Owner Approved Substitution Requests

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

Author Message Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 01:43 pm:    The Skinny: Project Manual for a high rise condo, my firm did Division 01 with standard, A201-based MasterSpeak language. Section 01600 requires Architect's approval only for substitution requests. Owner's financial institution hires third party constructibility reviewer who recommends that Architect and Owner both be named as parties that must approve substitution requests. Issue: I am uneasy about this for what I hope are obvious reasons. Question: Pros and Cons from the group in allowing this change to be made? anon Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 180 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 02:53 pm:    Substitutions during construction should be approved by the Owner, and issued to the contractor via a change order. Read A201 3.4.2. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 477 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 03:11 pm:    If the architect is uncomfortable about accepting a substitution then the architect should tell the owner IN WRITTING. The owner can then decide if they want to accept the substitution contrary to the architect's WRITTEN objections. Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 197 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 03:23 pm:    What Mr. Axt notes is correct, and is the essence of the "policing" of the Owner-Contractor contract, required of the Architect. The Owner could be duped into accepting a poor substitute, for a very bad or tenuous reason; so the Architect must speak up. Shedrick E. Glass, CSI,CCS Advanced Member Username: shedd_glass Post Number: 5 Registered: 07-2004 Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 04:58 pm:    Mr. Geren is correct. A201 3.4.2 says; "The Contractor may make substitutions only with the consent of the Owner, after evaluation by the Architect". Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 47 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 05:37 pm:    The cited A201 clause was inserted in the 1997 edition. My research with those on the committee at the time indicated it was insert so that the owner become part of subsitution approval process and relieve Architect of some of the liability. The problem is that the Architect still signs a change order indicating recommendation of the substitution creating a problem if the Architect doesn't recommend the substitution but the owner still wants to accept it. One solution to this is supplementary condition change to the above A201 clause to delete the requirement making it a mandatory change order but keeping the Architect recommends and the Owner approves. Then use a modifed subsitution request form that has the Architect making a recommendation about the subsitution and the owner making the final decision on the same form. Now the Architect's recommendation and owner's decision are on the same form and the Architect doesn't have to write a negative letter to the owner if there is disagrement about a subsitution request. Obviously a change order would still be necessary if there is change in the contract sum or time, but the Architect is already on the written record regarding the substitution. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 96 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 06:43 pm:    In the AIA A 201 article on the "1-year correction period", the Owner has the right to accept Work that does not conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents. These provisions effectively deal with unauthorized substitutions. The Architect's responsibility is to point out nonconforming Work, but does not have the absolute authority to compel the Contractor to correct it. It is the Owner's money, and if the Owner can be convinced that the nonconforming Work will meet his needs, then the Owner has the right to accept it. Note that Work that is nonconforming is not necessarily defective. My firm finds nonconforming work on almost every project, as I am sure others do. There are some Contractors out there who love to play Architect and can convince the Owner that their impression is an improvement over the real thing. It is somewhat of a mystery to me why the Contractor would want to have design responsibility since (1) he warrants that the Work will conform to the Drawings and Specifications, and (2) his insurance does not protect him from design failures due to to his design errors and omissions. On some of our projects, we even kinda like the Contractor's taking some of the liability out of our hands. The process for reviewing and accepting substitutions proposed by the Contractor is a vehicle for placing design responsibility back on the Architect which, in my humble opinion, is where it belongs. Substitutions are a means of proposing a change in the Work. Standard provisions in most CDs require that the Contractor pay for review and any changes to CDs that may be required; however, I have rarely seen this enforced. If the substitution constitutes a minor change in the Work which does not affect cost or schedule, it could, theoretically, be effected by the Architect's acceptance of the Substitution and an ASI (Architect's Supplemental Instruction). In this case, there may be no need to involve the Owner. Where the substitution does affect time or money, the change must be effected not only by accepting the Substitution, but also by implementing a Change Order. This process requires Owner approval. I would suggest that the Architect should get Owner concurrence for all substitutions even when they do not require issuing a Change Order. My thoughts are based on a Substitution Request received during construction. Substitutions received during bidding are different and do not require Owner involvement. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 478 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 07:07 pm:    Does the third party constructibility reviewer take on any additional liability for recommending that the owner and architect accept a substitution? Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 181 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 07:09 pm:    Peter: What A201 states (and what Shedrick didn't include in his quote) is "...and in accordance with a Change Order." So, if AIA A201 is used (and not modified, as Bob Johnson suggests), then a Change Order is required for substitutions whether or not they affect cost or schedule. Bob: Rather than going through the modification of the A201 and creating a special form, couldn't a letter, attached to the Change Order package, indicate the architect's opposition? There is no statement or certification on the G701 (Change Order) that states the architect's signature is a indication of his recommendation of the change. Rather, it indicates that it is a valid Change Order (assuming the other parties have signed it). For example, on a regular Change Order that increases the cost, the architect may object to the amount, but the owner accepts it, anyway. So, how does the architect document his objection?...by letter. Shedrick E. Glass, CSI,CCS Senior Member Username: shedd_glass Post Number: 6 Registered: 07-2004 Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 07:26 pm:    Mr. geren is correct again. Thank you for correcting my error. I intention was to quote complete text but I failed to do so. The change order element is most important in this discussion due to the fact that the architect signs it stating THEIR (owner, architect and contractor) AGREEMENT to the change. See A201 7.2.1. (avoiding the qote this time!) Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 06:36 pm:    AIA A511 offers the following replacement language to A201 paragraph 3.4.2: After the Contract has been executed, the Owner and Architect will consider a formal request for the substitution of products in place of those specified only under the conditions set forth in the General Requirements (Division 1 of the Specifications). Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 16 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 11:50 pm:    We want the Owner to be involved in accepting substitutions since it will help control our liability. In addition we should not loose sight of the fact that it is the Owners money and we are acting as his agents in administering the contract. I recommend the use of the CSI form for substitutions. It requires the Contractor to take responsibility for the consequences of his proposed substitutions thus further helping to control both our and the owners liability. This form also insures that we will be paid for our effort in reviewing the substitutions. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 48 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 11:47 am:    The reason for eliminating the requirement for a change order is so the A/E is not signing a recommendation for a change that the A/E doesn't recommend which then has to be explained in an additional negative after the fact letter which in my experience owners don't like to receive. The modified substitution form eliminates the need for such letters to the owner and gives the owner the A/E's recommendation in writing before the owner's makes the final decision as it should be. It also makes it simplier - the form I have used is based on the CSI form with all the contractor representations but changes the A/E's action to a recommendation and adds a location for the owner to sign off with their final decision - all accomlished on one simple form - contractor's request, A/E's recommendation, and owner's decision - documents the appropriate actions of requesting, recommending, and making final decision by each party - neat and simple - no additional letters - no change orders to process if there is no change in contract sum or time. Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 110 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 10:38 am:    Like Bob, I use a modified version of the CSI form, with a place for the Owner to sign off (it's interesting that neither CSI form mentions the "Owner"). Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 04:25 pm:    A201 requires that the Owner and Architect approve substitution requests in accordance with a Change Order. This is not in conflict with a substitution request form absent the Owner's signature because Change Orders must be signed by the Owner. If a substitution request makes it as far as a Change Order, Architect has approved (for sake of this argument) and Owner signs the CO, satisfying the requirements in A201. If it doesn't make it as far as a Change Order then it isn't really a substitution request as described in my Div 01 sections, but either a Comparable Product (I include "or approved" stuff in this category) or a Minor Change in the Work, which is addressed via ASI. Since Change Orders require some modification to the scope of Work, where there is none in a substitution request, there is no conflict with A201 in approving or rejecting the request without Owner's approval.... anon Shedrick E. Glass, CSI,CCS Senior Member Username: shedd_glass Post Number: 7 Registered: 07-2004 Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 07:51 pm:    Anon 7-14-05 posting: The 1997 edition of A201, whick I think everone agrees represents recommended standard