Case Updates: Why Construction Plans and Specifications Matter
On a construction project, performing the work is only part of the job. The contractor must also follow the plans, specifications, measurement requirements, notice provisions, and change-order procedures contained in the contract.
A recent Ohio appellate decision demonstrates how those documents can determine whether a contractor gets paid—even when there is no dispute that the contractor performed the underlying work.
In In re Miami Conservancy District, 2025-Ohio-116, the Second District Court of Appeals considered payment and delay disputes arising from a multimillion-dollar concrete-repair project at the Lockington Dam. The contract included detailed specifications, plans, payment items, general conditions, and an order establishing which documents controlled if they conflicted. It also gave the project engineer authority to resolve questions concerning the plans, specifications, quantities, and payment.
The Contract Documents Defined What Was Payable
One dispute involved concrete patching. The contractor claimed it should be paid for work performed on three surfaces of the dam’s concrete monoliths. The owner maintained that the payment item covered only one measured face.
The plans and specifications were not perfectly clear. In fact, the court found that both sides had reasonable interpretations of the documents. However, the contract expressly gave the engineer authority to resolve disputes concerning the interpretation of the plans and specifications.
The engineer interpreted the payment item as requiring a single patch measured from one face. Because the owner paid according to that interpretation, the court held that the contractor was not entitled to additional compensation.
The contractor faced another problem: the specifications required it to provide field measurements of the patched areas before payment. Although the contractor relied on subcontractor invoices and later calculations, it had not provided the field measurements required by the contract.
The lesson is straightforward. It is not enough to show that labor and materials went into the project. A contractor must be able to connect the work to the applicable payment item and comply with the contractual method for measuring, documenting, and approving that work.
Owners Must Follow the Contract Too
The decision was not entirely in the owner’s favor.
Three other payment items required payment based on the volume of concrete placed, but they did not expressly require the contractor to prove that amount through field measurements. The contractor relied on concrete delivery tickets and invoices, while the owner relied on its own field measurements.
The trial court initially accepted the owner’s position. The Second District reversed, explaining that the contract did not require field measurements for those particular payment items or prohibit the contractor from relying on delivery tickets. The competing evidence created factual questions that could not be resolved on summary judgment.
That part of the ruling is equally important. An owner cannot necessarily deny payment by imposing a documentation requirement that does not appear in the contract. The specific language used for each scope and payment item matters.
Extra Work Should Be Documented by a Change Order
The case also involved additional work and substantial project delays.
The contractor argued that changes to the plans and specifications contributed to the delay. However, the contract required written change orders for additional work and written notice when a delay occurred. It also required any extension of the completion date to be approved in writing.
The court enforced those requirements. It held that compensation for additional work required an agreed change order and that any resulting extension should have been negotiated as part of that change order. Because the contractor did not provide the required written delay notice or request another written extension, it was not entitled to an extension beyond the existing completion date.
The contractor also relied on the Spearin doctrine, which generally protects a contractor from responsibility for defects in plans and specifications supplied by the owner. The court concluded that the doctrine did not excuse compliance with the contract’s express change-order and delay provisions. The dispute involved delays associated with plan changes—not plans so defective that the project could not be completed.
The Practical Takeaway
Plans and specifications are not simply technical guides for constructing the project. Together with the contract, they define:
- What work is included;
- How the work must be performed;
- How quantities will be measured;
- What documentation must be submitted;
- Who resolves conflicts;
- When additional compensation is available; and
- How delays and changes must be reported.
Contractors should document field conditions, preserve measurements, submit timely written notices, and obtain written change orders before relying on promises of additional payment or time.
Owners and project managers should apply the contract consistently and avoid creating new payment requirements after the work has been performed.
When a construction dispute develops, the outcome often turns less on what the parties remember discussing and more on what the plans, specifications, and contract procedures actually required.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Construction rights and obligations depend on the specific contract documents and facts of each project.
