Informational Submittals

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

Author Message Tom Gilmore, AIA, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: tgilmore Post Number: 17 Registered: 04-2007 Posted on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 12:28 pm:    A201 includes 3.12.7 The Contractor shall perform no portion of the Work for which the Contract Documents require submittal and review of Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples or similar submittals until the respective submittal has been reviewed and approved by the Architect. Does everyone understand this to include informational submittals (for instance design calcs)? If informational submittals do not require Architect's responsive action, how does the GC know they can move forward with the work? It seems like we should either return a receipt or have language that allows Work to proceed if we haven’t reacted negatively within a few days. Richard A. Rosen, CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: rarosen Post Number: 55 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 01:24 pm:    I normally don't specify anything as an informational submittal. From the PRM "7.5.3.6 Informational Submittals: QA and QC submittals do not typically require A/E approval. These submittals are furnished to document the construction or to provide various kinds of information that the A/E needs to verify compliance with the construction documents. For example, the A/E does not need to approve test reports or manufacturer’s installation instructions. The A/E reviews these submittals to verify compliance with contract requirements. The A/E notifies the contractor if the item covered by the information or test does not comply with the contract. The contract documents should clearly differentiate between submittals that require A/E review and those that do not. Informational submittals document information the A/E requires to verify performance and quality of project components, but do not require approval. They are also used as verification and certification that the installed work or portion of the work meets the specified requirements. Product representatives may have little or no involvement in the preparation of these submittals. Occasionally, the contractor may ask product representatives to assist in obtaining test reports, certificates of compliance, or manufacturer’s instructions for inclusion in the submittal. I'm not sure design calculations belong in the catagory of informational submittals." I don't think shop drawings, product date, etc. are informational submittals. To me 3.12.7 applies to submittals that require review and approval. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 314 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 02:52 pm:    3.12.7 does NOT pertain to informational submittals, by virtue of the provision in 3.12.4: " . . . Informational submitals upon which the Architect is not expected to take responsive action may be so identified in the Contract Documents." So if the Part I articles in the various spec sections clearly segregate or otherwise identify ACTION submittals versus INFORMATIONAL submittals, you have thereby "identified" them as described in 3.12.4. Therefore, the Contractor would not be entitled to the Architect's APPROVAL of them. This provision dates back to at least the 1987 edition of A201. As the segregation has gained more recognition and understanding over the past two decades, SectionFormat now addresses ways to handle that segregation, as does MasterSpec. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 234 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 03:15 pm:    I like the idea of informational submittals since it helps to clarify what I have reviewed but I believe that the issue may have some subtalties. When design of some system has been delegated to the contractor I do not want to review his calculations but I believe that we need evidence that he has retained a registered engineer to perform the design. This evidence needs to be provided before the system is constructed or installed otherwise it becomes much more difficult to receive them. In this context I believe that it would be appropriate to notify contractor that the signed calculations were received. While the A/E does not approve informational submittals he should communicate receipt of them to the contractor. Similarly while manufacturers installation instructions are not reviewed the inspectors may need them to assure that the work was installed in accordance with the instructions, as required by some specifications. These instructions can be useful in sorting out later problems with the work and if not availible prior to construction they may become much harder to obtain. Test reports provided by the contractor are necessary quality assurance activity and while we do not check the validity of the test we do compare test results to requirements. These are classical submittals. Special inspections and other tests and inspections performed by the owner's testing laboratory are not a contractor submittal. The Owner provides the results of these tests and inspections to the contractor primarily so that the contractor cannot claim that he was not informed of problems. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1096 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 03:41 pm:    This is a long-standing issue I took up with Arcom's review comittee,and found no answer. It is an issue "never thought of" much less resolved. Seems the references noted is all there is and while the AIA alludes to them there is no explanation of them, as I was told. They are, I agree, quite handy, and certainly if "looked at" and found with error, due notice is appropriate, BUT formal approval action is not required. Yes, to those who see increased liability on the DPs for "loooking at" them in the first place and then not doing anything if something is askew. Damned if you do; damned if you don't!! Yet another issue unresolved-- have fun! Richard A. Rosen, CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: rarosen Post Number: 56 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 04:59 pm:    I disagree with Mark about not reviewing delegated design submittals. I think we have a responsibility to review calculations just to verify that the delegated designer used the correct design criteria and followed any code requirements. I'm not about to check his methodology or math. