| Author |
Message |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 81
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 04:17 pm: |    |
Just came back from the CSI Construction Academy Seminars in Tampa -very good, hope to see more like this - the token attorney (Gerald Katz - very knowledgable) mentioned that in order to use language other than 'approved' on your shop drawing stamp, one must make sure AIA 201 is revised to reflect the stamp - this makes sense, however I had a knock down drag out conversation with a client today who claims 201 does not say the architect must approve submittals - does anyone have a PDF file of 201 that they could serach and post the exact locations where this is referenced in the General Conditions? |
Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 94
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 04:21 pm: | |
From AIA Document A201-1997:
§ 4.2.7 The Architect will review and approve or take other appropriate action upon the Contractor's submittals such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples, but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. The Architect's action will be taken with such reasonable promptness as to cause no delay in the Work or in the activities of the Owner, Contractor or separate contractors, while allowing sufficient time in the Architect's professional judgment to permit adequate review. Review of such submittals is not conducted for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of other details such as dimensions and quantities, or for substantiating instructions for installation or performance of equipment or systems, all of which remain the responsibility of the Contractor as required by the Contract Documents. The Architect's review of the Contractor's submittals shall not relieve the Contractor of the obligations under Sections 3.3, 3.5 and 3.12. The Architect's review shall not constitute approval of safety precautions or, unless otherwise specifically stated by the Architect, of any construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures. The Architect's approval of a specific item shall not indicate approval of an assembly of which the item is a component. |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 318
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 04:28 pm: | |
Paragraph 4.2.7 of A201-97 states that "The Architect will review and approve or take other appropriate action upon the Contractor's sumbittals ..." Later it says "Review of submittals is not conducted for the purpose of determining accuracy and completeness..." The word "review" is used once more in the paragraph. AIA's "Commentary on AIA Document A201" does not discuss this issue in the context of 4.2.7. I think this is driven by the liability insurers, primarily. I don't know what the case law says about it. |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 82
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 08:37 am: | |
Thanks Ron & John
You guys are super - just what I needed, yesterday was one of those really bad days where I wish there was more time in a day, with your help and the help from this board, I managed to get thru it.
Another day another dollar. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 36
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 11:34 am: | |
I remember when the profession moved away from "approving" to "reviewing" submittals. This was largely driven by liability concerns and I consider it (reviewing rather than approving) to be of the primary "weasel words" ("weasel actions") attorney and insurers insist that archtiects use. Think about sitting in a witness box, explaining what you really do when you look at a submittal and then try to explain the difference between "approve" and "review."
MasterSpec went back to the language of "approval" several years back, with thei Supplemental Documents noting "Use of the term Approved implies the nature of the Architect's action, and use of a less meaningful phrase might render the entire procedure suspect." They do strongly suggest reviewing the client's supplementry conditions for any modifications to the applicable requirements in the General Conditions. MasterSpec also states "The limited nature of the Architect's approval is also specifically indicated in the General Conditions."
As a responsible design professional (not an attorney), it is my view that architects should take responsibility for what they design. Part of the design process is checking submittals. If you check it within the scope of your responsibility, you are responsible for it to the same extent no matter what the weasel words say. |
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza
Post Number: 87
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 09:30 pm: | |
The attorneys who came up with "reviewing" and "observing" are now busy writing those ridiculous statements that firms think we need to put at the end of our emails. |
Nathan Woods, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 7
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 01:36 am: | |
I have just stumbled into this thread, after completely revising the submittal stamp language used in my firm.
It's interesting to note that DPIC and other insurance carries staunchly advocated not using the word "Approved" for many, many years. However, more current DPIC manuals (circa 1990 or newer - no longer in business BTW) now go into great detail about no matter what fancy language you use on your stamp, it's contract that defines what you are doing, and also, that the courts have defined it as an Approval process hundreds of times, so the point is mute.
Having said all that, I still couldn't get some of the architects in my firm to accept the word Approved. They grew up with it in a different way, and of all the lessons learned in architecture, that is the ONE they all seem to have really bought into :-)
So we took a close look at the A201 and B141, and they say the architect does two things:
1. Reviews the submittal
2. Takes appropriate action (including approval)
By itself, the word "Reviewed" (which my firm has used for decades) does NOT provide an Action or Direction. If the GC were to receive a submittal that says reviewed, they could rightfully send it back and say, "Yeah okay, and...."
So I needed a common ground to bridge the gap in training/philosphy, to our contractual obligations.
The results:
- Furnish as Submitted
- Furnish as Corrected
- Revised and Resubmit
- Rejected
- Not Subject to Review
Makes our new in-house counsel happy, as well as our architects.
