4specs.com    4specs.com Home Page

Too many resubmittals Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

4specs Discussion Forum » Construction Contract Administration Discussions » Too many resubmittals « Previous Next »

Author Message
Wayne Smith
Username: wayne_smith

Post Number: 3
Registered: 05-2019
Posted on Monday, March 09, 2020 - 11:47 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

This may already be covered somewhere in one of the threads here, but I could not seem to land on it.
The issue is how many times can a contractor resubmit a submittal that does not meet project requirements before an architect or engineer can demand additional fee to review them. Is there anything in any of that standard contract documents that touches on this - such as "after the submitting the same submittal for the second time and failing to obtain approval, the architect can charge hourly for any additional reviews" If not how do others of you handle this. Do we have any recourse?
guest (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, March 09, 2020 - 12:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I dont' believe default A201 addresses resubmittals, as AIA's guide to supplemental conditions has suggested model language. However that model language depends on Owner/Arch agreement to stipulate reimbursement to Arch.

I have in my Div 01 submittals section, explicit language that 1) limits number of resubmittals, and 2) rate and process of Owner reimbursement; need to ensure your client agreement has complementary provision for reimbursement. This language was given to me to add, by one Arch client, but most of my other A-Es delete from their projects; I don't know how enforceable it is, as originating Arch has not indicated any "success" rate.
guest (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, March 09, 2020 - 12:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Forgot to add:
I have similar language for RFIs (on which no A-E action is taken).
Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: nwoods

Post Number: 795
Registered: 08-2005

Posted on Monday, March 09, 2020 - 06:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I look at this two ways:
1. A non-conforming Submittal gets rejected and returned, so the time spent is minimal, therefore I don't feel its warrented to be paid extra for it.
2. If the submittal is okay, but revise and resubmit, the third round would be considered excessive and I would bill for time. Usually, during the second review, if they still aren't getting it, I request a meeting, sort it out, and try try TRY to to approve with comments on that second submittal document.
David L. Heuring
New member
Username: daveh

Post Number: 1
Registered: 04-2020
Posted on Friday, April 03, 2020 - 11:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Wayne- Here is my short answer- " As many times as is needed to get it right" as the obligation is to review submittals to ensure work is in general conformance with the design intent.
However, this can and should be addressed in the Contract. Since the GC/CM does not have a contract with the Design Professional (DP), it needs to be addressed in the Owner-Architect/Engineer Agreement.
CA Basic services are typically defined- these require the DP to review submittals (and answer RFI's). Additional Services can define how many submittals the DP will review as Basic Services. In the AIA B101, Article 4, specifically 4.2 is the place to define this. We review submittals 2 times, then notify the Owner they may be charged additional services. Typically, the GC/CM wants to see the Owner-Arch contract so they will see this.
Another very important contract requirement that is often overlooked is the requirement for the GC/CM to provide a construction schedule and submittal schedule upon execution of the Owner-Contractor agreement (RE: AIA 201 3.10, which allows the submittal schedule to be provided "promptly after being awarded contract.) While this submittal schedule can be a fluid document, it is nonetheless a document that can used to justify additional services (i.e. repeated resubmittals do not conform to the GC/CM's original schedule.)
Lastly, the GC/CM has an obligation to review submittals for conformance vs. just passing them through from subs/suppliers. Likewise, the Architect has an obligation to mark these up clearly to show non-conformance with work.
Hope this helps.
David L. Heuring, AIA, CCCA
Junior Member
Username: daveh

Post Number: 2
Registered: 04-2020
Posted on Friday, April 03, 2020 - 11:49 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Another comment to unregistered guest:

The DP cannot limit amounts or number of resubmittals entirely- although this is my assumption from your reply and I may have misconstrued it. The DP has to look at all of them and ensure they comply with the design intent. That is the professional standard that holding a professional license requires. The Contract likely requires it also. We CAN however charge additional services beyond basic services and define the number of submittals in each as you allude to.
David L. Heuring, AIA, CCCA, LEED AP, NCARB
guest (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, April 04, 2020 - 01:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

David, My point was that while DP can (try) bill owner for additional services unless it's stated in owner-DP agreement, DP has less vaiidity for add services, in my opinion; explicit contract language, in my opinion better positions DP to get paid? My Div 01 language separately puts GC on notice that added costs could imposed unless it's submittals act is "cleaned-up"...since GC is originating source of add service.

Add Your Message Here
Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Options: Automatically activate URLs in message

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration