Submittal Problem?

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

Author Message Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 138 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 09:02 am:    How wise is it to reduce the number of submittals required simply to reduce your work load [because your fee is tight]? How wise is it to reduce the number of submittals required so you are not "backed into" reviewing [at your cost] improperly prepared submittals that have not been properly reviewed by the Contractor? Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 85 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 10:37 am:    Ralph I attended the CCA Academy two weeks ago, where speakers suggested that it was ok to limit the number of submittals per week to avoid being slammed by the contractor. We agree. Our architectural clients agree. And if the contractor or owner disagrees, than we have added a clause that if more than the agreed to number of submittals per week is submitted for approval/review than architect has an additional week to review them. Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 139 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 11:07 am:    Thanks, Mr. Lazar, and to clarify for myself; the "weekly" assortment would be as noted and planned for on the Submittal Schedule? David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 415 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:05 pm:    Thanks Ralph for asking this question. It is very timely since I have been helping out with CA on a few jobs. I came to the conclusion that some of the submittals we request are impracticle, time consuming and ineffective. The problem is trying to weed out those submittals. Does anyone have a guide that explains what submittals are necessary and what ones are not? Julie Root Senior Member Username: julie_root Post Number: 9 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:14 pm:    I agree with David. We have started eliminating submittals on tried and true materials. If we have seen that we get the same cut sheets that the teams keep in the project binder then we have become comfortable not requesting a submittal that we have to review. An example would be acoustic ceiling tile. We are realizing that we have not put good wording in the Div 01 Submittal that says something to the effect that just because a submittal is not required does not mean that the contractor can put in the wrong product and get away with it. Does anyone have advice with on language to help this situation? Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 75 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:35 pm:    1. Require a submittal schedule along with the other schedules - and hold the contractor to it - as much as possible. If they mess up then you have a "card" to trade later. 2. If you know the product (e.g. acoustical tile) then the submittal should take only a few minutes and YOU then KNOW that the contractor is intending to use that product. They can always fake you out (if they want to) but its one more piece of paper on your side come lawsuit time. And maybe they had to contact the rep. So NOW the rep knows the job is out there too. 3. Installation instructions are another good example. Contractors always want to bail out on these. “We know how to install this… been doing it for 20 years… I was recently at a residential job (not mine) where the cheap vinyl windows were being slammed in without a care in the world. I pointed out to the Owner that this was not accepted practice and mentioned the saddle of rubberized asphalt peel and stick et al. The carpenter went on and on about how they never did that… The Owner looked at me as some kind of nut. AND THEN, taped to the window, was this piece of paper AH HA! There were installation instructions showing all the bits and pieces that I had just been talking about. And guess what! “…if not installed per these instructions…NO WARRANTY.” So much for contractor’s experience. Although this was a small residential job I’ve seen the same thing on large ones too. I don’t ask for steel certificates on a small job with three sticks. I do on large jobs. Be real but don’t skimp and DON’T trust the contractor. Projects have contracts (and project manuals) for a reason. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 97 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:41 pm:    This is something I've been considering for just such situations: eliminate the bulky product data, samples, etc. and require the contractor to submit a product certification. I'm not talking about a manufacturer's certification, but a document that the GC and the subcontractor sign that basically states "this is the manufacturer and product we're using for your project." The certification can be on a form of your design that is included in the project manual. It is informational and requires no action by the architect unless the product isn't what was specified. Plus, a single sheet is easier to file. Submittal Schedules are fine, but requires the contractor to have everything ready up front at the beginning of a project. And, as we all know, he usually doesn't even have all his subs under contract until well after the dirt is being moved around. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 50 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:43 pm:    If one specifies a specific mfr and model and the contractor is intending to use that product, it seems logical that the product data and samples should not be necessary. But if a contractor proposes another product, product data and samples are important. Installation instructions should always be included if references are made to the approved submittals under Part 3 text. Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 27 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 01:28 pm:    We only request that items needing color selection or size confirmation be submitted. In other sections we ask for the builder to provide items as specified and as certification submit the form we have prepared stating such with one copy of the shop drawing for the record. Seems like this saves time and fuss for everyone! John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 326 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 01:52 pm:    Ronald, I have started to think about contractor's and manufacturer's certifications as well. (I plan to require it to be signed by an officer of the company.) This would be a way, in my case, of eliminating a thick packet of test reports, which are informational submittals anyway. Generally, my decision about where to require what submittals involves how complicated the product is, how complicated it's use on my project is, and how much of it there is on the project. This holds true for the extent of my spec, too, except that there's a law of diminishing returns for making specs shorter--can take more time. In some cases on smaller projects with a minor item, we'll simply use a drawing note. Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 11 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 05:04 pm:    But aren’t these samples also a good way to verify that we received what we thought we specified? Being as some of us are human, it seems possible that we could write down an incorrect model number or misunderstand exactly what the designing architect meant to tell us to specify. It’s a lot cheaper to catch the mistake before the product is installed. I am sure that manufacturers and contractors would also appreciate finding out that they supplied the wrong product before installing it (though, I agree this isn’t really our problem.) Seeing the actual item they plan to install gives us an extra line of defense against these mistakes. Many of them only take seconds to look at and approve. Also, in my office at least, we sometimes end up partially designing some things by submittal. I know it’s not a good practice; but sometimes it happens – especially on design/build projects. We sometimes have to meet deadlines that do not allow us enough time to thoroughly determine all of the interior work. Submittals give us an opportunity to slightly modify products that ended up not being exactly what we would have specified if we hadn’t run out of time. It is much more costly to try to do that after the products are manufactured or installed. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 89 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 11:30 am:    We have several studios working in different market segments (Federal; K-12; Retail; etc.) and the approach to submittals is different in each one. We assess what it is the owner hired us to do - which varies. We always check submittals on life safety items and weathertight/watertight systems. Beyond that it is a matter of level of service and level of design control. I always specify an early Product List submittal - even put it in SCs, but I seldom get it. I've started using the Product Certificate method Ronald mentions - it's promising and may help reduce the mailroom costs and voluminous files. We seldom receive adequate fee for CA services to take over the contractor's QC responsibilities and double check everything he/she's buying, so we're working on breaking that bad habit. As for using submittals to finish design, which is common in the rushed retail design environment, we do what we have to do. And using submittals to catch our errors and omissions ... good document quality control is a lot more profitable, but a lot harder to find. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 344 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 03:34 pm:    We looked at limiting submittals several times over the past couple years, but ultimately did not. One concept was to have 2 options for editing the submittals area - 1 for routine CA type activities where it would be a basic approach, the other for a project where the Owner selected a higher participation level (and expense) for the CA portion of the contract. But here in our area where dealing with even the GCs who do lots of our work we have seen such total botches of the system that we have opted to do no limiting. What we have done is very carefully edited the paragraphs dealing with and related to the contractor's submittal schedule, requiring its early submission and resubmission monthly or when it changes...and that its submittal is not defacto, but requires approval, and also specifying the guidlines for how we make that approval (time to review, etc.) so he can make reasonable estimates of whether we will approve the schedule or not. Even then, we still often get the submittal schedule completed looking forward only a couple of months and then everything else on the list tagged to some date about 3 months out there. We reject those. We can't ever acknowledge acceptance of any schedule that says 90% of all submittals will arrive on August 1 or some such date! When not submitted, or when not approved, we enter it into the mintues of the meeting and send a letter to the Owner indicating that continued failure to provide a reasonable schedule may start to impacct our ability to perform. We do respond to special cases and emergencies - but we refuse to take everything as a special case. William Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 154 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 12:36 pm:    I am quite gratified by the responses in this thread, and the wonderful insight and expertise. I would like to "throw out" one other concept for your comments, etc., and how this might impact the Standard of Care: Concept: "Zero Submittals" [possible exception for custom items] Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 122 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 03:18 pm:    A great goal, Ralph! How much product data do we really need for gypboard? We had been evaluating our submittal requirements, deleting the typical boilerplate request for every conceivable type of information, and then along came LEED... George A. Everding, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 23 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 04:58 pm:    At best, “near zero”. Don’t forget, submittals are governed by the General Conditions and include more than just “Shop Drawings, Product Data, and Samples”. If you are using AIA A201, unless modified by supplementary conditions, you are calling for, “Contractor's Construction Schedule”, “Submittals Schedule”, “subcontract list”, “Applications for Payment”, “Schedule of Values”, “certificates of tests, inspections, and approvals”, and “list of items to be completed or corrected (punch list)”. It is pretty clear that the gods and goddesses of standard contract documentation have handed down from the mountain top a fairly hefty submittal precedent. Good luck on whittling that mountain down to a more manageable molehill. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 44 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 05:00 pm:    We just completed specs for a series of projects where the Corps of Engineers will be doing the submittal review normally carried out by the A/E, and they requested that we delete all "non-essential" submittals from SpecsIntact. They only want to see submittals where an issue of safety is involved. Helaine K. Robinson CCS Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 129 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 06:29 pm:    Rick, how is ol' SpecsIntact? Kim A. Bowman, CSI, AAIA, LEED AP New member Username: archspecmaster Post Number: 1 Registered: 02-2005 Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 10:34 am:    Our firm is deleting submittal requirements for architectural products (ceilings, carpet, VCT, base, corner guards,etc... misc. finish items) if contractor provides the "Basis of Design" as specified. We are being very careful to word this requirement appropriately. As we are not deleting the majority of submittal requirements, just product data and detailed shop drawings on specific interior finish items that really don't matter if we get submittals or not anyway. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 97 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 02:05 pm:    One thing that might help all of us would be to discriminate between submittals the AE needs to review ("action submittals"), submittals the AE needs to receive and file ("informational submittals"), and submittals that the contractor needs to have on the jobsite and the owner may want in the project record (let's call these "installation submittals"). Action submittals should be held to the minimum necessary for meeting the AE's obligations to the owner and to the public; information submittals limited to those required to be viewed by the AE prior to entering the project record, and keep responsibility for all other useful information with the contractor. This helps reduce the under-fee'd AE's CA workload while still providing reference information for jobsite questions and a permanent library of product data for the owner. And let's put all of this stuff in a linked PDF library, for heaven's sake. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 333 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 08:51 am:    Phil's comment is an excellent one. Division 1 Submittals Section defines which submittals are action and which are informational, but I think contract administrators frequently don't make that distinction, and I'm pretty sure that most contractors don't. Partly to assist with this, we have created, in some projects, separate articles within the technical sections for action and informational submittals. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 47 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 12:59 pm:    I am intrigued by the question that implies that if a Contractor is not required to make a submittal, they are under no obligation to install the product specified. I don't think so... If using AIA A201, one of the warranties that the Contractor gives is that the construction will comply with the Drawings and the Specifications. Not requiring the Cotractor to give you a submittal on gypsum plaster does not mean that the Contractor can use gypsum wallboard or prefinished plywood paneling. I have tightened down on submittals for our private work where we use contractors we know. I recently reviewed the submittals we received for this type of project with our CA people--turns out we were getting good compliance. For public work where the specification has to be more open, I like to have a more complete set of submittals on what the Contractor is actually using. This is the last check you have, and even if the Contractor is on the up and up, some sub trying to support a golf course in Maui may be trying to slip something by. Every time I have sat down to review submittal requirements with someone else, we wind up with more submittals that I was going to require anyway.