Construction Contract Administration

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

An order of precedence (or preference) implies that certain documents are inherently more likely to be correct.

I would suggest that written contract modifications (change orders) are #1, then the owner-contractor agreement. 

After that - are specifications inherently more correct than drawings? If those specs were simply reused from another job, maybe not.

[ I suspect,  without proof, that "specs > drawings comes from lawyers being better at presenting words to juries, than explaining a drawing. ]

Details > smaller scale drawings ? Again, when details are just selected from a catalog and not edited, how trustworthy should they be?

One consultant's drawings over another's?  what if architect and structural engineer have dimensional differences for a grid line? And thus there isn't space for a duct of size shown on mechanical drawings?  Or if a sprinkler subcontractor designs pipes where ducts should be, hangs the pipes, and there is mutual finger pointing? (General contractors often pass contractual coordination requirements down in subcontracts (and then don't exercise their own responsibility).

"Documents are complementary, ask questions if you think there is a conflict" can cause "extra work" for architects who don't coordinate in the first place.

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

An order of precedence (or preference) implies that certain documents are inherently more likely to be correct.

I would suggest that written contract modifications (change orders) are #1, then the owner-contractor agreement. 

After that - are specifications inherently more correct than drawings? If those specs were simply reused from another job, maybe not.

[ I suspect,  without proof, that "specs > drawings comes from lawyers being better at presenting words to juries, than explaining a drawing. ]

Details > smaller scale drawings ? Again, when details are just selected from a catalog and not edited, how trustworthy should they be?

One consultant's drawings over another's?  what if architect and structural engineer have dimensional differences for a grid line? And thus there isn't space for a duct of size shown on mechanical drawings?  Or if a sprinkler subcontractor designs pipes where ducts should be, hangs the pipes, and there is mutual finger pointing? (General contractors often pass contractual coordination requirements down in subcontracts (and then don't exercise their own responsibility).

"Documents are complementary, ask questions if you think there is a conflict" can cause "extra work" for architects who don't coordinate in the first place.

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

An order of precedence (or preference) implies that certain documents are inherently more likely to be correct.

I would suggest that written contract modifications (change orders) are #1, then the owner-contractor agreement. 

After that - are specifications inherently more correct than drawings? If those specs were simply reused from another job, maybe not.

[ I suspect,  without proof, that "specs > drawings comes from lawyers being better at presenting words to juries, than explaining a drawing. ]

Details > smaller scale drawings ? Again, when details are just selected from a catalog and not edited, how trustworthy should they be?

One consultant's drawings over another's?  what if architect and structural engineer have dimensional differences for a grid line? And thus there isn't space for a duct of size shown on mechanical drawings?  Or if a sprinkler subcontractor designs pipes where ducts should be, hangs the pipes, and there is mutual finger pointing? (General contractors often pass contractual coordination requirements down in subcontracts (and then don't exercise their own responsibility).

"Documents are complementary, ask questions if you think there is a conflict" can cause "extra work" for architects who don't coordinate in the first place.

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

If you are using AIA Contract Documents, there is no precedence in the contract documents. AIA Document A201, Section 1.2.1, states, "The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all." If any document has precedence over another document, that would be the Owner-Contractor agreement. If there is a conflict in the Contract Documents, A201, Section 3.2.2, requires the contractor to review the Contract Documents and report promptly to the Architect "any errors, inconsistencies or omissions discovered."

Relying on an order of precedence could produce unexpected or unintended consequences. 

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

The response from Ron Geren, AIA is spot on. In my career, I have found that attorneys and contractors prefer to define an order of precedence as it provides simplicity for their purposes in interpreting the documents as opposed to the Architect being the interpreter and making reasonable judgements. Establishing an order of precedence for certain aspects of the Contract Documents may be desirable, particularly with respect to information issued subsequent to previously issued information. For example, addenda having precedent over previously issued documentation, although establishing precedent for such chronologically issued information is generally superfluous as the precedence is clear.

