Confusing Architect's Actions on Subm...

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1450 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 10:43 pm:    I am working with a new client whose Submittal Action stamp has 6 actions, 3 of them I understand completely, these are: "No Exception Taken", "Resubmit, and "Reject", I am confused about the other three: "Note Markings", "Comment Attached", and Confirm Markings". Isn't "Note Markings" and "Comment Attached" the same? Would one of my peers like to educate me. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 758 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 02:18 am:    Maybe more importantly what does the contractor and his subs thinks this means. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1451 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 02:42 am:    That's not important right now, I have to interpret what the architect wants so I can prepare the spec section. The Architect sent me his stamp so I could do that. At this point there is no Contractor to ask. The Architect is surprised I've never seen this language on a Submittal Review stamp. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 602 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 07:14 am:    Jerome: It's not your job to interpret what the architect's action markings on their submittal stamp mean. It's the architect's job to explain them to you. If your architect client can't articulate what the markings on their own stamp mean, how can they decide which marking to use, and how can they justify that to a contractor in the case of a dispute? Anonymous (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 11:00 am:    I agree with Dave. Ask the Architect. If they can't articulate the meanings, you probably have other things to worry about with the client. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2041 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 11:47 am:    From a pure grammar perspective, "Note Markings" would indicate to me marks on drawings, while "Comment Attached" would indicate a separate sheet from the Architect. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1452 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 12:09 pm:    Anon, its a new client, I expect all kinds of fun until the specs are issued. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1453 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 12:11 pm:    Am I the only specwriter on this forum that coordinates the Architect's actual Submittal Stamp with the Architect's Actions delineated in the specs? Say it isn't so? Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 688 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 12:25 pm:    I just define the differences between information submittals and action submittals Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 759 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 12:34 pm:    Jerome, This cowboy does what you do. Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 120 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 12:37 pm:    I would just take a stab at defining each term and then send your definitions to the Architect for confirmation. The terms are confusing and therefore do require definition. Here is what I would assume each term means: “No Exception Taken”: Submittal appears to comply with intent of Contract Documents. Architect has no exceptions to submittal. “Resubmit”: Except as indicated, Submittal appears to comply with intent of Contract Documents. Architect requires revision and resubmission of submittal. “Reject”: Submittal does not comply with intent of Contract Documents. Architect rejects submittal. “Note Markings”: Architect takes no exceptions to submittal as corrected per Architect’s markings. “Comment Attached”: Architect takes no exceptions to submittal as corrected per Architect’s attached comments. “Confirm Markings”: Architect requires Contractor’s confirmation of Architect’s markings. (p.s. I don't see the need for both a "reject" and a "resubmit" action. It seems that all rejected submittals would need to be resubmitted and all requests to resubmit would be rejections of the submittal. It also seems that the stamp would do better to just require all markings to be confirmed.) Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1454 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 12:40 pm:    Nathan, on Condo work, IMHO,the spec language should match the actual stamp, or at least this is what several attorneys have told me, off the record. The Submittal Stamp in turn should be approved by the Architect's Insurance Provider....oops, let's not start a conversation on the use of the words "approved" vs "reviewed" shall we, there are many other previous posts on this forum that tackle those semantics. The project in question is not a Condo, however I tend to carry thru this reasoning on all my building types, seldom a complaint from clients, of course CSI probably may not approve. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1455 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 12:43 pm:    Thanks, Richard, a great response, very helpful. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 804 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 12:51 pm:    I interpret it to be this way: Architect will check one of the first three to signify his or her action on the submittal. Then architect will select one or more of the last three (or none of them) to indicate where to find his or her comments (if any) If this is true, then the last three are probably superfluous, since it is the contractors responsibility to examine the returned submittal for comments. Just a guess... Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 689 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 01:05 pm:    Jerome, the submittal stamp process is defined by whats in the contract. The specs can amplify that, but not revise it. DPIC's manual (before the days of XL Group) said something like, "It doesn't matter what flowery watered down language you use on your stamp. If you use the AIA 201, you review, approve, or take other appropriate action. This has been tested and verified in the court of law on many occasions." Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1342 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 01:09 pm:    I do believe there is a difference between "Resubmit" and "Reject." I would request that a package be resubmitted if what was submitted basically complied with the requirements, but there were numerous corrections that need to be made or if there was a substantial error that needs correcting. I would reject a submittal if the entire package did not comply with the requirements, such as the product submitted is a substitution. I agree, there are better actions for a submittal stamp. What if the submittal was not required? Which of those actions would apply? Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1456 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 01:14 pm:    Nathan, I AGREE, unfortunately I am seldom privy to my client's contracts, and IMHO, I fear many of my clients lack a thorough understand of AIA 201. I stopped arguing with clients years ago about their Submittal Stamps, as part of my agreement, the Architect must provide a clean copy of their stamp which I than use to prepare the specs. If the language does not meet AIA 201, its my client's problem. user (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 01:19 pm:    Yes. Let the architect answer for submittal stamp. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 02:00 pm:    Stamp language aside for a moment ... How do you coordinate the General Requirements with the General Conditions if you aren't privy to it? Back to stamp language ... I wouldn't bother trying to convince a client to correct the language on the stamp for the same reasons you state. Usually it has been hashed out with attorneys and insurance providers to the point that everybody's CYA language is tripping all over itself (and everybody thinks they've gotten what they want without realizing it conflicts with the General Conditions). The argument was over the second the stamp was ordered. FWIW, I do coordinate the stamp language in my specs. But I only ever have to coordinate it once, with my firm's stamp, and then it's done. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1457 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 03:14 pm:    Guest: How do you coordinate the General Requirements with the General Conditions if you aren't privy to it? I have a very good contract, been doing it this way for over 25 years as an independent specwriter, no arguments to date. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 04:03 pm:    I'm not sure I understand your response. I thought coordination of Div 01 and the General Conditions was Spec Writing 101. Does your contract exclude coordination of Div 01 with the General Conditions or something like that? Do you end up coordinating it some other way? Seems strange that you wouldn't coordinate it, given your efforts in coordinating other things, like the stamp language. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 946 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 04:14 pm:    When I was consulting and couldn't get clients to share their Division 00 content but was still on the hook to get Division 01 out without impacting the schedule, I would give them a boilerplate (unedited) Division 01 with the explanation that this was all I owed them until they responded with a Division 00. I had to alter my standard contract after my very first consulting project to emphasize that my fee was based on A201 with a reasonable Supplementary Conditions; custom front ends resulted in an hourly rate for Division 01. With those I insisted on being paid to sit down with the lawyer who wrote the document as well as the client so we could go over every point in the document as I didn't want to be responsible for accidentally including something correct that was at odds with the insane clauses some of these folks insisted on including in the CD language. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1458 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 04:25 pm:    I coordinate the specs with AIA 201 and the documents I am given access to. My crystal ball broke a long time ago. I make a lot of educated guesses. If I am not privy to General Condition revisions, I don't worry about them. That's the architect's concern. I never took Spec Writing 101, I learned to write specs the old fashioned way, by writing them. I was fortunate to have a few mentors along the way. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1459 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 04:32 pm:    Guest, I also work predominately in the private sector, perhaps that keeps my nose clean. Whatever the reason, I stay out of trouble, get the job done for the right price, and am considered an exceptional specwriter among my clients and peers. I really can not offer more of an explanation, perhaps I am just good at what I do or perhaps I am a Charlatan....your guess is as good as mine. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 05:05 pm:    Thanks for the clarification. I don't like making guesses, educated or otherwise. That's just my preference. Back to debating the stamp language ... J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 867 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, September 10, 2015 - 07:46 am:    I no longer try to explain the Submittal Stamp in the specs. Some overly complex stamps are not understood by the architects. This is probably a topic for the preconstruction conference. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 805 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Thursday, September 10, 2015 - 10:32 am:    CCS = Certified Charlatan Specifier? Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1460 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 10, 2015 - 11:01 am:    George, I like your comment. Warped minds think a like? Greta Eckhardt Senior Member Username: gretaeckhardt Post Number: 25 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Friday, September 11, 2015 - 09:40 am:    I think it is important that the meaning of each action indicated on the submittal stamp be explained in Division 01 section for submittal procedures. As an in-house specifier, I have the luxury of not needing to update this frequently, and I sympathize with consultants who work with many firms with different stamps. But I would say that it is necessary to offer a clear understanding of this process to bidders. Each of the firms I have worked for has had lengthy discussions from time to time on exactly what each action means and what changes might be worth considering. If an architect cannot explain what the actions mean, then how do they know how to use the stamp? I think they do know, and with the help of a specifier language can be developed, perhaps along the lines suggested by Richard Baxter above. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 121 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Friday, September 11, 2015 - 10:27 am:    Jerome, Thanks for bringing up this topic. It could easily bleed into a lengthy construction administration discussion. I agree with George. We should not be seduced into making the stamps too complicated with additional boxes to check. What was once a generally-accepted set of actions (Approved, Approved as Noted, Revise/Resubmit, and Rejected) has been strongly influenced to change by the professional liability insurers. Most of the engineers I work with have modified their Action Stamp language to comments so bland that they border on no action at all. I've noticed this with contractors and CMs as well. Recently, I've been getting stamps from contractors that are really nothing more than acknowledgement of receipt - they don't display anything but the Contractor's name and the date they were entered into their office records. Almost every consulting engineer I work with has taken a similar approach in the last ten years, especially the large firms. One reason for this is we are moving steadily toward an institutional outlook on everything. When one works in a large system dominated by rules, one loses the incentive to take any forthright action for fear of being reprimanded or even terminated. You have to consult an ever-growing list of rules before you can do anything or else you get into trouble. Because each office has its own policies, I think it is right that Jerome should be furnished with the definitions he seeks by each client he works for. He shouldn't have to provide them, any more than specifiers should determine what the supplementary conditions for the standard contract should be. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 759 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 02:28 am:    David A lot of insinuations about consultants but no specifics. In general the only submittals the consultant expects to receive are the ones he requested in his specification sections. I would suggest that as a result he can define the nature of the review. I would be concerned if the consultant was not sensitive to the potential liability associated with submittals. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 71 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 05:06 am:    David reminds us that engineers and consultants often use stamps that are different than the architect's. If the spec explains the architect's language, shouldn't it also explain the engineer's or consultant's? Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 760 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 11:54 am:    The way I look at it the engineer is making recommendations to his client the Architect. How the architect passes those recommendations on to the contractor is reflected in the architect's stamp. Thus I see no need to explain the consultant's stamp although it might be desirable to point this out to the contractor. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1461 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 12:04 pm:    Wow, so many questions, have been raised, at least for me, but first I need a clarification from my peers, esp those with Insurance: I've made the assumption that the Architect (my client) has reviewed the contents of their Consultants Submittal Stamps, just as I do on every project to coordinate the Submittal spec section. I would think Insured Architects would be required to do so by their Insurance Company so that everyone is on the same page. Is this not the case? Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 761 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 05:23 am:    Jerome Insurance companies do not impose requirements especially with regards to submittal stamps. In the past one carrier may have suggested submittal stamp language but that is it was suggested language. Professional errors and omissions policies define the amount and extent of the coverage. The professional is free to do what he wants and if there is a claim, coverage is provided based on the policy. It is a hands off relationship and the insurance carrier is not even aware of the detailed practices of the professional ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 947 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 01:09 pm:    Many firms require their consultants use the same stamps as primary. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 762 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 10:46 pm:    And how would architects feel if the Owner required that the architect use a stamp imposed by the Owner? Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1462 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 11:54 pm:    Mark, perhaps the Owner would like that especially if the Architect signed it with his own blood, sort of a blood oath. Prior to becoming a full time specifier, I worked as a Project Manager, the firms I worked for took shop drawing stamps seriously and coordinated with the engineers to make sure all were on the same page and yes 25 years ago they talked to their insurance agents, I guess times have changed. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 122 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Monday, September 14, 2015 - 01:25 pm:    Mark Gilligan is right to call me out on the insinuations he reads in my post above. We have to take care not to disparage groups of people based on a comparatively small sample. However, I've had a string of projects to administer these two or three years that have put me in a disparaging mood. Being at the end of the submittal line, in a way, I'm sensitive to other participants' lack of spirit in "embracing" submittals by using comment stamps with language less assertive than my own. "Approved" seems to have disappeared altogether, as has "rejected." When you get down to it, there's not much to take issue with - merely semantics adjusted to (hopefully) manage risk - a thin layer of warmth against the cold rain and snow. Thanks for the medicine, Mark and others. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 868 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Monday, September 14, 2015 - 03:17 pm:    The language in AIA A201 regarding the Architect "approving" submittals has not changed significantly in 30 years despite the efforts of some to "tone down" the language. It seems to me that some of this originated with the courts in western states. This does seem to much less of an issue in other parts of the US. I sometimes close my eyes and try to imagine an attorney trying to get someone to explain how something gets submitted, the contract conditions call for approval or rejection, and what the difference is between "Approved" and "Action A." The purpose of the submittal process is for the Contractor to show how he/she intends to comply with contract requirements. It is not for redesigning the building or acting on a substitution request. If the Contractor has acted correctly and in good faith, the least the Architect owes him/her is a clear "Approved" or "Reject" stamp. Next thing you know we will be issuing gold stars or smiley faces (and having to explain that). Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1463 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, September 14, 2015 - 03:51 pm:    From some of the email I get, smiley faces are already part of the genre, wouldn't gold stars just rub off? I seldom see the word "approved" on an architect's stamp, when I point out AIA A201, I am told this is our office policy. Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 260 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, September 14, 2015 - 05:44 pm:    For what it is worth, virtually every lawyer I have worked with in the last 30 years has said that avoiding the term “Approved” is not going to help reduce or limit any AE’s liability exposure. As they explain it, most courts have held that the alternate language often used (i.e., “No Exception Taken” or similar) is effectively the same a “Approved.” That said, where I am working now uses the following: A, Approved B, Approved as Noted C, Revise and Resubmit D, Not Approved E, No Action Required By Architect: E1, Submittal not required by Contract Documents E2, Project or closeout information Anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, September 14, 2015 - 07:08 pm:    One thing that has not been raised in this thread is the fact that the Architect (specifier) is 100% in control over what is being asked of Contractor to be submitted! And all too often (guilty here) we specifiers simply toss in what we always do for submittal requirements, without any direction from Owner or the rest of the design team. One obvious way to reduce the problems associated with what Architect's do when the get submittals (or what their stamps say they will do) is to reduce the number of submittals required of the Contractor. Let the Contract Documents speak for themselves... Just a thought. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1464 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, September 14, 2015 - 07:18 pm:    Easier said than done Anon, its difficult when you are a specifier working with different architects, perhaps if I was an in house specifier. One item I have added to my submittal sections has been a big hit is to limit the amount of submittals issued each week. Here is what I have added: "Contractor is limited to issuing no more that five (5) submittals per week, in order for Architect to process in the agreed upon initial review period. In the event that the contractor must submit more than five per week, than the review time to process the overage will increase by 50% (from 10 working days to 15 working days per submittal as further defined in item #3 below)." Item #3 talks about the typ 10 working days to review the submittal. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 763 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - 03:54 am:    As a consultant to the prime design professional I do not have the authority to give an approval to the contractor. All I can do is to keep my client informed. Thus it would be inappropriate for my shop drawing stamp to indicate approval. Instead I indicate reviewed or "no exceptions taken". While some lawyers say it makes no difference in most cases I still prefer not to use the word approval for those instances where it makes a difference. I also believe that reviewed or "no exceptions taken" is more appropriate for the nature of the reviews performed and are less likely to mislead the contractor and others. If the submittals are not required by codes or contract then we can define the nature of the response to the submittal. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 123 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - 02:26 pm:    Mark, Thank you for making this clear. It is easier to understand when you put it in those terms. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 508 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - 03:03 pm:    Mark, Sometimes things are not so clear. As a case in point, our (architecture) firm recently was involved in the renovation and seismic upgrades for two dormitory buildings on a University of California campus. These were separate, sequential contracts. For the first project, we the architects, were a consultant to the structural engineer, who led the project, and for the second project, we the architect were project lead and the (same) structural engineer was our consultant. This switch was due to various reasons, but mainly that like many renovation projects there was scope creep through discovery and additional client requests that resulted in a larger portion of the project cost for what started as a seismic upgrade projects turned out be architectural. So here, although I assume both the structural engineer and the architect continued using the same stamps for both projects, from a contract viewpoint we traded the captain's chair responsibilities half way through.