Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 1367
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 10:05 am: |    |
130123
INFORMATIONAL SUBMITTALS
by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Cincinnati, OH
What, in your opinion, is an “informational submittal”? What is the definition of them in specifications?
What, in your attorney’s opinion, is your risk/liability inherent with information submittals?
Now we’re not about to attempt to practice law, but it seems that some discussion of this topic is appropriate and perhaps could lead to clarification for us all. May be a valid documents: may be good not to use them?
Let’s look first at what some reference resources we have today:
These submittals are not formally defined in any single document of substance or authority, but do appear in the 1997 edition of AIA Document A201, as follows:
3.12.4 “..............Informational submittals upon which the Architect is not expected to take responsive action may be so identified in the Contract Documents.” [emphasis added]
In MasterSpec Section 013300, we find this definition and an extensive list of documents that are part [??] of the array of information submittals;
B. Informational Submittals: Written information that does not require Architect's [and Construction Manager's] responsive action. Submittals may be rejected for not complying with requirements. [emphasis added]
Now these excerpts are from highly regarded documents, widely used, and thoroughly discussed with many factions of the construction industry, including legal counsels. But the fact remains that they remain virtually unsubstantiated-- i.e., how valid are they and the use intended.
Now A-201 is clearer in that it says less. It does leave open, though, the issue that while responsive action in “not expected”, it is not entirely ruled out, and prohibited, So one “COULD take responsive action”-- the issue then is, what new responsibility is assumed?
On the other hand, are the submittals merely “gathered”, left unreviewed [perhaps thereby messing non-compliant information or work], and stored in the project files? What liability arises here in this “paper collection only” exercise, especially if some error is overlooked [as in never subjected to review]? Is it enough to just blindly accept the submittals? Does acceptance render us liability free?
Now MasterSpec [with its affiliation with the AIA] takes a different and more expansive tact. The provision notes that responsive action “is not required”. The residual innuendo being it “may” and “could” be done. Then the provision moves on to open the door, fairly widely, for review of the information submittal [what liability arises here?; does review convert it to an Action Submittal, by default and definition?].
And then goes on to note that such submittal “may be rejected”.
Does this not constitute “responsive action”? Does this just by effect make this now an Action Submittal? Again what’s the newer yet liability; and how does it expand if one reviews, notes an error and takes no action?
There can be a strong argument made that such submittals are truly informational only when they are correct and compliant, and no review or action is necessary. Can this be brought to the point of saying; “anything submitted that COULD CONCIVEABLY REQUIRE REVIEW AND ACTION” IS NEVER STRICTLY INFORMATIONAL?
For your information, this dilemma is unresolved! Review that if you wish, but it is true! |
4specs.com Home Page