In a typical construction project, the owner provides detailed plans and specifications to the contractor, and then requires the contractor to build the project in strict accordance with those plans and specifications. Almost 100 years ago, the United States Supreme Court held that an owner providing such plans and specifications also impliedly warrants the accuracy and adequacy of those plans and specifications. In the case of United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 (1918), the Supreme Court held that the contractor would not be responsible for the consequences of defects in the plans and specifications, and further that the owner would be responsible to the contractor for the contractor's increased costs resulting from defective plans and specifications.

The implied warranty set forth in the Spearin case was twofold: first, that the information contained in the plans and specifications would be accurate, and second, that the plans and specifications, if followed, would be adequate to accomplish the purpose of the project. Most importantly, the Spearin case also held that the responsibility of the owner is not overcome by the usual clauses contained in construction contracts requiring the contractor to visit the site, to check the plans, to inform himself of the requirements of the work, or to assume responsibility for the work until completion and acceptance. Simply put, contractual language obligating the contractor to examine the site did not impose upon the contractor the further duty of making a diligent inquiry into local conditions to confirm whether the owner's representations in the plans and specifications were accurate. The contractor was also not obligated to second-guess the adequacy of the plans and specifications to accomplish the purpose of the project. The Supreme Court emphasized that the owner's warranties were implied by law, and that they did not need to be expressly stated in the contract documents.

While at least one Colorado court had previously held that a contractor was not responsible for problems caused by deficient plans and specifications provided by an owner, that court did not specifically mention the Spearin doctrine. However, the Colorado Supreme Court has now expressly acknowledged the Spearin doctrine and cited that doctrine in support of a contractor's right to rely on plans and specifications provided by the owner. The Colorado Supreme Court case is BRW Inc. v. Dufficy & Sons Inc., 99 P.3d 66 (Colo. 2004). The Dufficy case involved a construction project performed for the City and County of Denver to construct two steel bridges on Speer Boulevard over the South Platte River. The alleged defects in the plans and specifications related to the suitability and adequacy of paint applied to the structural steel; that paint supposedly was inappropriate for Denver's altitude and arid climate. The specifications for the paint had been supplied by the City and County of Denver as owner. The contractors claimed that they had incurred increased direct and delay costs as a result of the inadequate paint specified by the contract documents.

Upon review of the situation, the Colorado Supreme Court held that the City and County of Denver had impliedly warranted the adequacy of the plans and specifications relating to the paint, and that the prime contractor was entitled to pursue the city for economic loss due to those faulty plans and specifications, citing the U.S. Supreme Court Spearin decision.

While the Spearin doctrine is a powerful tool for contractors to utilize when plans and specifications provided by owners cause problems on construction projects, certain exceptions to the Spearin doctrine exist. If the problem relates to circumstances that the contractor actually knew of or reasonably should have known of, the doctrine may not be applied. The Spearin doctrine may not be applied to obvious defects, or to defects that a reasonable pre-bid inspection would have disclosed. Contractors also need to be aware of the difference between positive representations in the plans and specifications and mere silence in the plans and specifications. Silence regarding a condition or method of construction is not necessarily a representation that an adverse condition will not be encountered. In general, the more detail provided by the plans and specifications, the greater the degree of reliance on those plans and specifications allowed to the contractor.