What Did We Miss in the Work Letter? Project Experts Weigh In

Experienced project professionals share the overlooked requirements that can become expensive after the lease is signed.

Originally published May 2015. Updated October 2026 with current owner-side perspective on tenant improvement scope, responsibility and risk allocation.

A tenant once told me about an argument with his landlord shortly after moving into his newly constructed office.

He went to lower the window shades.

There weren’t any.

When he questioned the landlord about why there were no shades in what he understood to be a turnkey build-out, the response was simple:

“It wasn’t in the work letter.”

What the tenant thought was part of the building-standard turnkey build-out was, in fact, missing from the work letter.

It became a costly oversight.

The Tenant Improvement Work Letter is a rider to the lease that outlines the physical improvements to be performed and establishes important responsibilities between landlord and tenant.

Like other business terms in a lease, the work letter is negotiable.

And what it doesn’t say can sometimes become as important as what it does.

What Were Other Project Professionals Finding?

When I originally wrote this article in 2015, I asked colleagues in the Owner’s Representative LinkedIn Discussion Group to contribute some of the head-scratching items they routinely found missing during work-letter reviews.

Their answers demonstrated just how broad the exposure could be.

Richard Neuman, New York

• No window treatments
• No water lines or vacuum breakers for coffee/water because the machines were never mentioned
• Missing floor chops for conference-room power/data
• Missing wall-mounted power/data for audiovisual systems, such as conference rooms
• No plywood blocking for wall-mounted monitors

Mark Peretti, Independent Owner’s Representative, Greater Los Angeles area

• Adequate and appropriate vehicle parking for employees and customers
• Accessibility for employees and customers relative to ADA compliance

Richard Miller, Construction-Engineering Consultant, Las Vegas

• Electrical service available, including maximum load, voltage, phase and amps
• Computer-room loading, UPS system and pre-action sprinkler system
• Door hardware for security

Brian Bott, Construction Manager, Hawaiian Islands

• Utilities passing through the space should be identified at entry and exit points
• When a tenant departs, unneeded lines should be removed
• Pre- and post-move inspections should include above-ceiling inspections
• Access panels—usually, in his experience, there should be more and they should be larger
• Valve tagging and cleanouts
• New panel boxes should provide capacity beyond current breaker requirements, including consideration for service loops
• Knockout walls where increasing from single to double doors may be required later

George Crawford, Senior Director of Construction at The Howard Hughes Corporation, Houston, TX area

• Building insulation
• Walk pads to roof equipment
• Labeling and back-door signs
• Firestopping
• Trims to common areas
• Underlayment gaps
• Water submeters and electric submeters/breakers

Patrick McGarry, Civic Projects Manager at City of Carlsbad, San Diego, CA

• Outlets that do not match the power requirements for special equipment, including voltage, amps and plug type

Denis Delehanty, RMI LLC Construction & Project Management, Purcellville, VA

• Gutters dumping into small landlocked areas of dirt
• Conduit under sidewalks and driveways missing for stormwater runoff
• Water and electrical for sprinkler installation
• Missing conduit for data to the site and communications to remote security gates or service buildings
• Missing holes/conduit in floors to run data between floors for a single client
• Missing signage specifications
• Missing cable trays in ceilings

The List Was the Point

Looking back at those responses more than a decade later, what strikes me is not any one missing item.

It’s the range.

• Window treatments.
• Power.
• Data.
• Security.
• Accessibility.
• Fire protection.
• Roof access.
• Signage.
• Utilities.
• Future capacity.

These were experienced project professionals working in different markets and different roles, yet each could identify things that had been overlooked or inadequately addressed.

That’s why I don’t think the lesson is simply to develop a longer checklist.

No checklist will anticipate every requirement on every project.

The more important question is whether the people negotiating and planning the project understand enough about the tenant’s actual requirements to recognize what needs to be addressed.

“Building Standard” Doesn’t Answer Every Question

Terms such as building standard, turnkey and tenant allowance can create an impression that the scope is more completely defined than it really is.

But a tenant’s requirements may go well beyond a typical building standard.

A conference room may need audiovisual infrastructure.

A break area may require water and electrical connections for equipment.

Technology may require pathways, dedicated power or cooling.

Security requirements may affect doors and hardware.

Furniture may require power/data locations or blocking.

Special equipment may have electrical requirements that a standard outlet does not satisfy.

None of those items is particularly exotic.

But if nobody connects the tenant’s operational requirements to the work letter and project scope, they can still be missed.

The Drawings Don’t Automatically Resolve the Commercial Question

Another trap is assuming the construction documents will eventually sort everything out.

They may not.

A drawing can show a particular fixture, audiovisual system, electrical requirement or finish.

That establishes design intent.

It doesn’t necessarily establish who agreed to pay for it.

If the lease and work letter establish one expectation while the drawings develop another, that discrepancy should be identified before construction pricing and commitments make it harder to resolve.

That is one reason project involvement during lease negotiations can be so valuable.

The lease attorney understands the legal language.

The broker understands the transaction.

The architect understands the design.

The contractor understands the construction.

The tenant understands how the business needs to operate.

Someone still has to make sure those perspectives connect.

What I Would Ask Today

The examples my colleagues provided in 2015 remain useful, but today I would use them to drive a broader discussion about responsibility.

For significant requirements, I want to understand:

• What is the landlord providing?
• What is the tenant providing?
• What is considered building standard?
• What constitutes an upgrade?
• What is included in the landlord’s construction allowance?
• What assumptions were used to establish the allowance or pricing?
• What is specifically excluded?
• Who pays when the tenant’s requirements exceed the agreed standard?
• Who approves changes?
• What schedule obligations depend on tenant decisions?
• What happens when the documents don’t address an item?

Those aren’t merely construction questions.

They sit at the intersection of the lease, design, budget, schedule and the way the tenant expects to operate in the space.

Find the Gap While There Is Still Time to Resolve It

Once construction starts, an omitted requirement can become a change order.

An overlooked utility requirement can affect infrastructure.

An undefined building standard can become a pricing dispute.

A tenant requirement assumed to be included can suddenly become an additional cost.

And something as simple as window shades can become an argument over what everyone thought the other party understood.

The objective isn’t to write every possible future project decision into the work letter.

It’s to identify the requirements and assumptions that matter while the parties still have the ability to clarify them.

The original contributions to this article demonstrated how easily seemingly ordinary requirements can fall into the gaps between leasing, design and construction.

More than a decade later, the owner-side question I would ask is still very simple:

Where does it say who provides it?

Because once the lease is signed and the project is underway, “I thought it was included” is a much weaker position than having the responsibility clearly established.