practice, says the Contractor may make substitutions only with the CONSENT (not approval) of the Owner, after EVALUATION (not approval) by the Architect, see A201 3.4.2. A change order DOES NOT REQUIRE APPROVAL by anyone. According to A201 1997, A change order is a written instrument stating Owner, Architect & Contractor agreement to the change, see A201 7.2.1. If one desires to require Architect approval one can, however, it is NOT recommended standard practice according to A201. I am sure the Owner, Contractor and financial institutions involved in the project are more than agreeable to the Architect accepting more liability than he is obligated to accept. Such expansion of Architect liability may not be covered by the Architect's liability insurance. SPecText section 01600 does NOT require Architect approval of a substitution. I do not have access to current MasterSpec 01600 section so I cannot factually say what it says. If you are the same Anon that first posted this thread, you appear to be defending your documents instead of getting the facts straight. If you are not the same Anon that first posted this thread, the facts, with confirmation location referenced, have been stated repeatedly in this thread. I suggest you read A201 before making false statements as in the 7-14-05 Anon posting. The posting itself explains why you conceal your identity behind "anonymous" postings. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 08:20 pm:    Maybe I did a poor job presenting my position. At the risk of more abuse in wanting to remain anonymous, I'll give it another try, and hopefully Shepdick will give me a little more professional courtesy here. I erred in using the word approved in my 7-14 post, but I do not believe that this invalidates my argument. The Architect, using a substitution request form signed by the Contractor, evaluates the request - taking whatever action the form requires by checking whatever boxes are available. The CSI form for substitution requests after bedding/negotiation does not require a signature by the Owner, so CSI seems to recognize and support my position that at this juncture of the process, consent of the Owner is not required. The CSI form, under the A/Es Review and Action section, contains 4 responses to choose from: approved, approved as noted, rejected, and too late. If the substitution request is approved (CSI form language) which necessitates a change in the contract, a Change Order will be required, and the Owner, by siging the Change Order, consents to the substitution request. There is nothing in A201 that I read that requires consent of the Owner in rejecting a substitution request. A511 offers the alternate language to A201 3.4.2 if it is intended that "substitutions should not necessarily require a Change Order." MasterSpec Section 01600 addresses this issue by describing what comparable products are and procedures for submitting a request to use a comparable product in lieu of what has been specified. I hope that I have stated my position more clearly this time. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 183 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 01:28 am:    Anon/Unreg: I think the confusion (from my reading of your 7/14 post) stems from your 3rd paragraph stating that substitutions do not require the owner's approval, whether rejected or accepted, since substitutions do not modify the contract's scope of work. If A201 3.4.2 is left intact, then a change order is required regardless whether scope (time or cost) is changed or not. However, you're correct in that a change order is not necessary if the owner does not consent to the substitution. The use of the change order IAW A201 for substitutions is to document the owners "approval" of the substitution. I also agree that comparable products from listed manufacturers in lieu of basis-of-design products, are not technically substitutions. But I require that they follow the same process to ensure compliance with specified requirements. Shedrick E. Glass, CSI,CCS Senior Member Username: shedd_glass Post Number: 9 Registered: 07-2004 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 10:54 am:    Unregistered Guest: As stated by Rober Johnson, 3.4.2 was added to A201 in the 1997 edition. If the CSI form you reference is dated before 1997, I suspect that it is coordinated with 1987 A201, (which, from memory, DID require Architect "APPROVAL" of a substitution) not the 1997 edition making it inappropriate for use with 1997 A201 without modification. Anonymous   Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:23 am:    Substitution request forms require no action of the Owner. This is the instrument used for an Architect's evaluation of a substitution, period. Upon approval by the Architect, if - and ONLY if -a change in sum or time is required, a Change Order must be prepared and Owner's signature on the Change Order constitutes Owner's consent to the substitution. AIA A201 paragraph 3.4.2 does not require any of the following: -Owner's signature on substitution request form -Owner's review of substitution request form -Owner's approval/consent to rejection by Architect -A change order for anything other than a change in the work brought about by a substitution. If there is no change in the work, there is no change order required and 3.4.2 does not supersede the definition of Change Order in A201 - so I respectfully disagree with your statement, Ronald, that if A201 3.4.2 is left intact a CO is required even if there is no change in the Work. You can't have it both ways - see the definition 7.2.1 requiring "....all of the following: .1 change in the Work....." The CSI form I have been reading from is straight out of the new