| Author |
Message |
Steve Gantner (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2012 - 09:36 am: |    |
If this has been discussed here before, please let me know, but a search of the previous discussions could not find a thread.
Problem(s):
1. Contractor is required (per A201) to provide a submittal schedule.
2. Submittals trickle in throughout construction, as a matter of fact, just received a humidifier submittal. Punchlist was finished two weeks ago.
3. Product is no longer (no relation to above humidifier) made because of Contractor delay in getting submittals. This leads to a. Architect charging the Owner for time to review substitution. b. Owner dispute with Architect. c. Owner dispute with Contractor. d. Specifier raising his right hand with left on Bible explaining "your honor...."
Possible solution(s):
1. Require submittal schedule (with dates required back to Contractor) BEFORE first application for payment is approved.
2. Require ALL submittals to be received BEFORE second application for payment is approved.
Just a thought for bid jobs, as this requirement is being made up front and in plane view.
I follow and respect all who post on this discussion forum and am intersted in reading your comments and/or suggestions that have worked for you. |
Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 477
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2012 - 11:30 am: | |
Item 2 will cause your CA to commit suicide. Its entirely unreasonable to expect to process 200-400 submittals in a month or two, and too many items require field verification. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 492
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2012 - 11:31 am: | |
This is a requirement in AIA A 201 (may not be in Owner-generated general conditiosn) and has been in previous editions (going back to 1987 I think). I still get Contractors saying that they have never done it that way. It is also clearly elaborated in master specifications systems such as MasterSpec.
It should essentially fall out of an electronic schedule (which even smaller Contractors use these days) if you schedule the submittals as a part of the overall construction schedule.
The latest edition of AIA A 201 has some very interesting language about what happens if the Contractor does not submit a Submittals Schedule.
I think it ought to be included with the first pay app (which is the way MasterSpec does it), but you have to have the "juice" (Owner's backing) to overcome the Contractor's opjections about this. The Owner is often clueless about the importance of this stuff and may be inclined to agree with the Contractor's position (not and "industry standard"). |
scott piper (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2012 - 09:33 am: | |
I have used the requirement to provide a schedule for submittals with the first pay request and it has been somewhat successful.
Worked on a project once that required all of the actual submittals very early. This lead to submittals for things like casework before walls were built and field measurements were done. Cabinets got built to submittal dimensions even if field conditions had neccesitated changes and even though the submittal was marked up "field verify final dimensions prior to fabrication".
Some things appear to be better off if they are fit into the construction schedule later in the process. The submittal schedule can then be a handy reminder to everyone as to when the trailing submittals should be expected.
One complaint I have heard from contractors is that some architects require the contractor to use a schedule form supplied by the architect rather than something they may already have used. The additional time involved with using a new form is often where the objections come from the contractor. This not only applies to submittal schedules but also things like sub waivers, close-out document binder organization etc. standardization of documents has its place but we can go to far sometimes. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 493
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2012 - 10:44 am: | |
The feedback I have heard is "We have never done this before."
The issue about early fabrication has nothing to do with developing a submittal schedule. This is very helpful to the Architect in verifying that Work is on schedule and assist the Architect in scheduling workload for reviewing submittals.
I would agree that requiring the Contractor to use the Architect's (or Owner's) form can be problematic. Again, the submittal schedule should be a by-product of project scheduling with little additional effort required. |
scott piper (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 07, 2012 - 10:44 am: | |
The example I was noting did not involve early fabrication. It involved early submittal submission requirements. By requiring all submittals very early in the construction process the architect was reviewing submittals for some items long before fabrication was required. When the time came to fabricate, the casework was simply built based upon the submittal dimensions (estimated dimensions only and not listed or maintained as "hold" dimensions like you sometimes see in things like elevator shops) The casework was not fabricated utilizing field verified dimensions and this is were problems can occur. The problems in this example were all the fault and responsibility of the fabricator and there was no arguement from them about that but still the owner had to wait for things to be corrected.
