This episode was sparked by a familiar and uncomfortable question: should you copy a specification section from a prior project, or start from scratch? Steve Gantner, Elias Saltz, Dave Stutzman explored why “copy-paste” has become such a common criticism from contractors and why that perception exists in the first place. They unpacked the risks of inheriting outdated codes, discontinued products, and mismatched scope, especially when prior edits and deletions are invisible. At the same time, they acknowledged the realities of practice, where templates, masters, and institutional knowledge can be powerful tools when managed correctly. The conversation ultimately reinforced that credibility, coordination, and project-specific thinking are what protect both the documents and the firm’s reputation.

Learning Points

• Industry insight: Contractors notice when specifications feel recycled. “Copy-paste” documents erode trust and signal a lack of coordination.
• Practice takeaway: If you reuse content, treat it as a template, not a finished product. Read it line by line against current drawings, codes, ownership, and site conditions.
• Process lesson: Masters and maintained templates are safer than copying entire project manuals. Controlled updates reduce the risk of generational errors compounding over time.
• Risk or opportunity: The risk is hidden liability, outdated requirements, and reputational damage. The opportunity lies in disciplined document management that strengthens accuracy, efficiency, and confidence across the project team.

In the end, the consensus leaned toward a simple principle: best practice is to start fresh, or at least review as if you did.