. To act in accordance with current customs or modes…” The same source indicates that, “comply” means: “…1. To act in accordance with another’s command, request, rule, or wish. 2. Obs. To be courteous or obedient…”. In January 2025, other, online dictionaries included very similar definitions of “conform” and “comply”. 
 
As indicated by the definitions, above, the meaning of “comply” is quite clear, while the definition of “conform” varies between “comply” and, “To correspond in form or character; be similar.” Because of the somewhat ambiguous meaning of “conform”, which may be interpreted as requiring that the work merely, “be similar to” contractual requirements, in construction specifications and contracts, the word, “comply” should typically be used in place of, “conform”. 
 
“Etc.”
 
“Etc.” is an abbreviation of, “et cetera”, which is a Latin expression meaning, “and other things”. Black’s Law Dictionary, Tenth Edition (2014) states, regarding “etc.”, “usu. [usually] means other, unspecified items in a series.” A key word of concern in the definition in Black’s is, “unspecified”. Exactly what is required in a contract or specifications that include the word, “etc.” is unstated and left to the interpretation of the reader. Indeed, courts and arbitrators rendering decisions have provided various interpretations of what is meant by “etc.” depending on circumstances. Therefore, “etc.” is unspecific, vague, and should not be used in contracts and specifications. In addition, using "etc." may appear unprofessional and suggest that the drafter did not take the time to fully articulate the terms of the contractual requirements. 
 
Various alternatives may be employed in lieu of “etc.”. These include: (1) "Including but not limited to", which clarifies that the list provided is not exhaustive and other, similar items may be included; (2) "Such as", which can be used to give examples without implying that the list is complete; and (3) "And other similar items", which indicates the list includes similar items not explicitly mentioned. However, specifications and contracts are best when they are clear, specific, and unambiguous, so expressions like “including but not limited to”, “and other similar items” and “such as”, should be used rarely and with care. 
 
“Fix” and “Repair”
 
A common requirement observed by this writer in many construction specifications is, to “fix [or repair] any defects”. Defective work means work that has either been damaged as a result of the contractor’s action or inaction, or that does not comply with the contract documents. As cited earlier in this article, Section 3.5.1 of AIA A201—2017, and Paragraph 7.04.B of EJCDC C-700—2018, each require that materials and equipment incorporated into the work shall be new and of good quality. AIA and EJCDC standard contract documents each also require that all work comply with the contract documents. Therefore, most project owners likely expect to receive completed construction that has not needed repairs or “fixing”. Some owners may envision a hack job when reviewing draft construction specifications that require either “fixing” or “repairing” defective construction. Project owners and design professionals most likely expect defective work to be remedied not as a repair, but rather to result in “like new” construction. 
 
Rather than specifications language such as, “fix [or repair] any defects”, better wording would be, “promptly remedy defective Work”. The word, “remedy” means counteracting or eliminating something undesirable, without necessarily implying a repair. A remedy might include complete removal and replacement when necessary, an appropriate repair resulting in like-new construction, or other solutions. 
 
“Is to”
 
“Is to”, and its shorter cousin, “to” (e.g., “contractor to promptly remedy defects”), should typically not be used in contracts and construction specifications, because such expressions do not constitute a definitive command or obligation. “Is to” appears to be either permissive or a statement of anticipation, rather than an explicit requirement that must be performed. Wording such as, “contractor to fix any defects”, might potentially be interpreted as meaning, “contractor might fix any defects,” “contractor ought to fix any defects,” or “contractor will fix any defects, one of these days, when the contractor feels like it”. None of these potential interpretations are likely what is intended by most drafters of construction specifications and contracts. 
 
Many construction specifications use, “is to” or “to” rather than commands that more clearly communicate an obligation or requirement, such as “shall”, or “must”. For additional information on such terms, see Specifications Language: The Meaning of “Shall,” “Will,” and “Must”, previously published on this writer’s blog. 
 
