Reject vs Revise and Resubmit

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

Author Message Brett Farbstein, LEED AP BD+C, CEM, CBCP, EBCP, CDT (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 05:59 pm:    Is there any consensus as to when a submittal should be "Rejected" vs returned "Revise and Resubmit"? Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 150 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 06:36 pm:    I think "Rejected" is for when a submittal is so far out of compliance with the contract documents that it's a waste of time to review, and the contractor needs to try again, from scratch. "Revise and Resubmit" means the contractor doesn't have to start from scratch, and may need to incorporate the architect's comments in the resubmittal. I define them in Section 01 33 00 "Submittal Procedures" as follows: Rejected: Where the submittal is marked “Rejected,” do not proceed with the Work covered by the submittal. Prepare a new submittal for a product that complies with the Contract Documents. Revise and Resubmit: Where the submittal is marked “Revise and Resubmit,” do not proceed with the Work covered by the submittal, including purchasing, fabrication, delivery, or other activity for the product submitted. Revise or prepare a new submittal according to Architect’s notations and corrections. I got the language from MasterSpec's evaluations (Supporting Documents). I always coordinate with the architect's submittal stamp. Not all of them use "Rejected" or "Revise and Resubmit." Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 659 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 06:59 pm:    Ours stamp states: SUBMITTAL REVIEW Submittals not required, returned without review. If checked below, fabrication MAY NOT be undertaken. "Revise and resubmit" "Rejected" "Submit the specified item If checked below, fabrication MAY be undertaken. Markings and comments do not imply authorization of changes to the Contract or Contract Documents. "Approved" "Approved with incorporation of noted corrections" Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 195 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 07:15 pm:    The best advise I would suggest is talk with your legal council. They may like the wording to be different and/or with more choices. Brett Farbstein, LEED AP BD+C, CEM, CBCP, EBCP, CDT (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 10:58 pm:    Thank you for your input so far. To clarify, I am looking for a reference/guideline to give to my MEP design engineers who are reviewing shops for when to use "Reject" or "Revise and Resubmit". Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 224 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2014 - 10:29 am:    Liz’s definitions pretty much reflect my use of “Rejected” versus “Revise and Resubmit”. Obviously there can be a lot of “grey” between these: there is often no sharp line between them. Sometimes I lean toward “Rejected” rather than “Revise and Resubmit” because the Contractor has made a practice of submitting poor quality submittals in a particular project; and vice versa. Some coworkers don’t like to use “rejected” because they think it is too “harsh.” It can be, but sometimes a 2x4 between the eyes is necessary to get someone’s attention (figuratively of course). John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1579 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, June 27, 2014 - 03:15 pm:    There were not too many times when I had to reject a submittal. Examples might be when only certain manufacturers or products are permitted, and another was submitted; or when a product was not going to comply even if revisions were made, say, a window that could never meet the required wind loads. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1580 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, June 27, 2014 - 03:17 pm:    By the way, it was always my employer's E & O insurance carrier that wanted to review submittal language, not my employer's attorneys. When an attorney was hired by my employer, it was usually related to signing contracts or leases. This is because when an architect gets sued, it is the E & O carrier who hires the defending attorney. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 783 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, June 27, 2014 - 04:10 pm:    Agreed John. I rarely used "Rejected" unless the submittal was used instead of a Substitution Request or if the submittal just couldn't work. I'm always wary of trying to 'fix' shop drawings and having the GC revise and resubmit based on my markups. If they just do what I tell them and it's still not right, it becomes my problem instead of theirs. Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 225 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, June 27, 2014 - 04:55 pm:    I use "rejected" when the submittal is so messed up that it would require a virtual "redrafting" of the shops to bring it in line. Or when the Contractor didn't use the most current CDs as a basis for the submittal. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1234 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, June 27, 2014 - 05:08 pm:    As an indipendent specifier, I don't perform any formal submittal reviews. However, when I did, I would "reject" anything that was outright prohibited by the specifications (e.g. completely different type of product, submitted a manufacturer or product not listed, etc.) For a "revise & resubmit," it indicates that they have met some or most of the specified requirements, but there are some errors, such as they didn't fully indicate everything on the submittal (e.g. color not indicated, thickness not identified if product data shows multiple thicknesses, etc.). Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 30, 2014 - 10:23 am:    The language on our submittal stamp was suggested by our insurance carrier just as John said above. They had us remove accepted from our stamp over a decade ago. Everything is reviewed but never accepted or approved. Of course our "stamp" is no longer an actual stamp but typically a digital stamp We also rarely reject a submittal but we do reject portions of the submittal if it is completely incorrect. IE: accept the ceiling tile submittal but reject the ceiling grid because they submitted intermediate duty when we specified heavy-duty. At times we will actually place two stamps on the submittal to make it clear which items are ok and which must be changed and resubmitted. Our projects are typically smaller so keeping track of partially accepted submittals is not that hard to do. I suspect that if we where doing huge projects we might have to reject more submittals (or spend more time marking up poor submittals) in order to keep everything organized. Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 129 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Monday, June 30, 2014 - 02:30 pm:    Regardless of what one's submittal review stamp says, AIA A201 clearly states that the "Architect shall review and approve... the Contractor’s submittals..." I believe that the courts have held the A201 language takes precedent over any review stamp. If memory serves me correctly, the trend of removing the term "Approve" from review stamps was a post KC Hyatt Regency thing. As an independent specification consultant, I do review certain submittals (masonry, roofing, curtain wall, door hardware, to name a few) and charge by the hour for these additional services. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1236 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, June 30, 2014 - 02:51 pm:    It also says "or take other appropriate action," which is what the insurance companies are probably relying on. However, ConsensusDocs 200, their version of general conditions, states that the architect will review and approve--nothing else. Does that mean I cannot reject it or request that it be revised and resubmitted? Hmmmm... Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 226 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, June 30, 2014 - 03:08 pm:    Ah yes, ConsensusDocs. I am happy not to encounter them often. All the seminars I have attended with attorneys about submittals, they and emphasized that by and large Courts hold not matter the language used in contracts, specifications, or stamps, the AE has “approved” (or “Approved as Noted”) submittals. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 30, 2014 - 04:18 pm:    I am familiar with the discussions about the change in stamp nomenclature making no contractual difference. However when your carrier says remove the language we do. Imagine that they suggest you change the language and you don't because you argue that it makes no difference anyway. You may be correct but you may have also created the wiggle room that the insurance company is looking for to make the problem more yours and less theirs. If they suggest that I should reduce my liability by standing on my head and whistling Dixie then my face is going to get red. Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 227 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, June 30, 2014 - 05:30 pm:    I understand doing what your insurance carrier dictates. What is interesting is that several of teh seminars I attended were funded by insurance carriers and the attornoes presented made the same statements concerning "approved". It would be interesting to get carriers with different opinions in teh same room and ask why, then sit and listen. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 196 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, June 30, 2014 - 06:12 pm:    When I said that you should talk with you legal council, I was assuming he also was dealing with the insurance carrier, too. I did miss the point that they may not be the same person. @spiper: You are correct. Insurance companies rule over this. The General Conditions also, typically, should be reviewed and corrected for the language that your insurance wants. Today, due to the tighter money situations, they want the language changed and look to reduce their payouts. It is just as important to have QA/QC processes in place and practiced since they may want to have those things covered, too. That can also have impacts as much as the submittal stamps. Does it make any difference? Actually in the lawyers eyes, yes. Especially when you are dealing with lawyers that may not have construction law experience. They will not be shy about going after any little variance between what is practiced versus what written. I still say that you should consult with your legal council anyway. When you get to the insurance stage, that means that you are already in the need of your attorney... Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 667 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, June 30, 2014 - 08:47 pm:    As stated previously it is my understanding that the courts will interpret “reviewed” submittals as if they were “approved” and as a result most lawyers will not take a hard line on this issue. Still my practice is to use reviewed and not approved or accepted on shop drawing stamps. My position is that when AIA 201 talks about approving they are referring to the prime consultant. As a structural sub consultant I return my submittal reviews to the architect acting as the prime who then decides to approve the submittal if he so wishes. In some instances the structural submittals need to be coordinated with other submittals and that is typically left to the prime consultant. There are two reasons to have reviews by the insurance carrier, or their designate agents. The first is to assure that the work covered by the contract is covered by the policy they provide. The second is to benefit from their experience. This can be a valuable service and many design professionals have come to rely on this review and not consult their attorney for advice. My understanding is that if you follow the recommendations made regards insurability of the contract they will not deny coverage if there is a claim. This is a must have review. Regards the second type of comments the individual performing the review for the insurance company may or not be a lawyer and even when he or she is a lawyer they would suggest that you still need to consult with your attorney since they are not acting as your attorney. The point is that the consequences of incorporating the insurance carrier’s comments may vary depending on the particular circumstances of the situation. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 519 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Monday, June 30, 2014 - 09:12 pm:    "Insurance companies rule over this. The General Conditions also, typically, should be reviewed and corrected for the language that your insurance wants." Let's not forget that the general conditions are the owner's documents, not the architect's. The architect and the architect's attorney and insurance carrier can advise and recommend changes to the general conditions, but the final decision is the owner's. And if the architect has a problem with the general conditions wording, they have three courses of action: accept the wording and its consequences, convince the owner to change the wording, or walk away from the project. Christopher Borcsok Senior Member Username: ckb Post Number: 38 Registered: 06-2013 Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2014 - 06:32 pm:    In Canada, the language in the standard CCDC 2 contract in GC 3.10 is that "The Consultant's review is for conformity to the design concept and for general arrangement only.", and also "The Consultant's review shall not relieve the Contractor of responsibility for errors or omissions in the Shop Drawings or for meeting all requirements of the Contract Documents." Unfortunately, I've encountered many Owners and Contractors who equate "Reviewed" with "Approved".