Scope should be spelled out exactly, you are not over thinking this. No one like surprises and the best way to avoid suprises is to spell it all out.

I understand your dilemma as I drafted and negotiated contracts. But one has to use a rule of reason when dealing with smaller entitles. You want to protect yourself if things go south without scaring the other party away by presenting them with a document that would be used to construct the Hoover Dam :--)

My goal was to make sure that any third party reading the contract would have a clear understanding of what the parties agreed to - therefore as posted you want to completely spell out the scope of the work and the materials to be used. In my remodeling contract, this was achieved because my designer had provided very plans with specifications. If things need to be decided down the road - i.e. exact color of stain or paint - that was specified and all the parties initialed the approved door (for example). I feel confident that if something wasn't done, a third party coming in could look at the plans and the contract and have a reasonable idea of what the intent of the parties was.

I also threw in the language necessary to protect myself such as requiring that I be named as additional insured; I was provided with copies of insurance (liability and workman's comp) and a copy of valid contractor's licenses including plumber and electrical subcontractor licenses. I had a clause about release of mechanics liens and of course a payment schedule. I also added the bare minimum of boilerplate regarding indemnity etc.

I know that when this has been discussed in terms of contracts, there has been advice that specific guidelines be addressed - i.e. that tile be installed in accordance with specific industry guidelines. I didn't have this kind of language because I was relying on the expertise of my designer who had worked with this GC on multiple projects and I had also taken a look at projects he had completed to get a sense of the quality of his work. Perhaps I was taking a chance but again, I was cognizant of what would be achieved by that.

Knock on wood things seem to be going along well as everything looks great and I am relying on my designer who is really acting as my project manager. I suspect she is much more likely than I am to spot shoddy work unless it is really egregious since construction is completely out of my field of expertise.

In retrospect the only issue so far - knock on wood - is how long it is taking and I suspect that is just the nature of a complete gut remodel - especially in a high rise condo which has restrictions on work hours and in which everything has to be brought up and down in one elevator.

WAY too vague and you could be hit with a big financial surprise.

Re-think the cabinet re-facing. It is usually nearly as expensive as new cabinets and with new ones, you can replace lower cabinets with wonderful, wonderful DRAWERS - lots and lots of DRAWERS!

I'd be much more concerned about their reputation than their ability to specify in a contract. Don't like the way it's written? Put 10% down and the balance at satisfactory completion. You'll love it, believe me.

You need better design work on the front end. Because you would not be wasting money on refacing at all, if you knew enough about kitchen projects. And you would have a set of construction documents and product specs to incorporate into any estimate vetting any contractor. And the subsequent contract.

You’re trying to be the GC here. And you don’t know what you don’t know about Construction. And you’re wasting money and effort on a poor expensive solution. With folks trying to sell you that product, rather than ones who have a fiduciary duty to help you choose the correct course of action.