Heated disagreement w/ boss. Height of FRP
My boss has only ever works at our small family owned design-build firm. He over his long career has not done a ton of 3rd party architect competitive bid jobs.
So this is a restaurant. 9' ceilings in this scenario. 3rd party architect.
Specifications say kitchen FRP is supposed to be 4x8 smooth FRP.
Drawings don't show height of FRP on elevations, and the Finish Plan has your typical encompassing line for wall extents saying "FRP".
My boss says the subcontractor needs to provide 4x10 FRP sheets so it's full height (again 9' ACT ceilings). That if the FRP wasnt meant to go full height the architect would have put "FRP/Drywall" on the Finish Plan.
I feel like this should have been an RFI, otherwise I've been taught Specifications override Drawings, especially if it's explicit and the other could be ambiguous. I told him I'll enforce whatever he wants with the sub, but respectfully disagree. He did not like that I wouldn't blindly agree with him. I've had this issue with him of having to enforce unreasonable interpretations (which he genuinely believes) with subcontractors where they eat the entire cost. He called me this evening saying AIA (not sure if he's referencing our contact or in general) says drawings and specifications are "complementary" and conflicts are decided by architect.
Personally, I rarely ever see architects call out multiple finishes with those encompassing lines on Finish plans. Maybe occasionally they'll say FRP/Tile but even that's usually left up to Elevations.