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 235 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 07:28 pm:    Richard I believe that you go down a slipery slope when you start to look at the design criteria. Sometimes there is a fine line between looking at the criteria and the calculations. Once you take on the duty to review the use of criteria if there is a later problem you might be heald liabile because you didn't perform a thorough enough review. Once you take on a duty you cannot do it half way. You are often better not to take on a duty that you do not have to. AIA A201 States that the "....Architect shall be entitled to rely upon the adequacy, accuracy and completneness of the services, certifications, or approvals performed by such design professionals...." I believe that this language makes it clear that contracturally we have no obligation to perform review. Note that if engineers are asked to review calculations prepared by another engineer on a project where they were not the EOR common practice is that the reviewing engineer would receive a limititation of liability provision in the agreement. Richard A. Rosen, CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: rarosen Post Number: 57 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Friday, November 13, 2009 - 08:30 am:    Mark: The A201 defines our contractual responsibility, however, our responsibility under state practice statutes may be and often is quite different. As the A/EOR we are ultimately responsible for all design aspects of the project. It is the A/EOR's responsibility to provide the correct design criteria or at least direct the deligated designer to the correct design criteria as required by the applicable codes and AHJ. My experience is that many AHJs require the A/EOR to review and approve all deligated design submittals and calculations that are submitted as part of the permit process. Fairfax County Virginia is particularly stringent (anal) about this requirement. I don't know where you practice but in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Virginia where I am registered limitation of liability provisions for professional services are not legal, by law no one can limit or relieve me of my professional liability. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 238 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, November 13, 2009 - 12:40 pm:    Review of delegated designs is an issue that gets very messy and gets people talking about moral responsibility. If taken to an extreme we find ourselves in a situation where no body can meet these responsibilities. On the other hand the reality is that there is a significant difference between the suggested responsibility and what is done in practice, by reputable firms. Hopefully by exploring some of the issues here we can put this into perspective. While I recognize that the prime design professional has a responsibility for the completed project, I will suggest that the standard of care need not require review of the calculations for the delegated designs. I have found licensing laws to often include very general statements but the risk to the design professional is driven by our contractual obligations and standard of care expectations. One situation that I find irritating is when it is suggested that the engineering fee be reduced because major system, for example the roof, is a delegated design yet the engineer is requested to review the delegated design calculations thus accepting liability for the system. Thus your fee is reduced, you are not in a position to control the design and thus limit risks, yet you are expected to spend time reviewing the design and as a result accept liability for the design. There is no disagreement that we need to specify the design criteria for the delegated designer. The question is do we need to verify the criteria or check the calculations? When AHJs demand approval of delegated designs they have at times required the design professional of record to stamp the delegated designs. This creates an over stamping situation which can create conflict with state licensing law. In the case of the agency in California that regulates schools we instead provide a statement that we have reviewed the interface with the delegated system. When the AHJ requires approval of the delegated design, as opposed to coordination between systems, a question could be asked whether the agency is regulating the practice of architecture or engineering. It is my understanding that they do not have this authority. Their responsibility is limited to reviewing the project for code compliance and if the work was signed by a registered architect or engineer and it complies with the code they cannot require more. There is a legitimate concern that the interface between the delegated design and the rest of the project be coordinated. There are situations when dealing with specialized systems where the design professional does not have the expertise to perform a review of the calculations. Would this require you to hire a consultant to review the calculations? You might find that the only expert works for another manufacturer. Would your obligation to review the calculations change if instead of delegating the design in the contract documents the Owner hired the specialty contractor, during design, to perform the design so that it could be checked by the building department? Since you are still delegating design do you still need to review the calculations of the consultant? Do you as the prime design professional perform a technical review of all of your consultants. In California limitations of liability clauses are legal. While you still have the professional liability the other party to the agreement will limit the consequences to you. Of course this is only of use if the other party has the resources to fulfill his obligation. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 42 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Sunday, December 27, 2009 - 11:21 pm:    As to Tom's original question, my understanding has traditionally been that the GC is to believe that 'no news is good news'. Many specifiers used to require that submittals be delivered with integral delivery receipt such as FedEx or UPS since they provide tracking for every package. Now with the industry moving to electronic submittals, preferably on project websites created and maintained by the GC, the GC can see whether and when their e-submittals were received and opened. The submittals are in PDF format, whether for Action or Information, so no special software is required. When information submittals are received, review makes sure that content was submitted as specified. Try to limit review of Delegated Design Submittals to see that the PE signature and stamp appears on each page without extensive review. That said, while it is best to not typically review content in delegated design submittals, this differs from other informational submittals such as mix design, mill reports, and certifications which should be checked to make sure their content complies with specified requirements per A201. If a certification letter contains incorrect content like the wrong Installer’s name as ‘approved applicator’ don't you notify the GC? If the mix design received is for 3000 psi concrete instead of the 4000 psi specified, don't you still act on that submittal even though it was submitted for information, not action? You don't analyze whether the mix listed achieves the design strength, only whether or not the specified criteria is being met. When the GC doesn’t hear anything after submitting information, they should proceed with the Work. They assume the same level of risk, still having to comply with the Contract Documents regardless of the content of the submittal unless some acceptable form of modification has been identified and approved in writing. As to the string of answers I'm just curious, have any of you spoken with your insurance carriers? Most Owners don’t push arbitrary requirements like these when they receive written notice that proceeding will result in voiding that portion of your E&O insurance. Ask your carrier to put that on their letterhead. AIA A201-2007 addresses the extent of action required when reviewing delegated design submittals. As Mark noted, 'Section' 3.12.10, includes reliance on the services provided by the Contractor's design professional. It continues with "...the Architect will review, approve or take other appropriate action on submittals only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents..." This is sufficiently vague as to cause me to believe that Design Professionals should not review delegated design submittals without a clearly defined limit of liability and additional compensation. I wish you success in convincing your clients. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 242 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, December 28, 2009 - 01:28 am:    I do not consider concrete mix designs and mill reports as informational submittals. The IBC has a number of special inspection requirements that relate to traditional submittals that would prevent them from being treated as informational submittals. For example Table 1704.3 requires material verification of structural steel, bolts, and weld filler metal. This means that a copy of the submittal be provided to the special inspector. Traditionally I have reviewed these submittals but it would be acceptable to delegate this review to the special inspector. 2006 IBC Table 1704.4 requires the verification that the contractor is using the required design mix. This is one submittal who's review I would not delegate to the special inspector. It would be interesting to know how many master specifications have been updated to reflect the code changes in the 2006 and 2009 IBC's Tom Gilmore, AIA, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: tgilmore Post Number: 19 Registered: 04-2007 Posted on Monday, December 28, 2009 - 04:55 pm:    Thanks, Ken for reviving this string and returning us to the original question. At today’s typical pace, I don’t think “no news is good news” still works, and have added to our master “In accordance with General Conditions, the Architect is not expected to take responsive action on Informational Submittals; however when requested by the Contractor, Architect will acknowledge receipt”. As architects, my firm has no expertise to review content in most delegated design submittals beyond verifying a registered engineer has performed the design, and many of our Engineers decline to review delegated design submittals saying it’s not in their scope. However, we still forward the delegated design submittals to the appropriate EoR for their record and (if appropriate) their response. We promote a triage review in my firm, in the first 24 hours after receiving a submittal, when the submittals can be rejected without major impact on the GC’s schedule. This initial review is to ensure the submittal is properly prepared, reviewed and signed by the GC, etc. Since it’s relatively easy to verify whether mix designs, mill reports, and certifications are in basic compliance, that should be included in the triage review as well. I agree with Mark that concrete mix designs and mill reports are submittals for review. As such, they are required by A201 3.11 to be available to the Architect on site. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 43 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, December 28, 2009 - 05:30 pm:    According to A201 3.12.4 "Informational Submittal" means that no action is to be taken. The current SectionFormat states that "The "Informational Submittal" Article is used to categorize submittals, not to require responsive action by the A/E." It goes on to state that, in essence, Division 00 can be used to turn Info Submittals into a type of 'Limited Action Submittal' which is the missing link we seem to need here. I'm not comfortable calling mix designs 'Action Submittals'. It's one thing to check to make sure that the lab gets the performance numbers right (compressive strength, slump, etc) but who is qualified to check the list of ingredients and decide that the quantities of various admixtures don't adversely react or affect the performance. Tweaking aggregate sizes and amounts, water-cement ratios, and other minutiae is why we require laboratory mix designs and specify performance. Checking that mix design to make sure they used the specified corrosion inhibitor or fiber reinforcing is fine, but at what point do the lines get crossed and the liabilities transfer because the cylinders don't pass? What gives the A/E the right to arbitrarily decide to stop the review? How is that communicated? That wording sure isn’t in A201. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 44 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, December 28, 2009 - 06:25 pm:    The most recent copy of 013300 in MasterSpec that I found states in part: Informational Submittals: Architect will review each submittal and will not return it, or will return it if it does not comply with requirements. Again, I'm not clear on what we base our ability to conduct partial reviews, but apparently MasterSpec thinks it's okay. My thought is to use the A201 wording regarding review of delegated design - "...the Architect will review, approve or take other appropriate action on submittals only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents..." - and apply it towards Informational Submittals. Hopefully we can find a better way to state it. Otherwise, as Tom noted, an acknowledgement of receipt would seem appropriate if not already inherent in your method of communicating with the GC. Tom, thanks for pointing out this potential weak link in the documents. Best wishes to all for a very happy new year. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 243 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, December 28, 2009 - 06:41 pm:    The mix design review focuses on the issues addressed in the specification. For example if you said min 15% fly ash then you verify that the presented mix design shows a minimum of 15%. Similarly if you specified water cement ratio you would verify that the reported w/c ratio is acceptable. The secret to not being on the hook for low strength is to not over specifying things and placing responsibility for compliance on the contractor. You would not want to specify source and proportions of cement, aggregate, and admixtures. You would not want to specify a 5 sack mix. Typically the specifications will require that the contractor take responsibility for making sure that the various admixtures are compatible. In some situations you may require a certification to this effect from the contractor. I do not understand the reference to arbitrarily deciding to stop the review. If you limit you review to the requirements in the specifications there should be no problem. As I noted previoussly the special inspection provisions in the IBC effectively require this review. Tom Gilmore, AIA, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: tgilmore Post Number: 20 Registered: 04-2007 Posted on Monday, December 28, 2009 - 07:37 pm:    We are not arbitrarily deciding to stop a review. A201 3.12.4 includes: "Informational submittals upon which the Architect is not expected to take responsive action may be so identified in the Contract Documents", and SectionFormat lists Informational submittals, and PRM 7.5.3.6 instructs: "Informational Submittals: QA and QC submittals do not typically require A/E approval…The contract documents should clearly differentiate between submittals that require A/E review and those that do not". J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 379 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 09:30 am:    It occurs to me that one of the issues is confusion over "review" and "approval". This is made worse by the language that many firms use in their CDs and on their Shop Drawing stamp that avoides the use of the word "Approved" in favor of other terms including "Reviewed." It seems to me that the A/E should (or maybe must) "review" informational submittals which, as Mr. Gilmore points out, "do not typically required A/E approval." Almost every A/E would look at the lab report on the concrete cylinder's 28-day break. If the compressive strength comes up short, action is taken. The action, however, does not involve "approval" of the lab results; the action involves calling the contractor and structural engineer (who may already be talking about the situation) to seek out a resolution of what may be a very serious problem. When the A/E's Shop Drawing stamp uses a term like "Reviewed" in place of "Approved", it does lead to some confusion about what the A/E has actually done. I can see a checkbox for "Reviewed" being very useful on Informational Submittals along with appropriate places for the signature of the reviewer and the date. This indicates that the A/E has actually looked at the submittal. I do believe use of an "Approved" checkbox would be inappropriate on such submittals. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1155 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 10:09 am:    Peter; Use of "reviewed" has been driven by liability insurers. I've had more than one conversation with them about terminology and text when getting stamps made. Don't know what their current thinking on this is, though. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1116 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 10:31 am:    Seems with the open-ended, non-conclusive, and "optional" provisions and the other "laws" that may apply, it is reasonable for each design professional to decide what they wish to do [consultation with their legal counsel might be wise]. Common sense would seem to indicate, of course, look at them to ensure you got what you asked for. Seeing any error or other discrepancies it would seem wise and prudent to call them out to the submitter, so the project work is not also errant. BUT you are not required to do either! [unless some other law applies] Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 244 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 10:49 am:    Informational submittals are not reviewed. Standard of care would suggest that you review a submittal prior to approving it. I believe that the difference between review and approve has to do with the difference between I looked at the submittal and found no mistakes and the contractor totally complies with the contract. This is significant if the Contractor relied on the approval on the submittal and finds that he must later go back and make corrections after the work was installed. In many circumstances the Owner reserves for himself the right to approve the contractors work with the design professionals making recommendations to the Owner. Even if the Architect has the right to approve the contractor's work this does not extend to his sub consultants such as the structural engineer. Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 320 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 11:29 am:    I must admit I find myself disagreeing with many of the comments made here thus far. Assuming conventional A201 application: - All required submittals (as stated in the Code and/or Specifications/Project Manual) must be reviewed. - An Informational submittal must be reviewed, but does not need to be stamped, returned, or otherwise responded to unless there is cause, such as the low break results in a concrete cylinder test. - Action submittals must be returned to the contractor marked with an appropriate “action”. The word Reviewed does not provide direction and does not indicate the appropriate action. The A201 says, “….shall review AND take appropriate action.” The reviewer’s stamp must indicate what that action is. The word Approved is completely acceptable and appropriate, as the limitations of the approval are in your contract (or should be!). A lessor term, but still sufficiently strong to provide direction to the contractor is “Furnish as Submitted” (or “Furnish as Commented”). Insurers who advocate something weaker are simply fooling themselves, and no one else. I am not aware of a standardized contract provision that allows architects to completely delegate responsibility to a consulting engineer. If you aren’t reviewing structural, mechanical, or electrical submittals for general conformance to the architectural intent, then I would argue that you are not practicing the appropriate level of care. The Architect must review all required submittals. Overstamping is another frequently debated topic. Should an Architect provide a review stamp on a submittal that has already been stamped by a consulting engineer? Sure, why not? The intent of our review is defined in the contract, and, the architect is required to review the submittal already so there is no harm in overstamping. However, as a general practice, I myself do not overstamp UNLESS I have added additional comments/clarifications to the submittal. A good example would be an electrical lighting submittal, where the color of fixtures must be selected or defined. Since I am adding those comments to the submittal, I also add my submittal review stamp to the submittal. But, if a client or CM or some other entity requires the architect to overstamp all submittals, it does not increase my liability to do so because I AM reviewing these submittals anyway. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 49 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 11:55 am:    Assuming the use of AIA A201 and where architect is prime design consultant (engineering and other consultants under architect's contract), I agree with Nathan. I also don't think design mixes should be categorized as an informational submittal as Mark points out. Test results yes, but not design mixes which have specification requirements to be reviewed for conformance. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1156 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 05:08 pm:    I always stamped submittals that were reviewed by outside consultants. The Architect is the third party design entity per the general conditions. If only the consulting engineer has stamped a submittal, the contractor could say "I don't have a reviewed submittal" and refuse to act since the architect's consultants are not recognized by the contract. Kind of like having only the subcontractor look at a submittal and not the contractor. H. Michael Hill (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 10:30 am:    What about Coordination Drawings? Reviewed for Approval? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 564 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 12:33 pm:    Great question. I always felt that Coordination Drawings were strictly for the Contractor's use. Very often Structural and MEP have wanted to see them, especially to make sure cores drilled through decks don't hit critical rebar or worse, tendons. With the new layout software programs available to subs, I don't see why I would want to get in the middle of how they coordinate above-ceiling spaces or similar conditions. If it doesn't work, and we left them enough room, that's their problem to solve. My preference is that Coordination Drawings are typically only looked at as part of the RFI process to show me that the Contractor has at least tried to solve whatever it is that they perceive as a problem. If needed we can issue a Contract Modification to clarify intent but the Coordination Drawings don't get comments. Bottom line, I don't want to see Coordination Drawings as a submittal, certainly not as one requiring action. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 132 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 01:11 pm:    Coordination drawings also do something else, Ken. They tend to limit the RFIs since the subs actually coordinated the work with the contractor. I agree that that comments are rare, but at times they miss a coordination issue and to avoid the "fix" in the field comments may be needed. Hate it when those ducts or sprinkler lines go below the ceiling and not in the plenum... ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 565 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 01:27 pm:    Precisely why I require that the Contractor show that they have produced Coordination Drawings before submitting RFIs. If they can show me that they've made a reasonable attempt to solve the problem, the RFI is no longer bogus and it's time to sit down together and work things out. I see them as a way for the Contractor to meet us halfway. I just don't want to see them as a submittal. Some folks I've spoken with like getting them 'for the record' just so they can believe that the Contractor is doing what they're supposed to be doing. I don't have that kind of time. It's the Contractor's self-help tool. They can keep them in their files unless it becomes a problem. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 587 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 01:29 pm:    As with informational submittals you should make it clear the extent of your review of coordination drawings. Could you be responsible if you did not identify a coordination issue that later caused problems? Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIPa, LEED AP BD+C, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 287 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 06:09 pm:    Looked into the original question a great deal with CA group, and the only problem needing further adjustment in our masters was setting a time period for review, simply stating that it would be the same time period as for other submittals. Otherwise they would not know when to proceed. If they will be processed correctly, leaving items in the informational submittals category in the specifications can be a good time saving tool. If you don't believe there is the need to review something, don't classify it as informational submittal, why ask for it at all? Read your Division 01 on this subject and make up your own minds as to what you policy should be, I'm not giving legal advice. Regarding coordination dwgs, I thought I had seen specs where they were their own article or somewhere else outside of submittals. But looking at the current ACP spec, I must have thought wrong. Interestingly, SectionFormat/PageFormat doesn't appear to say where to specify coordination drawings. I like your idea Ken about having the coordination drawings done before RFIs. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 566 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 06:30 pm:    I've been bitten with coordination drawings in the past. We had a client that required that they be submitted and the Contractor came back and insisted that they be reviewed. The nightmare of having to defend ourselves against our (federal government!) client was as bad as or worse than the Contractor. Something about it better having smart enemies than stupid friends... Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1131 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 11:42 am:    "Interestingly, SectionFormat/PageFormat doesn't appear to say where to specify coordination drawings." Per SectionFormat, I would consider coordination drawings as "Special Procedure Submittals" for lack of a better reference. SectionFormat does not classify submittals as either being action or informational--that is for the design professional to decide. However, the CCA Practice Guide does consider them informational submittals, which is typical. Maybe this is an item for future coordination between the two documents. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 237 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 12:02 pm:    I agree that coordination drawings are informational as they speak to the Contractor's means and methods. However, they should be at least looked at by the Design professional's CA team for possible problems that could be headed off before there is an issue. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 588 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 12:33 pm:    The contractor and others need to be explicitly clear what will be done with the Coordination drawings. I am uncomfortable with asking for a submittal and not reviewing it. Why do we need to have a new category of submittals? If you have defined the content of the submittal and what will be done with it by the Owner/designers why do we need to call these submittals "coordination submittals"? spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 01:03 pm:    I am not sure how best to classify coordination drawings but sometimes the reason for the design professional to ask see them is to make sure the trades are actually coordinating the work. On some jobs "first in, I win!" can become a huge problem. We may not even review them (because it could be argued that the coordination drawings are means and methods) but we feel that we need to make sure the coordination is being attempted by the trades. In a similar vain, we often ask to see the "as-built" drawings during the middle of a project. Not to review them but to ensure that the information is being recorded and isn't simply being retained in some guys head. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 538 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 01:14 pm:    Hmmm... Should be reviewing as-built data monthly in conjunction with Pay Ap reviews. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 567 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 01:46 pm:    Actually we should only be checking to make sure that the Record Documentation is being done. We shouldn't be checking content unless that's in our Agreement. If we're not preparing the Record Docs, I'm not sure we want to touch them until the end of the Project. As for the coordination drawings, I'm still opposed to wholesale reviews. They are not submittals, they are the Contractor's internal tool. If you review them, you're taking on means and methods. It's one thing to require confirmation that the Contractor is creating the documents, it's another to receive, handle and review them. Once they cross your threshold and you acknowledge that you're keeping them, how much liability are you accepting? What if you do, or don't, catch a mistake on coordination drawings? Are you now the project superintendent? Can you force the GC to do it 'your way?' No. You can wait until they perform the work and reject it if it's wrong. Sounds like CSI needs to set up some in-depth sessions with insurance carriers. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 568 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 01:47 pm:    Hey Michael. Didn't I say this was a great question? John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 649 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 03:15 pm:    Where is the Construction Manager in this issue of review of coordination drawings? Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 200 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 03:21 pm:    “Where is the Construction Manager in this issue of review of coordination drawings?” Depending on the CM, some will be reviewing them prior to the drawings issuance. Others will do nothing beyond insisting that the AE be responsible. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 03:20 pm:    Nathan: you are correct and this is what we do for bigger projects, but on some of our smaller school jobs there is a PR in June, no board mtg in July so no PR and then a PR in August. There is no as-built to speak of in June and by the August pay-out the job is almost complete and some of the trade superintendents are already moving on the next project. This is the type of situation I was referring to where we would be asking for a look at as-builts in the middle of a project. Sorry my post was not very clear about that. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1518 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 12:14 pm:    I think that coordination drawings are, or may be, an informational submittal: reviewed, but not returned or commented on unless there are problems, like any informational submittal. By requiring them, I can be sure that they were done. However, my experience is that when the contractor finds clashes (as we now call them), knowing that the drawings are being submitted to the architect, she will mark those problems on the drawings with a note to the architect. Suddenly they are no longer informational submittals, but RFIs. (I'm talking about real issues, not bogus ones, for the purposes of this discussion). So then it becomes a matter of how to administratively handle these new RFIs. Make the GC separately issue RFIs on paper, or just use the drawings and number the RFIs. I think that it depends on the nature of the work and the size of the drawings themselves. Generally, I went to the route of separately issuing RFIs, which are more likely nowadays to be done electronically through a GC's system. H. Michael Hill (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, September 05, 2013 - 05:28 pm:    Situation: Elevator Spec Section Part 2 lists elavator banks as 1A 1B, 2A, 2B, 3,4, 5...etc. Under each is the type,load,speed,travel,size of cab...and then there is "Number of Stops___" and Number of Hoistway Openings___". Well there is a conflict between the "Quantity" listed in the Spec and what is graphically indicated in the drawings. Plans show the correct number of hoistway openings and their locations (more than Spec counts. Contractor claiming change order for more openings on plan than indicated in spec. Unfortunately there is a clause that says in case of difference,specs shall govern. Obviously the spec was edited before the drawings were complete and there was no back check by QA. Would love to get opinion on entitelment. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, September 05, 2013 - 08:49 pm:    Having an order of precedence is/has not been prudent practice; any/all conflicts in CDs need to brought to someone's attention for resolution. I always cringe at boilerplate docs (usually public agencies) that still impose a precedence of docs....and sometimes "lump" drawings and specs in the same group together! Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 48 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Thursday, September 05, 2013 - 11:13 pm:    That is why I write into division 1 the requirement that points the resolution of conflicts back to the Architect. By putting this into the spec, It turns the tables on the "specs govern" statement from these public agencies and puts the creator of the construction documents back in charge.. Please note that I use BSD SpecLink. Some of this is their language and some is mine. 01 30 00 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 1.03 COORDINATION D. Comply with Project Coordinator's procedures for intra-project communications; submittals, reports and records, schedules, coordination drawings, and recommendations; and resolution of ambiguities and conflicts. 3.01 COORDINATION REQUIRED B. Relationship of Documents: Drawings, Specifications and other Contract Documents in the Project Manual are intended to be complementary. What is required by one shall be as if required by all. What is shown or required, or may be reasonably inferred to be required, or which is usually and customarily provided for similar work, shall be included in the Work. C. Discrepancies: Error, omission, ambiguity or conflict in Drawings or Specifications shall be brought to Architect's attention during the bidding period, for Architect's determination and direction in accordance with provisions of the Conditions of the Contract. 01 42 19 REFERENCE STANDARDS 1.03 QUALITY ASSURANCE C. Should specified reference standards conflict with Contract Documents, request clarification from the Architect before proceeding. Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 205 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, September 06, 2013 - 07:56 am:    Unfortunately for federal projects, the federal regulations inevitably govern regarding order of precedence, no matter what is written in the specs. I believe that this is also true for state projects. That said, one of the reasons I much prefer private projects is that there need be no "order of precedence." Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 683 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, September 06, 2013 - 09:09 am:    Why do specs include that information? The drawings show the number of stops, travel distance, dimensions, location of doors, and if doors are centered or offset - so why is it repeated? I delete all that stuff from the specs. Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 49 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Friday, September 06, 2013 - 10:54 am:    Absolutely right Sheldon, the best way to fix a problem is don't let it happen. Returning to my point. I am consciously creating a conundrum(3c's?) that requires actual thought to be employed by the project team. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 137 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, September 06, 2013 - 01:44 pm:    Sheldon, I totally agree. We repeat so much information in the specs that are on the drawings. Maybe because the specifiers work in a vacuum away from the project team and then are handed a set of incomplete drawings to create a specification. Of course there is a budget and since you have a boiler plate spec with all the bells and whistles in it you tend to push it out the door to have the project architect or manager to review it. Of course the PM doesn't know what is in the spec since he never looks at anything but email, contracts, Deltek vision reports, and is on the phone either chasing new work or accounts receivables from clients that are always late on payments. The project architect these days usually doesn't have the experience to know what to edit or even coordinate the drawings much less the specification books that are bigger than "War and Peace". Of course they are short handed and the project architect is mainly drawing and writing meeting reports about things he doesn't understand since the project manager has got more than one project to worry about and doesn't have time to do them after the