Project Resource Manual, dated June 2004. I'm betting that it is fully coordinated with the 1997 A201. anon Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 185 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:22 pm:    Anon: Approval of a substitution IS a change in the contract documents, period. The contract documents have identified what is acceptable. If the contractor submits anything other than what is specified, it is a substitution. If the owner accepts the substitution, whether or not the architect agrees with it, it's a change from the original contract, therefore requiring a change order. Time or cost may be unaffected by the substitution, but a change order is still required IAW A201 3.4.2 if the substitution is approved. Shedrick E. Glass, CSI,CCS Senior Member Username: shedd_glass Post Number: 10 Registered: 07-2004 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:26 pm:    Hey Ronald, At least he is reading A201. Needs to work on comprehension. Have a nice day, Anon. Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 42 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:38 pm:    The project belongs to the developer/owner and not to the architect. Because the architect is not financially responsible for the project, the developer/owner could be expected to provide the architect with an indemnification for those specific substitution requests as they are made. It is important to distinguish between a generic indemnification and one that is specific to the situation. Perhaps you could review that with your legal counsel. Susan McClendon Senior Member Username: susan_mcclendon Post Number: 15 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 02:20 pm:    I've been lurking here for a while. Someone mentioned their assumption that the CSI substitution form had been coordinated with A201. So I was curious as to whether it had or not. I asked someone at CSI whom I would expect to know. His report is that the last time the forms were revised was 1996. There is no standing committee responsible for them. If there is a problem, someone should recommend review to the Institute Technical Committee. Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 219 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 02:31 pm:    the "CSI" substitution request form was developed by the Portland chapter and Northwest region. There is no committee that takes charge of it, and it was proffered as "freeware" for people to use as they see fit. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 51 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 02:52 pm:    Anne is right as to how the form originated but that form was used for the creation of the CSI form during the creation of the construction contract administration module of the Manual of Practice in the early 1990s. Most of the current CSI forms are still the original 1994 date, but some of them have been updated since then including the substitution request form for during construction which does have a June, 2004 date. I assume the PRM editorial group was responsible for this update because the CSI forms were an appendix to the MOP, but I am not positive of that. Anonymous   Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 01:15 pm:    Ronald, You ceded in an earlier posting that comparable products are not technically substitutions. Does an approval of a comparable product, in your opinion, constitute a change in the work? If the specification allows comparable products to be used, in complying with the requirements outlined in the contract documents, I do not see how this is necessarily a change. Do you feel that approval of a comparable product requires a change order? If a substitution request does not add money or time to the contract and is a minor change, according to A201 no change order is required. You are not entirely correct, then, in stating that any change in the work requires a change order. Most of the substitution requests that we get on projects are minor. Our approval of a request for a minor change is consistent with A201 for minor changes in the work which is "...effected by written order and shall be binding on the Owner and Contractor." - without requiring a change order. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 186 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 06:39 pm:    Anon: You read it correctly to some extent: comparable products FROM LISTED MANUFACTUERS for basis-of-design products are not substitutions. For example, I specified product "1" from "W" manufacturer, but I also list that comparable products from manufacturers "X", "Y", and "Z" are acceptable if they meet the specified requirements. So, If a contractor submits product "2" from manufacturer "Z" and I determine that it is comparable (using the substitution process for evaluation), then the contractor is permitted to use the product and no change order is required. Regarding your second paragraph, technically, yes, a substitution request that does not alter the project's cost or time could be a minor change. BUT, A201 states "...and in accordance with a Change Order," NOT in accordance with a minor change. Like I've stated a few times, as well as by others, if 3.4.2 of A201 is left intact (not modified by supplemental conditions), then a Change Order is REQUIRED to document the approval of the substitution. Anonymous   Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 08:10 pm:    Thank you. You have now made my point. You write: "a substitution request that does not alter the project's cost or time could be a minor change." That's right!! A minor change DOES NOT REQUIRE A CHANGE ORDER. A substitution request is not a substitution, and does not require Owner approval or consent. The Architect evaluates the request and if she deems it nothing more than a minor change and/or a comparable product request, and accepts it, A201 provides a mechanism for her NOT to have to create a change order - not a substitution, but a minor change in the work. Who decides what a "substitution" is? The Architect. When the Architect decides, after evaluation, that the request amounts to a no cost, no time change, minor change in the work - no need to get all worked up about 3.4.2 - NOT A SUBSTITUTION. Acceptance of comparable products are minor changes in the work. Almost every single substitution request that comes across my desk is a request to use a comparable product, NOT an actual substitution request. