When documentation doesn’t fully match the spec how would you handle it?
Hi everyone, I hope you can help me out with this. I’m a bit stuck on how to approach a situation I’m dealing with and would really appreciate some guidance.
I’m dealing with a situation where the contract clearly requires SSPC-SP10, but things don’t quite add up. Initially, the contractor’s records referenced SP6, and now the contractor is claiming SP10 compliance after the fact that the inspection caught into the inconsistency. The coating has already been applied and there are some visible defects, so they submitted documentation to support that everything is acceptable. The photos they provided do look closer to SP10 in some areas, but there’s no clear traceability, no way to link those images to specific locations, components, or even confirm when they were taken. There are no inspection records explicitly stating that SP10 was verified and accepted at the time of surface preparation either.
What’s more concerning is that their own submittal states the QC reports were “updated,” which makes it seem like the records were adjusted later rather than reflecting what was actually verified in real time. On top of that, the manufacturer, who also executed the work, issued a letter stating the surface met SP10, but it reads more like a technical interpretation based on available information than a true inspection record. They’re also leaning heavily on adhesion results and coating performance, almost as if that could replace the requirement for proper surface preparation.
So now it feels like the discussion has shifted from whether they complied with the spec to whether the system “works,” and I’m not sure that’s a valid substitution even if it works for now. It feels like we’re being asked to accept reconstructed documentation instead of actual field verification. Has anyone dealt with something like this before? How do you push back on this kind of argument without it turning into a full dispute?