The development of a schedule can help avoid these types of problems, though nothing is full-proof. |
Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 1559
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Friday, September 07, 2012 - 02:03 pm: | |
"Nothing is fool-proof to the sufficiently talented fool" |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 574
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Friday, September 07, 2012 - 02:06 pm: | |
Consider long lead time items, such as door hardware, elevators and equipment. Expect these early in the construction time, with justification.
In California, for public construction, there is a requirement that is not well known. Within 35 days of contract award, the Contractor shall notify the owner of a products that are not the "specified" product. See Public Contract Code Section 3400: "Specifications shall provide a period of time prior to or after, or prior to and after, the award of the contract for submission of data substantiating a request for a substitution of 'an equal' item. If no time period is specified, data may be submitted any time within 35 days after the award of the contract."
I have never seen this enforced but it is an interesting concept to have the contractor note deviations from the "specified" product early in the construction time and not play the game of last-minute identification of "or equal" products with allegation of delay if the proposed product is not accepted. |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 332
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 07, 2012 - 05:09 pm: | |
Been specifying it my entire career. Never received one as a stand alone document.
I finally got some CM's to include it in the CPM when I was able to get my CA folks to stand up and say "We won't review any submittals until we see where they are on the critical path." Even many owners are smart enough to understand that if it's not on the critical path, the Architect can't be holding up the job by not returning it. Since everyone wants to be able to blame the A/E, this takes away their stick.
I've never found an owner who would allow us to hold up payment because we didn't get a submittal schedule. The trick is that the GC can't claim delays from an unresponsive A/E if they can't show that the critical path is impacted. Once it's on the CPM, it's a simple matter to say "Oh, by the way, can you print out the submittals with start and end dates? It's already embedded in your CPM and it is a specified requirement."
Good luck |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 494
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 07, 2012 - 05:30 pm: | |
Again; I would urge everyone to look at the latest edition of AIA A201, Pargraph 3.10.2. I wonder if anyone has been enforcing that. |
John McGrann
Senior Member
Username: jmcgrann
Post Number: 94
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2012 - 08:51 am: | |
For long-duration projects I include a requirement for a submittal schedule and indicate that it is a condition precedent to the first application for payment. To get everyone’s attention I've dinged that first pay app before, explaining that the owner is going to need to hold a reserve for the A/E's additional services to expedite otherwise unscheduled and out-of-sequence submittal reviews. I may have to stick to my guns but that usually gets me a submittal schedule before the next pay period.
For smaller projects of short duration, few if any consultants, and where everyone is racing to the finish I’ll often delete the requirement to reduce the paperwork burden. Since I have to staff the project in a way to remain responsive anyway, having a submittal schedule isn’t really going to assist me.
As far as I know I've actually received a submittal schedule without any form of protest or grumbling from only one contractor. Of course that was the one contractor that also maintained running punch lists as working documents with his subs. At substantial completion the list required by AIA A201 9.8.2 consists of those running punch lists with every item including those now concealed by enclosing construction, marked as complete. The punch lists become project record documents, I’ve never had to add anything to that particular contractor’s punch lists.
That kind of attention to contract requirements comes from the top of the contractor’s organization. Superintendents that I previously worked with, while good at what they do, fall back to the “normal” ways of business when working for other contractors.
John T. McGrann, Jr., AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP
|
Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP
Senior Member
Username: ecwhitby
Post Number: 165
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2012 - 04:08 pm: | |
While I have had problems getting submittal schedules, I agree that using the Application for payment review to get the contractors attention is very useful. Unfortunately I would say that most submittals are not provided in the timeframe indicated on the submittal schedule. On projects where the Owner does not use us for pay application review we seldom see any schedules.
The few times I have had the privilege of having a scheduling consultant on a project team updates of the submittal schedule were part of the regular schedule update requirement: A very useful procedure if the Owner agrees to hire the scheduling consultant. Usually these have also been claims experts who helped in reviewing the contractor’s bids (and the initial format and breakdown of the applications for payment) to identify possible “short falls” in the contractors pricing/packaging. They were on the whole excellent projects to work on.
Unfortunately it has been several years since any owner agreed to this. |
4specs.com Home Page