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 187 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 12:21 pm:    Anon: I did NOT make your point because you have failed to grasp what's actually written in A201 ("...and in accordance with a Change Order"). I'll state one more time and then give up (There's no use arguing with someone who doesn't want his or her identity known). I said "could" because A201 "could" be modified so that a substitution is considered a minor change, not requiring a change order. But, the owner should still be consulted on the substitution request. Substitutions, as you seem to fail to understand, is anything "substituted" for what is specifically specified or permitted in the contract documents. If it isn't in the specs or on the drawings, then it's a substitution, PERIOD. HOWEVER, substitution requests are just that: requests. It only becomes a formal substitution when accepted by the owner via a CHANGE ORDER. If the request is not accepted by the owner (even if the architect agrees to accept the substitution request), then the request is denied, and no further action is necessary. If accepted, then it becomes a CHANGE ORDER under current A201 language to document the owner's acceptance of the substitution. There need be no cost or time changes associated with accepting the substitution. I agree that comparable products FROM LISTED MANUFACTURERS are not considered substitution requests, but should be evaluated as if they were. There, I've stated my final response. I've tried, but do as you wish. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 52 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 05:37 pm:    I see this thread of discussion illustrating the problems I have with A201 3.4.2. Anon has been arguing on the basis of what the rest of A201 says about minor changes in the work (7.4) and change orders (7.2) while ignoring what 3.4.2 says. 3.4.2 is not really consistent with Article 7 covering Changes in the Work. As stated previously, I contacted one of the members of the AIA committee when this new provision came out to try and find out what the purpose was. I was told that the main purpose was to get the owner to sign off on substitutions to relieve the architect of some of the liability of approving substitutions. I think the owner should have the final say on subsitutions. I think it was a worthy purpose, but I think the implementation was faulty. What I like about 3.4.2: It involves the owner in decisions about substitutions. What I don't like about 3.4.2: It makes a substitution a mandatory change order which doesn't match up well with the definitions changes to the work in Article 7. It also requires additional uncessary processing of a change order if the substitution does not involve a revision to the work, to the contract sum, or to the contract time. It also requires the architect to sign the change order which indicates an approval of the change order. If the architect doesn't recommend the substitution/change order, he/she has to put something else in the written record to explain the positive signature on the change order versus his/her recommendation. Situation One: Specs include list of products including accepted substitute in accordance with Section 01XXXX as the last item in the list. A request for a substitution is made and accepted that does not affect contract sum or time. Is this a change in the work? I don't think so in accordance with Article 7; but it is with 3.4.2. Situation Two: Specs include list of products with no statement about substitutions. A request for a substitution is made and accepted that does not affect contract sum or time. Is this a minor change in the work or a change order? I think it is a minor change in accordance with Article 7; but it is a change order with 3.4.2. Situation Three: Specs include list of products including accepted substitute in accordance with Section 01XXXX as the last item in the list. A request for a substitution is made and accepted that does affect contract sum or time. Is this a change order? It is by both Article 7 and 3.4.2. I think 3.4.2 is unnecessarily requiring a change order for all substitutions in order to get the owner's signature on substitutions and thereby sets up a conflict with the definitions of changes in the work in Article 7. The goal could have just as easily been accomplished by having 3.4.2 read something like: "The Contracdtor may make subsittions only with consent of the Owner, after evaluation by the Architect." Then let the Division 01 requirements concerning subsitutions describe the administrative and procedural requirements to accomplish the basic rights and responsibilties statement in the general conditions. One of the easy ways to document the architect's evaulation and the owner's consent is to put them on the request for substitution form along with the contractor's request and representations. All the actions are now appropriately recorded in the proper sequence on one