In no instance, however, should precedence be given to specifications over drawings, or vice versa. Specifications establish the level of quality and set forth other information such as the acceptable products and the processes to be followed. Drawings illustrate the extent and relationship of the physical elements of the project. These are quite different purposes which is why the specifications and drawings must be crafted to complement one another. It is difficult, if not impossible, to correlate such information if either the specifications or the drawings take precedent over the other.

In no case should submittals, including shop drawings, ever be included in an order of precedence as these are NOT Contract Documents and, therefore, they should never be considered to have any precedence.

If you are using AIA Contract Documents, there is no precedence in the contract documents. AIA Document A201, Section 1.2.1, states, "The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all." If any document has precedence over another document, that would be the Owner-Contractor agreement. If there is a conflict in the Contract Documents, A201, Section 3.2.2, requires the contractor to review the Contract Documents and report promptly to the Architect "any errors, inconsistencies or omissions discovered."

Relying on an order of precedence could produce unexpected or unintended consequences. 

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

Typically, we rely on and enforce the verbiage in the A201 that Ronald mentioned (similar language is also in the A232) with varied success. We have had clients that in their procurement or general conditions documents in Div 00 or 01, indicate an order of precedence for the documents (specs>drawings>general conditions). We have also had both the A201 or A232 language as well as the owner's language on the same project, so that makes for an even more confusing discussion.

Certainly, it isn't a "fun discussion" to have when there is a conflict in the documents. You have the balance of enforcing the documents while trying to save face/keep your integrity. The contractor "bought" the Contract Documents, so it is up to them to read them and bring up conflicts and questions at bid time. That being said, architects need to continually do what we can to improve documents through QA/QC.

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

------------------------------
Janene Christopher AIA
Steinberg Hart
San Diego CA
------------------------------

This is excellent topic. I have seen the following included in the Supplementary General Conditions on a handful of projects.

1.1 BASIC DEFINITIONS

1.1.1 Add the following to subparagraph 1.1.1:Conflicts or discrepancies among the Contract Documents shall be resolved the following order of priority:

1. The Agreement and Amendments to the Agreement and revisions of the Agreement by Addenda with those of later date taking precedence over those of earlier date;
2. The Supplementary General Conditions;
3. The General Conditions;
4. Drawings and Specifications; Drawings govern Specifications for quantity and location; and Specifications govern Drawings for quality and performance. In the event of ambiguity in quantity or quality, the greater quantity and better quality shall govern; and
5. Figured dimensions govern scale dimensions, and large-scale Drawings govern small scale Drawings.

When conflicts have risen on past projects, I have pointed to this as a precedence.

Hope this helps,

------------------------------
James Woody AIA
Perkins + Will
Palmyra VA

Original Message:
Sent: 03-11-2025 12:36 PM
From: Janene K. Christopher AIA
Subject: Order of Precedence for Contract Documents

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

------------------------------
Janene Christopher AIA
Steinberg Hart
San Diego CA
------------------------------

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

The order of precedence text listed by James Woody comes from AIA A503-2018 Guide to Supplementary Conditions - a useful and underutilized document. I don't like to include an order of precedence in the documents, as it could lead to the Contractor determining for themselves how to resolve a conflict in the documents rather than submitting it to the Architect for interpretation This is, I believe, why the AIA Contract Documents Committee has long resisted the pressure to include an order of precedence in the AIA A201. The ultimate goal of the AIA documents is to resolve conflicts and deliver the project that meets the Owner's requirements. Sometimes that means the Architect has to determine that resolution, exposing their firm to claims due to conflicts in their own documents. Another reason to respect the AIA documents.

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

Thanks Phillip. 

I have used the order of precedence to support my position during change order negotiations. I found it particularly useful on GMPs, when the contractor wants to argue what their subcontractor bought vs what they owe.

As arbiter of the contract for construction there will be cases when we have to determine if a change was the result of an error or omission. And there will be errors and omissions. 

What this conversation highlights is the AIA Contract Documents are designed to work together. They work as a suite of documents vs standalone. When an owner elects to use an AIA contract with the architect and an AIA contract with the contractor, that is the best-case scenario as the contracts talk to and reference one another. It also ensures that both contracts are based on a set of definitions, which is also an AIA document, so there is no (or less) ubiquity. 