meeting or doesn't attend the meeting in the first place. Bottom line is that this all pertains to one word. Quality. Firms have abandon the notion of quality. This has happened repeatedly in other industries and those firms paid the price. Ford is one great example. For years the acronym Ford stood for phrases like "Found On Road Dead" or "Fix Or Repair Daily". Then they started with a slogan and campaign "Quality is job One". Well they actually did it. they took quality seriously and actually did it. This created a huge turn around with the company, and today, they were the only American auto company able to get through the recession without assistance. This was a long term commitment from them. Another example of things is Toyota. How many times have we heard about (and praise) the "Toyota Way" of doing business? Well they made a commitment to quality. What happened in architecture? Well experience and knowledge went out the door. QA/QC programs disappeared. We started hiring young inexperienced staff due to their computer knowledge and replaced the experienced architectural staff with more inexperienced, untrained staff. Of course any experienced staff that remains and attempts to do any quality control is pushed to doing "billable" work and they cannot do anything other than glance over a set when they have time (which they don't since they are working full time fixing all the problems on their own "billable" work). What has happened is QA/QC has become a marketing slogan without the actual reality. Training isn't from the experienced people since most of them are gone. It comes from those product reps that are selling products. They don't train you about how and why things are built as a whole. And we wonder why architects get such a bad rap? We wonder why we have liability claims. We wonder why specs and drawings are never coordinated. Well the answer is that we as an industry have decided to run away from what other companies do in their businesses in other industries. We quit checking things. We quit training staff in how things go together. We don't teach them when dimensions should be done in the process. We don't train them why we check our work. We don't mentor (the new word for teaching) them. We don't pass on the knowledge of how and why we do what we do. Today, I find project managers that don't know their trade and project architects that don't know how to do their trade. Why, no one has shown them how to do it... Ah, deep breath. I feel much better now. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1532 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Saturday, September 07, 2013 - 06:09 pm:    The simple answer to the question: because the specs are given priority over the plans, you owe the contractor for a change order. The slightly more complicated answer: be sure there are not other contractual provisions that could modify the above. Also, if there are many drawings that correctly show the elevator openings, you could argue a sort of "preponderance of evidence" case for not paying. However, I think this is generally weak. I have occasionally agreed to such changes as you describe, perhaps in less completely evident conditions, because the architect made a MISTAKE! (gasp) and needs to stand behind what they did. At least after you do that, the contractor is probably less likely to push on the more squishy changes they may want. Paul Sweet (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, September 09, 2013 - 01:02 pm:    I'm afraid that Alan has a lot of good points. I work for a state agency, and I hate to think of how many architect's directives or clarifications have to be issued, or RFI's answered, to fix what wasn't done right in the first place. I've always thought the reason specs are given precedence is because most lawyers can't read plans, but they can read specs. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 594 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, September 09, 2013 - 01:56 pm:    Unfortunately Ellis' comment is correct. The FARs clearly state that specs govern over drawings in case of discrepancy. Paul, I've heard the same thing about the reason. I've heard of non-government cases where the Architect came to litigation with drawings clearly showing the correct work to be performed but with conflicting specs and the court ruled in favor of the GC because the judge couldn't understand what he was looking at on the drawings. Pretty scary. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1144 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, September 09, 2013 - 01:57 pm:    I found this in a NASA contract. I use it as an example in my teaching of the CDT to show some of the circular logic (logic...if you can even call it that) found in government contracts: "Anything mentioned in the specifications and not shown on the drawings, or shown on the drawings and not mentioned in the specifications, shall be of like effect as if shown or mentioned in both. "In case of difference between drawings and specifications, the specifications shall govern. "In case of discrepancy in the figures, in the drawings, or in the specifications, the matter shall be promptly submitted to the Contracting Officer, who shall promptly make a determination in writing." Keep in mind that all three of the sentences above were in the SAME PARAGRAPH! Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 139 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, September 09, 2013 - 02:13 pm:    Paul, you just hit on what I have been saying for years. As the specs grew in volume and size, they were done so for legal reasons. The spec then has become a legal CYA document and not used for what is was intended for in the beginning, construction requirements, materials and quality. The reality is that the lawyer is going to hire an expert witness to read the plans and drawings anyway. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - 10:05 am:    I understand Ron's point and I completely agree that the language is poor. However I do believe there is some instances were the intent of the individual lines are relevant. 1)the plans show new VCT flooring but no underlayment. the specs call out Ardex Feather Finish. Only mentioned in one place but it still is part of the contract. (contractors often argue against this type of thing so the line serves as a way to eliminate the argument) 2)The drawings generically (incorrectly) call out gypcrete or equal underlayment. The specs show Ardex or a similar cement based product. The spec governs. 3)I got nothing on this one. I am not arguing with anyone on the effectiveness (or lack there of) of the language in the NASA Contract but I can understand what they are attempting to accomplish. (with the first two anyway) John McGrann Senior Member Username: jmcgrann Post Number: 106 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - 10:10 am:    Although not my primary line of work, and not something I seek out, I confess to having served as an “expert” witness on a couple of occasions. This discussion reminds me typical initial interaction I experience with attorneys when serving in that role. The initial meeting usually involves the transfer of a box of project documentation, including drawings, specifications, and the ensuing batch of bidding addenda and contract changes. The 8-1/2 x 11 contract and specification documents, having been thoroughly reviewed, will contain numerous bookmarks and notations. The drawings are often in the original undisturbed wrappings from the reproduction house. Many times the answer to a specific issue can be found in a clearly discernible and project-specific note on the drawings. John T. McGrann, Jr., AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1145 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - 10:56 am:    spiper, 1) This sentence states that the documents are equal--no precedence. Basically the same thing that the AIA A201 states, but the government takes three times as many words to say it. 2) This sentence essentially negates the previous sentence by setting a precedence. Thus, directing the contractor to use whatever the specifications state. 