simple document. The additional requirement for a minor change in the work or a change order can be added to the process only when required by the circumstances of the substitution and no apparent conflicts of definitions within the general conditions have been set up. This is essentially what I have done in the past by supplementary condition to modifiy the 97 A201 3.4.2. Shedrick E. Glass, CSI,CCS Senior Member Username: shedd_glass Post Number: 11 Registered: 07-2004 Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 10:00 am:    More than one person has raised the point of substitution vs minor change. As I see it, Mr. Geren is correct with his posted definition of substitution vs minor change. I submit that a change in manufacturer only, i.e. a contractor wanting to provide 18 gage steel frames complying with standard "X" by company "B" in lieu of 18 gage steel frames complying with standard "X" by company "A" as specified, is a minor change in the work, not a substitution. Whereas, a contractor wanting to provide 20 gage steel frames complying with standard "X" by company "B" in lieu of 18 gage steel frames complying with standard "X" by company "A" as specified, is a subsitution. As this example indicates, deviations from design requirements determines a substitution, not a change within design requirements. The point I am trying to make here is this: The Architect has documented a DESIGN and the Owner has accepted the DESIGN. If this is not true, then substitution or minor change is a mute point. After this has taken place, the Architect is charged with the duty to VERIFY that the Work provided complies with the documents ACCEPTED by the Owner, nothing more or less. If the Contractor proposes something outside the OWNER ACCEPTED DESIGN, the Owner should, no, has a right to accept, approve, consent to, etc. because he has NOT ACCEPTED, APPROVED, CONSENTED TO, ETC. the proposed deviation as part of the design he has contracted with the Architect to furnish and contracted with the Contractor to provide. The missunderstanding in this thread may be that many Architects believe they have the authority to approve substitutions. I disagree with that and question why an Architect would take on liability and responsibility he is not contractually obligated to but thats another thread. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 53 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 03:00 pm:    I cannot agree with Sedrick’s comments about substitutions in relation to “design requirements” and “accepted design.” If there is a list of proprietary products or acceptable manufacturers, and the proposed product is not among the list of acceptable products or a product of one of the acceptable manufacturers, then it is a substitution request. I think that is also what Ron Geren was saying. Otherwise why specify the list of products or manufacturers? It would seem that you either want to restrict the products to a list or you don't. This is of course assuming that it is not a nonrestrictive type specification where the list is only illustrative of the quality desired and there is also some sort of “or equal” type language whether that is true for that particular product list or the whole specification. Regarding Evaluation, Consent, and Approval: 3.4.2 refers to evaluation by the architect and consent of the owner while 3.5.1 refers to “ substitutions not properly approved and authorized, …….” Who is doing the approving and authorizing? The 3.5.1 language is unchanged from the 87 edition of A201. I still maintain 97 addition of the 3.4.2 provision was not thought through thoroughly and not properly integrated with the rest of A201. Shedrick E. Glass, CSI,CCS Senior Member Username: shedd_glass Post Number: 12 Registered: 07-2004 Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 09:22 am:    Robert, Paragraph one: I did not say that it was. In the example I gave, 20 gage frames are not within design requirements when 18 gage frames are specified (the reason is obvious to a spec writer or contractor). I used the gage example to illustrate how technical the difference between a substitution and a minor change can be. Maybe this is easier to comprehend: Contractor proposes use of steel studs in lieu of wood studs specified. Paragraph three: A201 2.5.1 does not stipulate approved and authorized by who, whereas, 3.4.2 does stipulate who consents to and who evaluates. Yes, it could be better coordinated in terminology. One paragraph in A201 has no more authority or importance than another nore does one superceed another. Botom line: All I am saying is that A201 is considered the recommended standard of practice, not law. Change it if you so desire. But, division 1 requirements should supplement and expand A201 requirements and the 2 should work together, not contradict each other. P.S. Thanks for not jumping on mute instead of moot. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 188 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 03:15 pm:    This has been a very interesting thread, and hopefully someone with connections to the AIA documents committee will refer the committee to this discussion. It points out how such a simple sentence can have a complicated and far-reaching impact on the way we do business (take "indicated results" versus the original "intended results" in A201, for example). All I want to add is "Architect beware." Know what A201 states (if that is what your client is using) and, if he/she's willing, make a suggestion to modifiy that paragraph in the supplemental conditions (as Bob Johnson suggested), and establish procedures in Division 01 that still require owner approval of substitutions without using a change order.