The six questions
1. Does a regulatory text cite it for this building type. That is the first filter. If so, the standard binds and the discussion ends. Competences being divided, one must look at federal, regional and municipal level, as explained in the article on three levels of rules.
2. Does the permit cite it. A permit condition makes a standard binding for the project, independently of the contract. It is the most frequently forgotten filter.
3. Does a contract document cite it. Specification, contract, technical annexes. Citation suffices to create the obligation between the parties.
4. Does the project fall within the standard's scope. A standard defines its own field, and a project may fall outside it by nature, size or use.
5. Is the building new or existing. Many technical texts address new build only, and existing buildings fall under separate regimes, covered in the article on new, existing and refurbishment.
6. Which version is meant. A dated reference freezes the version, an undated one follows developments, and a standard may have been withdrawn or superseded.
What each answer changes
| Answer | Consequence |
|---|---|
| Cited by a text | binding, non-compliance is a breach of that text |
| Cited in the permit | binding for that project |
| Cited in the contract | binding between the parties |
| No citation | counts as good practice, departure to be justified technically |
| Outside the scope | not applicable, but may remain relevant as a reference |
The commonest case is the penultimate one. An uncited standard applicable to the project remains a rule of good practice, developed in the article on good practice and liability.
The order matters
The six questions are not equal.
The first three determine the obligation. They are asked before any technical examination, because a single positive answer settles the matter.
The next three determine the scope. They specify what exactly applies, and they are useful even where the standard is not binding.
Stopping after the first three is a common error. Knowing that a standard binds does not yet say which version or which parts.
The traps
Four configurations regularly lead to a wrong answer. They relate to the version, the scope and the level of rule.
Confusing a standard with a technical document. A widely followed technical publication is not necessarily a standard, and does not carry the same presumption.
Assuming a European standard applies automatically. Its transposition into a national standard does not make it binding of itself.
Ignoring the municipal level. A municipal regulation may impose requirements absent from regional texts.
Reasoning from new build for an existing project. That is the costliest error, because it leads to applying requirements that are not required, or omitting others.
Documenting the check
A simple practice offering lasting protection. It consists in keeping a trace of the check carried out.
For each standard examined, keep the answer to the six questions and the source of that answer. A table of a few lines suffices.
That record serves twice. It avoids repeating the check at each project stage, and it shows, if a claim arises, that the question was asked and investigated.
It is the same reasoning that justifies retaining the detailed measurement, covered in the guide on measurement and specification. The trace matters when the question returns years later.
What this means for a professional
Three rules.
Ask the six questions before pricing, because a binding standard discovered late changes the project.
Never answer from memory. The status of a standard changes, and the applicable version depends on the file.
Write the answer down. An undocumented check will have to be repeated, often at the worst moment.
This article reflects professional practice at the date of checking and serves as orientation. It does not constitute legal advice and does not replace assessment of the individual case.