In the realm of design-bid-build projects, the seasoned legal professionals among us will no doubt be familiar with the principle articulated in the landmark case of United States v. Spearin. This doctrine placed an onus on general contractors to establish their scope of work in harmony with the plans and specifications provided by the owner. Meanwhile, it ensured that owners provide “workable and sufficient” plans to the contractors.
The role of the Spearin doctrine in a project setting is multifaceted. Foremost among its effects, it allows a contractor to effectively manage the risk associated with a particular project. It does so by affording a baseline of expectations around the adequacy of the plans provided by the owner. With this doctrine as part of the foundational framework for their agreement, both parties have a measure of protection against the impact of unforeseen complications. The Spearin doctrine offers stakeholders the ability to focus on the more immediate aspects of constructability, thereby augmenting the cohesive flow of the project.
As outlined in a recent article published by Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, it is vital for all involved parties to be cognizant of the implications of this doctrine. A misinterpretation or misstep could potentially lead to dire legal, financial, and operational consequences – an over-promise in the construction realm could certainly prove expensive.
With this in mind, legal professionals involved in such projects would do well to brush up on their understanding of this particular legal precedent, ensure they understand the nuances of its application, and provide appropriate advice to their respective organizations or clients.