Flooring Specification Review

Common specification deficiencies

• Slip resistance not referenced at all — common in older specifications, problematic if a slip claim later arises
• Slip resistance referenced only by R-rating — sufficient for procurement but not for in-service compliance
• BS 7976-2 quoted as current standard — withdrawn in 2022; should reference BS EN 16165:2021 Annex C
• R-rating set too low for the environment — R10 specified where R11 or R12 is needed
• PTV threshold set without wet/dry distinction — wet performance is what matters in most environments
• Slider type not specified — Slider 96 vs 55 produces different results; both methods needed for some environments
• Pre-handover testing not required — leaves the contractor with no evidence the installed floor meets the spec

What a robust specification looks like

For a typical commercial environment, a robust specification will reference: BS EN 16165:2021 Annex C (formerly BS 7976-2); a minimum PTV wet of 36 (or higher for sensitive environments); the appropriate slider (Slider 96 for shod, Slider 55/57 for barefoot); pre-handover independent testing; and where R-rating is quoted, the linked product datasheet that supports it.

The architect-and-supplier interface

Many flooring specifications are drafted by architects but populated with manufacturer datasheet language. The two do not always align cleanly. A common pattern: an architect's spec calls for 'PTV 36+ wet' while the chosen tile manufacturer's datasheet quotes only an R-rating, and no one has verified the R-rating actually translates to 36+ wet PTV on this specific surface. Specification review catches these gaps before procurement.

Specification for retrofit and refurbishment

Refurbishment projects often inherit the previous floor's specification by default. Where the new use differs from the original (for example, a retail unit converting to hospitality), the inherited specification may no longer be appropriate. Independent review identifies these cases.

Working with QS and main contractor

For the QS team, specification review at tender stage produces fewer downstream variations and clearer compliance evidence at handover. For the main contractor, it reduces the risk of installing a non-compliant floor and being asked to remediate at their cost.