Earlier this year, I was engaged to review the capital program of a large technology company.
What I found surprised me.

There were no owner-side building rules.
No construction conduct standards.
No documentation of expectations—formal or informal.

The team relied on a single preferred vendor who “knew how things were usually done.”
All of that institutional knowledge lived inside one supplier relationship.

---

The Problem & Context

In commercial construction, whether you’re building new, renovating, or upgrading existing systems, owners carry more risk than they realize when basic construction rules and regulations aren’t documented.

Many organizations assume their architect, CM, or preferred GC already understands the “house rules.” But in practice, those rules differ widely between companies, facilities, and even projects.

Industry data shows the spread in owner expectations is one of the top causes of avoidable cost growth and schedule confusion (FMI, ENR). Yet most mid-sized companies have no written construction policies at all.

The risk multiplies when work occurs in leased facilities. Landlords often impose strict requirements on debris removal, after-hours work, shutdown protocols, and hot work permitting. Without an internal rulebook, those requirements are easy to miss or violate.

The organizational challenge is simple:
If your rules aren’t written, they don’t exist.
And if they don’t exist, your vendors decide them for you.

---

Insight & Lesson

1. Establish Clear Lines of Authority

On most commercial projects, the fastest path to conflict is unclear direction. When owners don’t define who can authorize changes, request adjustments, or issue instructions, contractors receive mixed signals and projects drift.

A recent dispute between Disney and its former general contractor, Validus Construction, illustrates the point. The contractor alleged that multiple owner representatives issued field direction outside formal channels—direction that later became a source of claims.
News coverage
Complaint document

A rulebook eliminates this ambiguity. It defines:

• Who speaks for the owner

• Who approves access, shutdowns, and clarifications

• How information flows between teams

Projects run smoother when decision authority isn’t improvisational.

---

2. Control Scope Through a Formal Change Path

Owners often underestimate how much shadow decision-making happens during construction. User tweaks, preference adjustments, and undocumented clarifications accumulate quietly until they become cost or schedule disputes.

In the Disney–Validus case, the contractor claimed that major scope changes were introduced without proper documentation or approval. These shifts later became a point of contention during the dispute.
Miami Herald reporting

A rulebook establishes:

• A single channel for change requests

• Required documentation (drawings, specs, bulletins)

• Review and turnaround expectations

• Notification steps for cost and schedule impacts

Scope only stays stable when changes move through a structured pathway.

---

3. Define Procedures for Shutdowns, Access, and Life-Safety Work

MEP shutdowns, fire alarm impairments, and life-safety corrective work require tight coordination. These steps often touch building operations, security, landlord requirements, and public safety.

In the Disney–Validus dispute, disagreements around life-safety access and shutdown approvals became a significant source of tension. These operational steps require clear rules, not individual interpretation.

A rulebook clarifies:

• Who approves shutdowns

• Required notice periods

• Safety protocols and sequencing

• Escalation steps if hazards are identified

When the process is defined, sensitive work moves forward without conflict.

---

4. Standardize How Decisions and Reviews Are Made

One of the most consistent sources of friction on owner-driven projects is delayed decision-making. Approvals sit idle. Clarifications go unanswered. Change orders linger for weeks with no response.

The Disney–Validus matter included allegations of slow or inconsistent review cycles. Delays that affected cost, sequencing, and productivity. This is predictable when owners don’t formalize how reviews work.

A rulebook defines:

• Review timelines

• Required backup documentation

• Responsible reviewers (PM, finance, design, landlord)

• What happens when deadlines aren’t met

Consistency in decision-making is a competitive advantage.

---

5. Set Procedures for Disputes, Corrections, and Termination

Even well-managed projects encounter coordination gaps and errors. What matters is whether the owner has a defined process for addressing them.

In the Validus lawsuit, disagreements escalated into back-charges, cure disputes, and ultimately contract termination. Much of that escalation stemmed from unclear procedures around notice, documentation, and issue resolution.

A rulebook protects the owner by defining:

• Notice requirements

• Cure windows

• Documentation standards for deficiencies

• Steps before termination is considered

• How work-in-progress is secured

When the process is clear, disagreements get resolved—not litigated.

---

GOA Perspective

At GOA, we see this pattern often—organizations with strong capital ambitions but fragmented construction governance.

When we help owners formalize their building rules and regulations:

• Vendor disputes drop dramatically

• Cost predictability improves

• Oversight becomes easier and less reactive

• Institutional knowledge stops walking out the door

For some clients, implementing clear rules has reduced decision friction by 20–30% across their capital program.

Rules don’t slow projects down.
They speed decision-making and reduce rework.

---

Close & Engagement

How are you documenting your construction expectations today?
Do your internal rules align with your landlord’s requirements?
Who owns that knowledge inside your organization—and is it written down?