I may use this topic in one of our future Architects in Work Boots workshops at the AIA Convention. Good stuff.

Jim Woody, AIA

The order of precedence text listed by James Woody comes from AIA A503-2018 Guide to Supplementary Conditions - a useful and underutilized document. I don't like to include an order of precedence in the documents, as it could lead to the Contractor determining for themselves how to resolve a conflict in the documents rather than submitting it to the Architect for interpretation This is, I believe, why the AIA Contract Documents Committee has long resisted the pressure to include an order of precedence in the AIA A201. The ultimate goal of the AIA documents is to resolve conflicts and deliver the project that meets the Owner's requirements. Sometimes that means the Architect has to determine that resolution, exposing their firm to claims due to conflicts in their own documents. Another reason to respect the AIA documents.

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

The order of precedence text listed by James Woody comes from AIA A503-2018 Guide to Supplementary Conditions - a useful and underutilized document. I don't like to include an order of precedence in the documents, as it could lead to the Contractor determining for themselves how to resolve a conflict in the documents rather than submitting it to the Architect for interpretation This is, I believe, why the AIA Contract Documents Committee has long resisted the pressure to include an order of precedence in the AIA A201. The ultimate goal of the AIA documents is to resolve conflicts and deliver the project that meets the Owner's requirements. Sometimes that means the Architect has to determine that resolution, exposing their firm to claims due to conflicts in their own documents. Another reason to respect the AIA documents.

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

AIA Documents are drafted from three perspectives.  First, they are to represent current practice, not to create new practice. Next, the documents are drafted so that all related documents are completely coordinated.  Last, they are written to represent best practices, tested through wide experience and legal cases. The documents need to work for small firms to large firms, for experienced practitioners to inexperienced practitioners, and even work when the incorrect/not best document is selected. 

So, the basic AIA approach to Contract Documents is that all contract documents are considered equal and mutually inter-supportive of each other. AIA A503-2018 Guide to Supplementary Conditions contains suggested or optional language for situations that either are not the best of best practice or not the most common practice but still occur often enough for AIA to offer suggested best practices language that sill works and is coordinated with their other documents.

Whether you use an order of precedence supplemental language is a decision for how you practice.  On one hand, if a conflict comes up between contract documents and all are considered equal, the architect ethically must select the correct option or interpretation.  That said, as often as not, the contractor is going to accuse the architect of making the decision that is best for the architect, sort of having it both ways. That's a tough situation.

With precedence of documents, it's both good- we know what will be the determiner- and the bad- that if the higher priority document is wrong and the lower priority document is right- you're stuck.

In my past practices, we did have a precedence of documents condition for the following reason.  Specifications more often than not were written, including an office master spec, by more experienced staff, while details and drawings often were created by less experienced staff. Given a conflict, we wanted something created by the more experienced staff to take precedence over something created by less experienced staff. Case in point: often specs are written to install something "in strict accordance with the manufacturer's written recommendations." What was on the drawings wasn't perfectly in line with what the manufacturer required.  We had an out- the higher priority document required following the manufacturer's requirements. Whether we succeeded in the argument, at least we had some advantage to start with.

The order of precedence text listed by James Woody comes from AIA A503-2018 Guide to Supplementary Conditions - a useful and underutilized document. I don't like to include an order of precedence in the documents, as it could lead to the Contractor determining for themselves how to resolve a conflict in the documents rather than submitting it to the Architect for interpretation This is, I believe, why the AIA Contract Documents Committee has long resisted the pressure to include an order of precedence in the AIA A201. The ultimate goal of the AIA documents is to resolve conflicts and deliver the project that meets the Owner's requirements. Sometimes that means the Architect has to determine that resolution, exposing their firm to claims due to conflicts in their own documents. Another reason to respect the AIA documents.

