| Author |
Message |
Lynn A. Javoroski (Lynnjav)
| | Posted on Monday, March 05, 2001 - 02:53 pm: |    |
I'm looking for suggestions for Shop Drawing review stamp format. There is considerable discussion in my office regarding the inclusion of "approved" versus something less committed. Any thoughts? |
John Regener
| | Posted on Monday, March 05, 2001 - 11:42 pm: | |
First, this is a matter to review with your firm's errors & omissions insurance carrier.
Second, I attended a program by a loss prevention firm for a large e&o carrier and the issue of "approved" vs. "reviewed" was discussed. The matter was reduced to, if you touch it, you're responsible. That is, review the submittal and it doesn't matter if you say "approved" or some less responsible statement such as "reviewed," there is accountability.
What this works out to be, in my opinion, is:
- don't specify a submittal for approval/review unless you mean the architect/engineer will approve/comment on it.
- don't review submittals that are not required by the contract documents.
- don't approve/review changes in the work that are made on submittals.
- someone knowledgeable should do submittals reviews ... it is not a mere clerical task to be assigned to a junior, not-yet registered design professional.
- prepare complete and correct contract documents that properly describe the design intent. That is, do it right so you don't have to worry much about whether it's "approve" or "review." |
Carlos Ovalle
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 19, 2001 - 07:25 pm: | |
John, do you know if there is legal precedent,
where the courts ruled against the A/E who did
the "review"? |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 10:23 am: | |
Carlos:
I just attended a seminar on AIA A201 General Conditions of the Contract, at the CSI Convention in Dallas. The attorney presenting the ~2 hour seminar addressed this issue. His comment essentially was there's no difference between "review" and "approve." Not being an attorney, I can't cite a legal precedent. Discuss this submittals review issue with your firm's legal and insurance counsels for advice that counts. |
Phil Kabza - The Spec Guy
| | Posted on Saturday, August 04, 2001 - 07:51 am: | |
The 1997 edition AIA documents (Owner/Architect agreements and Owner/Contractor General Conditions ) state that the Architect will "review and approve or take other appropriate action" on submittals. So if you use those documents, that's what you said you'd do, and you'd better do it.
In updating our firm's submittal stamp, I relied upon the language in the AIA documents and found useful background guidance in Masterspec's Section 01330 Submittals Procedures and the section's Supporting Documents. I added check boxes that serve our internal interest by reminding our reviewers to determine that the submittal is indeed required by the specifications, to determine whether the submittal requires action or is merely an information submittal, and to ensure that the contractor has reviewed and approved the document first. |
Timothy E. Woerner, PE, CCS
Member
Username: tewoerner
Post Number: 3
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 09:10 pm: | |
This section should be moved to a new one titled "Submittals".
"Second, I attended a program by a loss prevention firm for a large e&o carrier and the issue of "approved" vs. "reviewed" was discussed. The matter was reduced to, if you touch it, you're responsible. That is, review the submittal and it doesn't matter if you say "approved" or some less responsible statement such as "reviewed," there is accountability."
I have heard the above advice also. We, and many others, use MASTERSPEC which does attempt to discrimminate between "possible submittals" and "required submittals". |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 199
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 09:02 am: | |
One attorney explained to me that juries -- which usually do not have industry "insiders" on them -- can interpret the word "approved" very literally, even to the point of expecting the architect to have done independent testing and orignial research. Yet, at the same time, it is also true that most times there is little difference between the two terms. Part of it, I think, is to get architect's to think critically and cautiously about the process of submittal review. Our stamp and Section 01330 use "review" not "approved", and we are rigorous about not asking for submittals we don't need, not reviewing submittals we didn't ask for and distinguishing between action and informational submittals (I list them in separate Part I articles so it's more obvious). |
Ralph Liebing
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 64
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 10:34 am: | |
Here are some items that may help--
http://www.csemag.com/magazine/articles/c02l013.asp [check 01/03 issue for second part of this article]
http://www.worksite.com/dpic_contr_guide.htm
http://www.csemag.com/magazine/articles/c00k021.asp |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 10:59 am: | |
http://www.schinnerer.com/risk_mgmt/design_firms/prac_mgmt/submit.pdf |
|
4specs.com Home Page