Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract (CSI-based)
In CSI practice (as reflected in the CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide and CDT study materials), warranties are treated as supplemental protection for the owner, not as a primary quality-control method. CSI emphasizes that the specifier should carefully research products, manufacturers, and performance history, and that the specifications should clearly define the required quality, performance criteria, and execution. A warranty cannot compensate for poor product selection or incomplete specification of performance and quality.
Because of this, relying on a warranty as a substitute for thorough investigation of a product and its manufacturer (Option D) is specifically contrary to CSI guidance. CSI’s approach is:
First: proper investigation and evaluation of the product and manufacturer (technical suitability, history, service, financial stability).
Second: clear, enforceable specifications stating performance and quality requirements.
Third: warranties as an additional contractual obligation, not a replacement for the first two.
That is exactly what Option D fails to do, so it is the practice that should be avoided.
Why the other options are acceptable in CSI terms:
Option A – Requiring or permitting a warranty that strengthens the owner’s rightsCSI allows and often encourages warranties that provide greater protection than the default legal warranties, so long as they are realistic, coordinated with the contractor and manufacturer, and enforceable. Strengthening the owner’s rights through clear warranty language is consistent with CSI’s recommended practice, not something to avoid.
Option B – Requiring minimum warranty coverage available for a particular productIt is normal in CSI-style specifications to state a minimum warranty duration or coverage (for example, “not less than 5 years” for roofing). This sets a clear baseline of expectations and is fully compatible with CSI guidance, provided it matches industry practice and project needs.
Option C – Including language to require warranties extending beyond the contractor’s one-year correction periodCSI explicitly distinguishes between the contractor’s correction period (often one year, as described in the General Conditions) and longer manufacturer warranties (e.g., 5, 10, or 20 years). It is routine and appropriate for specifications to require manufacturer warranties that extend beyond the one-year correction period, especially for major building envelope or equipment systems. CSI materials show these longer warranties as normal practice, not something to avoid.
So, under CSI’s Construction Specifications Practice and CDT body of knowledge, the clearly incorrect—and therefore “to be avoided”—practice is Option D: counting on a warranty instead of doing the proper technical due diligence and specifying performance and quality requirements.
CSI reference concepts:
CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide – chapters on warranties and product selection (discussing warranties as supplemental protection, not a substitute for proper specifying).
CSI CDT Study Materials – sections on Division 01, product selection, and quality assurance/quality control versus warranties.