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

In my consulting role on projects gone bad, I am seeing more precedence clauses in the General Conditions and Owner-Contractor Agreement, especially when the General Contractor is providing preconstruction services and has heavily edited one or both of these two documents.The "assumptions and clarifications" attached to the O-C Agreement is always #1 on the precedence list, typically followed by the Contractor edited General Conditions, with the Architect's Instruments of Service are always last. Precedence Clauses are neither good or bad, but how they are used are! When correctly used by the Architect applying skilled judgement to the unique project circumstances, precedence clauses can assist in clarifying and administering Contract Documents in accordance with the Architect's design intent. However, they can also be used to take advantage of Owners who lack technical and construction contract experience. 

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

In my consulting role on projects gone bad, I am seeing more precedence clauses in the General Conditions and Owner-Contractor Agreement, especially when the General Contractor is providing preconstruction services and has heavily edited one or both of these two documents.The "assumptions and clarifications" attached to the O-C Agreement is always #1 on the precedence list, typically followed by the Contractor edited General Conditions, with the Architect's Instruments of Service are always last. Precedence Clauses are neither good or bad, but how they are used are! When correctly used by the Architect applying skilled judgement to the unique project circumstances, precedence clauses can assist in clarifying and administering Contract Documents in accordance with the Architect's design intent. However, they can also be used to take advantage of Owners who lack technical and construction contract experience. 

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

In response to Michael Katzin and in full agreement with his comments, in the limited situations where I have been involved with GMP contracts, the A&C's always tend to be a point of friction later in the project as the Contractor or CM rarely define the items in the same detailed manner as does the Architect in its Instruments of Service. They tend to be vague and are subject to the interpretation of the Contractor, rather than interpretation by the A/E which the AIA A201 requires. Therefore, establishing the A&C's globally as being ahead of the drawings and specifications in precedence can be a slippery slope for the Owner and for the A/E.

In my consulting role on projects gone bad, I am seeing more precedence clauses in the General Conditions and Owner-Contractor Agreement, especially when the General Contractor is providing preconstruction services and has heavily edited one or both of these two documents.The "assumptions and clarifications" attached to the O-C Agreement is always #1 on the precedence list, typically followed by the Contractor edited General Conditions, with the Architect's Instruments of Service are always last. Precedence Clauses are neither good or bad, but how they are used are! When correctly used by the Architect applying skilled judgement to the unique project circumstances, precedence clauses can assist in clarifying and administering Contract Documents in accordance with the Architect's design intent. However, they can also be used to take advantage of Owners who lack technical and construction contract experience. 

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

In response to Michael Katzin and in full agreement with his comments, in the limited situations where I have been involved with GMP contracts, the A&C's always tend to be a point of friction later in the project as the Contractor or CM rarely define the items in the same detailed manner as does the Architect in its Instruments of Service. They tend to be vague and are subject to the interpretation of the Contractor, rather than interpretation by the A/E which the AIA A201 requires. Therefore, establishing the A&C's globally as being ahead of the drawings and specifications in precedence can be a slippery slope for the Owner and for the A/E.

In my consulting role on projects gone bad, I am seeing more precedence clauses in the General Conditions and Owner-Contractor Agreement, especially when the General Contractor is providing preconstruction services and has heavily edited one or both of these two documents.The "assumptions and clarifications" attached to the O-C Agreement is always #1 on the precedence list, typically followed by the Contractor edited General Conditions, with the Architect's Instruments of Service are always last. Precedence Clauses are neither good or bad, but how they are used are! When correctly used by the Architect applying skilled judgement to the unique project circumstances, precedence clauses can assist in clarifying and administering Contract Documents in accordance with the Architect's design intent. However, they can also be used to take advantage of Owners who lack technical and construction contract experience. 

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

In response to Michael Katzin and in full agreement with his comments, in the limited situations where I have been involved with GMP contracts, the A&C's always tend to be a point of friction later in the project as the Contractor or CM rarely define the items in the same detailed manner as does the Architect in its Instruments of Service. They tend to be vague and are subject to the interpretation of the Contractor, rather than interpretation by the A/E which the AIA A201 requires. Therefore, establishing the A&C's globally as being ahead of the drawings and specifications in precedence can be a slippery slope for the Owner and for the A/E.