Regards,
NW |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 123
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 09:20 am: | |
You need to cross-check with your definitions of "furnish." In many documents I have dealt with over the years, to "furnish" means to get the stuff to the jobsite ready to install; to "install" means to set in place and connect/fasten/secure (as applicable); to "provide" means to furnish and install.
I have also seen material that says "furnish" and "provide" have the same meaning, but this would be superceded by the explicit definitions noted above.
If your standard documents have these definitions, "Furnish" will be appropriate in many cases, but "Provide" will be more comprehensive especially as directed to the Contractor. |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 75
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 09:52 am: | |
Be reminded also, that A-201 uses the word "Approved" in other locations as well:
"3.12.7 The Contractor shall perform no portion of the Work for whicht he Contract Documents require submittal and review of Shop Drawings, Product Data, and Samples or similar submittals until the respective submittal has been approved by the Architect."
and 3.12.8:
"The Work shall be in accordance with approved submittals . . . "
SO, essentially, the Contractor is being told to rely on the fact that the Architect will indeed approve the submittals. In which case, one could ask, what is the Contractor to do if they receive a returned submittal that has not been "approved?"
Per Andrew Civitello's book Contractor's Guide to Change Orders:
". . . many architects and engineers have attempted to limit their liabilities by avoiding the use of the word "approved" in their shop drawing remarks. Phrases such as "No Exceptions Taken," "Furnish as Submitted," or "Examined" have now become the rule rather than the exception."
". . . The owner and contractors rely on the designer's approval responsibilities as defined in the contract. If a designer operates in a narrower capacity based on the loose language on a stamp, it is a clear admission that the designer is performing less than his or her obligations under the design contract. This can be a powerful argument against the architect during the shop drawing review process or after."
If one goes along with the conservative school-of-thought reasoning that the architect has no duty or authority to modify the Owner's General Conditions, how does one alter the language in A-201 - and in so many places - without calling attention to an assesment such as Mr. Civitello's?
It seems to me use of the word "approved" on a stamp, given that the approval is clearly and finitely defined in the Contract, provides some benefit:
1. It results in consistency,
2. It defuses a potential weapon of the Contractor's,
3. It avoids having to plead one's case to the owner for having to alter the general conditions language (not a good PR strategy).
So just bite the bullet and suck it up; everything will be just fine. |
Nathan Woods, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 8
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 01:25 pm: | |
quote:So just bite the bullet and suck it up; everything will be just fine.
The corporate environment is rarely so black and white. I 100% agree with your assement of what should be acceptable, but movement in that direction is measured in .... well - let's just say that a healthy dose of patience is useful. |
Nathan Woods, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 9
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 01:45 pm: | |
quote:You need to cross-check with your definitions of "furnish."
You are quite right, and I'm a bit chagrined that I did not fully consider that point until now. Fortunately, my Division 1 section 1330 specification provides an adequate definition of "furnish":
1330 - 1.8 1.8 ARCHITECT’S ACTION
B. Action Submittals:
Architect will review each submittal, make marks to indicate corrections or modifications required, and return it. Architect will stamp each submittal with an action stamp and will mark stamp appropriately indicating action taken, as follows:
1. Authority to Proceed: The notations "Furnish as Submitted" or "Furnish as Corrected" authorize the Contractor to proceed with fabrication, purchase or both or the items so noted, subject to the revisions, if any, required by the Architect's review comments.
2. Revisions: The notation "Revise and Resubmit" means make revisions required by the Architect and resubmit. If the Contractor considers required revision to be a change, he shall so notify the Architect as provided for under "Changes" or "Changes in the Work" in the General Conditions. Show each Drawing revision by number, date and subject in a revision block on the Drawings. Make only those revisions directed by or accepted by the Architect. Resubmittal will restart the review time period. |
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson
Post Number: 57
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 02:09 pm: | |
I think what you include in your agreement with you client regarding actions on submittals is much more important than what you stamp says. Revising the language on the stamp may make "everyone feel better," but I don't think it really accomplishes anything unless there is consistency of language with your services agreement and the conditions of the contract.
1997 AIA B141, 2.6.4.1: "The Architect shall review and approve or take other appropraite action upon the Contractor's submittals such as ......." If you are using AIA documents, this is where you need to start.
If you revise B141 then you need to make the appropriate revisions in A201 to match per David Combs posting above. The Contractor can certainly make a claim based on what the conditions of the contract says that the Architect is going to do in administering the contract.
If you are not using AIA documents, what your agreement and the conditions of the contract say are still the important issue.
The last thing to do is to make the langugage of your stamp match your agreement with the client and with the conditions of the contract. I think the legal process would hold you to what services you have agreed to provide in your professional services agreement in contrast to what your stamp says. |
|
4specs.com Home Page