Legalese 
 
Occasionally, construction specifications and contracts feature phrasing often known as legalese. In January 2025, “legalese” was defined in Mirriam-Webster’s online dictionary as, “the specialized language of the legal profession”, and, in the Cambridge online dictionary as, “language used by lawyers and in legal documents that is difficult for ordinary people to understand.” Selected examples of legalese include, “hereinafter”, “hereinbefore”, “notwithstanding”, “aforementioned”, “hereto”, “herein”, and others. More extreme examples include Latin terms such as “prima facie”, “estoppel”, “nunc pro tunc”, and others. Such terms should typically be avoided in construction specifications and most contracts, because construction contracts should be easily understandable by all project stakeholders. Inappropriate use of legalese may lead to interpretations that differ from those intended by the drafter. Using specifications and contract language understandable by ordinary people may also reduce the parties’ legal costs in the event of a claim or dispute. 
 
The word, “herein”, is frequently employed in specifications and contracts. Its meaning may not be as obvious to all readers as its drafter might desire, because the meaning of “herein” can be vague: does it refer to “Here in this paragraph”? “Here in this article"? This section? Or anywhere in the contract as a whole? Accordingly, consider avoiding “herein” and, instead, indicate expressly what is intended, such as, “As indicated elsewhere in this Article, …” 
 
“As per”
 
Some construction specifications employ, “as per”, and “per”, as synonyms for, “in accordance with” and similar phrases. For example, “Provide steel per ASTM A36.” 
 
“As per” and “per” are best avoided for this context. While Black’s Law Dictionary, Tenth Edition (2014) indicates that, “as per”, when used in contracts, typically means “in accordance with”, it also describes, “as per” as a “barbarism”. The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1985) defines “per”, in part, as “1. Through; by means of: per bearer. 2. To, for, or by each; for every: 40 cents per gallon. 3. According to; by: per instructions…”.  None of the foregoing really means, “in accordance with”, although the third definition may perhaps be similar. To summarize, the meaning of “as per” and “per”, as replacements for “in accordance with” is unclear and ambiguous. 
 
For clarity, use “in accordance with”, or a similar expression, rather than “as per” or “per”. For example, “Provide steel in accordance with ASTM A36.” Wording that is better and more succinct is, “Provide ASTM A36 steel.” The word, “per” should be used in specifications and contracts only to mean “by each”, as in “cubic feet per minute”. In specifications, it is often advisable to write out “per”, rather than abbreviate it with a slash (cubic feet/minute). 
 
Pronouns
 
Pronouns such as, “it”, “its”, “itself”, “he”, “him”, “he/she”, “him/her”, “they”, “them”, “their”, “this”, “those”, “who”, and others, should be avoided in construction specifications and contracts, because of their ambiguity. However, this writer has seen too many examples of pronouns in specifications and contracts to count, such as: “Contractor and its employees shall, at all times, be under the control of its site superintendent. All employees shall report each day to him/her.” Pronouns should be avoided because the entity to which they refer is unclear, potentially setting the stage for requests for interpretations during the bidding/procurement stage and construction, as well as construction stage changes, claims, and disputes. 
 
It is probably unreasonable to expect that every instance of a pronoun can be completely eliminated. However, gender-based pronouns can be, and likely should always be, avoided. Contractors include personnel of different genders. Pronouns in construction contracts are often masculine (“he” and “him”), but some entities, perhaps seeking a form of gender neutrality, employ, “he/her” and “he/she”. Better phrasing for the example presented in the paragraph, above, is: “Contractor’s site superintendent is responsible for actions and inactions of workers at the Site. Workers shall report to Contractor’s site superintendent at the start of each work day.”
 
“Requirements of”
 
Specifications and contracts frequently employ language requiring that a certain work result or performance obligation be, “in accordance with the requirements of” some other, particular specifications section or contractual provision. In such cases, the words, “requirements of”, can be omitted without reducing clarity or the meaning of the provision. Although including the words, “requirements of”, does not create ambiguity, such words are simply unnecessary and only add to the word count. Therefore, they are not necessary in specifications and contracts. 
 
“Should”
 
“Should” is a permissive expression that is typically inappropriate in construction specifications and contracts. It allows the entity to whom the provision is directed, which is typically the contractor, discretion in whether to perform the associated requirement (for example, “contractor should promptly remedy defects.”). When specifications and contract language follow CSI’s drafting axiom that contractual language should be clear, concise, complete, and correct, specifications generally do not need to include advisories and discretionary language. Rather, such language should be limited to the express obligations of the contracting parties. Contractual language should be specifically directed to one of the contracting parties; in construction specifications, most of the language is directed to the contractor and indicates the contractor’s obligations
 
Although this writer has rarely seen it used, for the same reasons, specifications and contracts should avoid using the word, “could”. Discretionary language should be avoided unless the intent is to allow the contractor the option of selecting from multiple alternatives for performing a particular work result. When indicating a contractual obligation, words such as, “shall” or “must” should be used (for example, “contractor shall provide bricks”), or, even better, indicative phrasing should be employed (for example, “provide bricks”). For additional information, see “Specifications Language: The Meaning of “Shall,” “Will,” and “Must”, previously posted on this writer’s blog. 
 
 
Small Words
 
To streamline the language of specifications and contracts, “small words” such as, “the”, “a” or “an”, and the like can be omitted. While there is, grammatically speaking, nothing wrong with including such words, they add little to enhance the meaning and interpretation of specifications and contracts. For example, phrasing such as, “obtain written approval from the Owner and the Architect”, should be shortened to, “obtain Owner’s and Architect’s written approval.” 
 
In some cases, “small words” may be needed, especially when referring to other elements of the construction documents. For example, wording such as, “in accordance with the Contract Documents”, likely reads better than, “in accordance with Contract Documents”. Whether or not to include “small words” needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis but, in many circumstances in specifications and contracts, “small words” should be omitted. 
 
“So as to” and “in order to”
 
The expression, “so as to” is a synonym for, “in order to”. Neither expression should be used in construction specifications or contracts, because, at best, they represent unnecessary verbosity and, at worst, may create the undesirable impression that the specifier should justify the requirements to the contractor. In the relatively rare circumstance where an expression like, “so as to” or, “in order to” is truly necessary, the shorter, “to”, should be used. For example, when tempted to write, “Provide traffic controls so as to maintain safe roadway conditions,” more succinct phrasing is, “Provide traffic controls to maintain safe roadway conditions.” 
 
“Strict”
 
This writer has reviewed numerous specifications on many projects employing words such as, “Perform [indicate work activity] in strict accordance with these Specifications and with applicable building codes.” Undoubtedly, drafters of such language seek to communicate that the subject work activity is of critical importance, which is why such requirements must be “in strict compliance”. The drawback of the selective use of “strict” is similar to the reasoning why the word, “all” should be avoided: its omission from other provisions might be interpreted as communicating that other requirements of the contract will not be “strictly” enforced. Of course, the intent of all construction contracts is that all of the work must be in full compliance with the contract documents. 
 
The model language for scopes of services in widely-used professional services agreements indicates that, when the design professional is aware of defective work, they are to “reject” such work. Such provisions of professional services contracts and construction contracts do not indicate or imply that defective work will be rejected only when it fails to comply with provisions that are to be “strictly” enforced. 
 
Thus, the word, “strict” should typically be avoided in specifications and contracts. Rather than using wording like, “Perform [indicate work activity] in strict accordance with…”, the same meaning is communicated via, “Perform [indicate work activity] in accordance with…”
 
“To the satisfaction of” 
 
A surprising number of construction specifications obligate the contractor to perform certain work activities, “to the satisfaction of Architect”, “to the satisfaction of Owner”, or “to the satisfaction of” somebody else. Such requirements are extremely vague and should be avoided. Bidders understandably are challenged in attempting to determine the cost of performing a certain work activity “to the satisfaction of” a particular person or entity not under the contractor’s control. Exactly what might satisfy that person or entity is unspecified. Depending on how hard they are to satisfy, such vague contractual language could potentially allow the owner, design professional, construction manager, or someone else to establish new and, perhaps, very high standards for what would be necessary to result in “satisfaction”. Thus, when used in construction specifications and contracts, the expression, “to the satisfaction of…”, represents significant cost- and time-based risk to prospective bidders and the contractor. Frequent use of such wording, or using such an expression, for even one particularly expensive or challenging construction activity, has the potential to result in increased prices bid or proposed to the owner, as bidders will include hidden contingencies in their pricing in an attempt to cover their risk. 
 
Rather than establishing ambiguous requirements, such as, “to the satisfaction of…”, construction specifications and contracts should clearly indicate the required standards for performance and quality of the completed work. When specifications discuss matters that cannot be accurately foreseen at the time of contract drafting, such as provisions that address remedying defective work or restoration of damaged property, rather than using words such as, “to the satisfaction of…”, alternative, better wording is, “in accordance with the Contract Documents”, or other, more-objective wording. 
 