3) This directs the contractor to ask the owner/A-E to decide in the case of a discrepancy (i.e. an RFI), even though the previous sentence said to use the specifications...no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Nos. 1 and 3 go together, but it is No. 2 that throws a wrench into the works. What if I'm the contractor and I go with the specs per No. 2, but inform the contracting officer per No. 3 and they decide that the drawings should be followed? Is this a basis for a claim? Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 615 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - 11:13 am:    People who are sitting in my CDT class will ask about document interpretation by attorneys. I ask them to imagine a room with two tables. On one table are the "specs" and on the other table are the drawings. Then I ask them to imagine that an attorney walks into a room and ask them which table he goes to. I am glad to hear Mr. McGrann confirm my apocryphal illustration. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - 01:23 pm:    Ron, I agree #2 does conflict with #3 but I don't know if it completely negates #1. The specs do not govern if the specs fail to include something that the plans show. I do agree that the 201 already covers most of this and I completely agree that this is a classic example of someone attempting to use "simple" language and failing miserably. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 685 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - 03:17 pm:    Reminds me of the sign behind the bar at a nearby establishment: Rule 1: The bartender is always right. Rule 2: In case the bartender is wrong, see Rule 1. I think most owners (and many architects) want to be the bartender. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies St. Louis, MO John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 665 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - 01:58 am:    During my brief naval career (c. 1972), I encountered something similar to the specs-take-precedence-over-drawings statement. There was a common joke in the Navy about a shipboard announcement for a fire drill: "This is a drill! This is a drill! Fire! Fire! All hands forward, run aft. All hands aft, run forward. All hands below decks, run topside. All hands topside, run below decks. All hands port side, run starboard side. All hands starboard side, run port side. All hands amidship, direct traffic." I saw this carried out in real life on a ship moored outboard to mine. It was being transferred to a foreign navy. Their fire drill looked just like the fiasco one would imagine for the joke drill. It was the nautical equivalent to the "specs-take-precedence-over-drawings" and "large-scale-details-take-precedence-over-small-scale-details" fixed priorites for contract documents. And just as successful. To complete the fire drill announcement, this should be added: "Cast off the bow line. Cast off the stern line. All ahead sideways. Poop the deck! Flush the head! Fire the cook!" (It was Vietnam War era and the ship was small and manned by draftees. It was tolerable only because the homeport was Pearl Harbor. During our whole time in Hawaii, we were proud to say, there wasn't one successful Viet Cong attack on the Hawaiian Islands.) John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1533 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - 02:50 pm:    It's true about attorneys preferring the written over the graphic. I was deposed years ago in a fairly significant personal injury construction lawsuit involving the Commonwealth of Mass. (I did the CA on the project). I was something like the 37th person deposed, so I wasn't really all that important to the case. In a room with 17 attorneys (only one was on my side), they brought out a set of drawings and introduced it as new evidence. That is to say, after probably more than 300 hours of oral testimony over practically every written memo and the specs, the drawings were NOT EVEN IN EVIDENCE yet. I was astounded. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 19 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - 03:25 pm:    I suppose the assumption is that an ordinary person, such as one who might sit on a jury, is more likely to understand the written language of specifications than drawings, which are assumed require more specialized knowledge to understand. It would be good if some attorneys would offer their perspectives on this. Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: louis_medcalf Post Number: 18 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - 10:34 am:    Most people outside the A/E industry do not communicate important contractual requirements graphically or use graphics only in a supplementary fashion, such as charts or illustrations. I suspect this is why juries and judges would assume that written specifications are more important and represent a higher level of effort than drawings [hard to write that sentence with a straight face]. As to lawyers, a mean-minded person might say that they are trained to interpret written documents and are therefore better able to misinterpret them. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1376 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - 12:29 pm:    Many, many years ago, I worked on one of the first outside escalators in Seattle. (It went from street level to a plaza). I didn't know at the time that exterior escalators had completely different parts than interior escalators, so I specified the device like I had any number of times. The contractor bid the job without looking at the drawings and then after he looked at the drawings, submitted a change order for the cost difference between exterior parts and interior parts. things I learned from this: 1) There is a difference between interior things and exterior things. Usually it involves stainless steel. 2) Contractors don't look at the drawings when they are pricing. 3) The cost difference brought the cost of construction up to what it should be if all the documents were used. Sometimes, when I'm talking to younger staff, I'll say "look, if we had done this right, this is what it should have cost". 4) And the attorney for the firm said "if there is a conflict, the architect is ALWAYS wrong. you have the documents in your hands for a year; the contractor has a couple of weeks." As for informational submittals, I agree that we want them to verify that the contractor is on the right track. if we ask (in the specs) for exterior wall stiffness to be l/680 and we see the calculations and it is clear that they are using l/240 -- we can correct that bad premise before it goes any further. if we ask for coordination drawings showing 7 disciplines and the drawings only reflect information from 4 -- then we can move the process in the right direction.