In my consulting role on projects gone bad, I am seeing more precedence clauses in the General Conditions and Owner-Contractor Agreement, especially when the General Contractor is providing preconstruction services and has heavily edited one or both of these two documents.The "assumptions and clarifications" attached to the O-C Agreement is always #1 on the precedence list, typically followed by the Contractor edited General Conditions, with the Architect's Instruments of Service are always last. Precedence Clauses are neither good or bad, but how they are used are! When correctly used by the Architect applying skilled judgement to the unique project circumstances, precedence clauses can assist in clarifying and administering Contract Documents in accordance with the Architect's design intent. However, they can also be used to take advantage of Owners who lack technical and construction contract experience. 

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

In response to Michael Katzin and in full agreement with his comments, in the limited situations where I have been involved with GMP contracts, the A&C's always tend to be a point of friction later in the project as the Contractor or CM rarely define the items in the same detailed manner as does the Architect in its Instruments of Service. They tend to be vague and are subject to the interpretation of the Contractor, rather than interpretation by the A/E which the AIA A201 requires. Therefore, establishing the A&C's globally as being ahead of the drawings and specifications in precedence can be a slippery slope for the Owner and for the A/E.

In my consulting role on projects gone bad, I am seeing more precedence clauses in the General Conditions and Owner-Contractor Agreement, especially when the General Contractor is providing preconstruction services and has heavily edited one or both of these two documents.The "assumptions and clarifications" attached to the O-C Agreement is always #1 on the precedence list, typically followed by the Contractor edited General Conditions, with the Architect's Instruments of Service are always last. Precedence Clauses are neither good or bad, but how they are used are! When correctly used by the Architect applying skilled judgement to the unique project circumstances, precedence clauses can assist in clarifying and administering Contract Documents in accordance with the Architect's design intent. However, they can also be used to take advantage of Owners who lack technical and construction contract experience. 

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

In response to Michael Katzin and in full agreement with his comments, in the limited situations where I have been involved with GMP contracts, the A&C's always tend to be a point of friction later in the project as the Contractor or CM rarely define the items in the same detailed manner as does the Architect in its Instruments of Service. They tend to be vague and are subject to the interpretation of the Contractor, rather than interpretation by the A/E which the AIA A201 requires. Therefore, establishing the A&C's globally as being ahead of the drawings and specifications in precedence can be a slippery slope for the Owner and for the A/E.

In my consulting role on projects gone bad, I am seeing more precedence clauses in the General Conditions and Owner-Contractor Agreement, especially when the General Contractor is providing preconstruction services and has heavily edited one or both of these two documents.The "assumptions and clarifications" attached to the O-C Agreement is always #1 on the precedence list, typically followed by the Contractor edited General Conditions, with the Architect's Instruments of Service are always last. Precedence Clauses are neither good or bad, but how they are used are! When correctly used by the Architect applying skilled judgement to the unique project circumstances, precedence clauses can assist in clarifying and administering Contract Documents in accordance with the Architect's design intent. However, they can also be used to take advantage of Owners who lack technical and construction contract experience. 

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?

In my consulting role on projects gone bad, I am seeing more precedence clauses in the General Conditions and Owner-Contractor Agreement, especially when the General Contractor is providing preconstruction services and has heavily edited one or both of these two documents.The "assumptions and clarifications" attached to the O-C Agreement is always #1 on the precedence list, typically followed by the Contractor edited General Conditions, with the Architect's Instruments of Service are always last. Precedence Clauses are neither good or bad, but how they are used are! When correctly used by the Architect applying skilled judgement to the unique project circumstances, precedence clauses can assist in clarifying and administering Contract Documents in accordance with the Architect's design intent. However, they can also be used to take advantage of Owners who lack technical and construction contract experience. 

Is there a preferred order of precedence for Contract Docs? and if so which section in Div01 should it be listed.  My understanding is that AIA contracts has tried to flatten the requirement and give equal weight to drawings vs specifications. This (AIA direction) I find to be confusing as typically this is where the most conflicts happen. Thoughts?