Use With Care
 
The meaning of many other terms frequently used in specifications and contracts should be expressly indicated, to reduce the potential for misunderstandings and disagreements. Such terms include, “as directed”, “as required”, “as shown”, “as indicated”, and others. Additional terms whose meaning is often expressly indicated in contracts and, therefore, should be used properly and consistently, include, “furnish”, “install”, “provide”, “perform”, and others. The meaning of the latter terms is expressly set forth in Paragraph 1.02.E of EJCDC C-700—2018. Paragraph 1.02.B of EJCDC C-700—2018 also expressly indicates the meaning of “as allowed,” “as approved,” “as ordered,” “as directed”,  “reasonable,” “suitable,” “acceptable,” “proper,” and “satisfactory”. Although AIA A201—2017 does not assign an express meaning to such terminology as does EJCDC C-700, most Division 01 specifications reviewed by this writer, intended for use with AIA A201, include language assigning a specific meaning to terms in language similar to that used in EJCDC C-700 Paragraph 1.02.  Drafters of specifications and contracts that will, or may, include such words should ensure that the meaning of such terms is clearly addressed in the associated contract. 
 
Specifications Language Resources
 
This article has narrowly focused on selected words that should be avoided in specifications and contracts. Many other resources are available that address both the topic of this article as well as the broader field of specifications language. While it is beyond the scope of this article to present a bibliography of resources, additional information is available in CSI’s Project Delivery Practice Guide, Third Edition (2020), especially in Section 5.3.3, “Specification Language”, and CSI’s Construction Specifications Practice Guide, Second Edition (2021), especially Section 11.8, “Specification Language”, and Section 15.4, “Specification Language”. In addition, articles on this writer’s blog addressing other topics related to specifications language, and content include:
 
 
Conclusions
 
Many considerations apply to the language employed in construction specifications and contracts, including grammar, style, consistency with contractually-defined terms and terminology, and others. Words and expressions that should either be avoided or used rarely and after careful consideration, is a somewhat narrow slice of a larger topic but is one that is both very important and, perhaps, under-appreciated. Using words that are vague or can lead to unintended interpretations is an avoidable drafting practice that likely increases the overall project cost paid by the owner and transfers additional risk to the contractor. Specifications and contracts are best when they are clearly written and lend themselves to interpretations consistent with the original intent of their drafter. 
 
 
Acknowledgments: The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Jerry Cavaluzzi, Esq, who kindly reviewed and commented on drafts of this article. Mr. Cavaluzzi, of Westchester County, NY, is Chief Risk Officer and General Counsel for Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. The author is solely responsible for the content of this article. 
 
 
Original text Copyright 2025 by Kevin O’Beirne
The content of this blog post is by the author alone and should not be attributed to any other individual or entity.
The author of this blog post is not an attorney and nothing in this blog post constitutes legal advice. Readers in need of legal advice should consult with a qualified, experienced attorney. 
 
Kevin O’Beirne, PE, FCSI, CCS, CCCA is a professional engineer licensed in NY and PA with over 35 years of experience designing and constructing water and wastewater infrastructure for public and private clients.  He is the engineering specifications manager for a global engineering and architecture design firm.  He has been a member of various CSI national committees and is the certification chair of CSI’s Buffalo-Western New York Chapter.  He is an ACEC voting delegate in the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC) and lives and works in the Buffalo NY area. Kevin O’Beirne’s LinkedIn page.  

3 comments
151 views

Permalink

Comments

Thanks, again, Kevin for these valuable insights. I always read them - usually a couple times.

Mary-Alice - Thank you for taking the time to read the article and provide a comment. I am certainly guilty of using in specs some of the language that the article recommends to avoid. In a few instances, given the specifics of a certain sentence or provision, certain words, such as, "all",  might even be necessary. However, others, such as, "and/or",  "etc.", "contractor's attention is called to", and "care should be taken to", I typically avoid altogether. 

Kevin,

Guilty! I thought that I have been doing a good job at eliminating all of the problem words in my specifications. However, you have pointed out a couple that I had not thought of as potentially causing confusion.

Thanks.

Mary-Alice