Comparing Submittals with Specifications

Archive of Older Topics Archive - Specifications Discussions
1

This may not be a new subject, well, if so, point me in that direction, and, then, here we go again.

To me, writing specifications with the people in mind who will be reviewing submittals is essential to writing a comprehensible specification. But, I am finding a huge disconnect between what is specified (standards, tests, materials, etc.), what is actually submitted by the contractor, and the ability for our young Architects and Job Captains to compare and comprehend the difference. It does not seem that some of them have ever been trained to review submittals.

So, there are two issues that I need help with:

  1. Advice on how to train interns to compare submittals against specifications.

  2. Advice on writing specifications so that data is easily comprehensible by both the submittal reviewer and the contractor. It seems that grouping performance requirements together, rather than strewing throughout the document would be beneficial. Any other rules of thumb or quick hints would be appreciated.

2

Brett,

I am benevolent to those that have to do reviews, and also being an ‘in-house’ specifier I am also easily reached at not additional charge to them. Its a different matter altogether when you are a consultant or if you are in an architectural office working with a consultant.

By benevolent I mean that the first time anyone is assigned to do CA for a project, even if they are only doing assistance on some part of it, I brief them on it. I show them how the spec section is laid out, how and where submittals are defined (meaning, we only want submittals of the knids of things we ask for, and we don’t review or even look at things we don’t ask for) and also how division 1 works for what the contractor is required to submit, how to submit, accompanying forms required with his submittal, and any substitution proposals.

Then the really benevolent part, I tell them to simply come see me if they have any question, or doubt, or even if they are just curious about something/anything.

That’s part 1, part 2 is that I write to the Contractor, I can assit the reviewer. However, no matter what I write to the contractor there are times when their people are totally unfamiliar, or when they are in the mood even when experienced to just pass on what a sub sends without looking at it. I can’t control that other than that we tell them in the documents (which are part of the contract) what they are required to do and what actions we take if it is not done correctly. In the construction start up meeting, we go over that again. Then we carry it out very rigidly in the early submittals so they get on track to doing it correctly and can’t say later on when things are under a lot more stress for time and correctness that we were letting them get away with doing something differently earlier.

William

3

Your observation is very true, and to me, the majority of the fault lies with the contractor not submitting what’s listed in the specifications. However, the fault doesn’t stop with the contractor; the architect, specifier, or CA have some responsibility, as well. The architect (if not the specifier or CA) should make it very clear what the salient features are for materials so the specifier knows exactly what’s required for the project. The specifier sometimes “over specifies” submittal requirements by requesting more than what is really necessary. And, the CA should make sure the contractor submits a submittal schedule and that the contractor complies with all requirements for submittals (i.e. transmittal, review stamp, etc.)

But to respond to your specific requests, I have the following:

  1. First, I’d have them read section 7.5 of the PRM-MOP on submittals. Second, sit down with them as they review a submittal. You could also develop a checklist that they can follow to make sure that each step is covered; over time they’ll be able to review submittals without the crutch.

  2. If the specification is written according to CSI standards, the performance requirements should be listed in a single Part 1 article. However, products aren’t always specified by performance requirements; they’re typically specified using descriptive, reference standard (i.e. ASTM, ANSI, etc), proprietary, or a combination of these methods. Using any of these methods will place specific requirements in Part 2 Products.

But it’s difficult to lump all the requirements into a single location since a typical specification section may address more than one product. As long as the information is grouped by product, then it should be easy to compare to the submittal.

There are some minor exceptions, such as multiple products that utilize the same materials; there’s no need to repeat the same material requirements for each product, so some sections will include a materials article that applies to one or more product articles in the same section. For additional information, refer to Section 5.7 of the PRM-MOP.

4

Earlier this year, my firm went though a process of reviewing and streamlining our submittal policy.

Our conclusion: Specify only those submittals you need; review only those submittals you specify. Looking back on it, that statement is so simple, it qualifies for the DUH! Award of 2004.

At any rate, here’s a short bibliography (which omits the MOP/PRM references previously mentioned):

The American Institute of Architects, and ARCOM, Inc., MASTERSPEC, Evalutations for Section 01330 Submittal Procedures, 2002. http://www.arcomnet.com/

The American Institute of Architects. The Architect’s Handbook of Professional Practice. 13th ed. Washington, DC: AIA, 2001. (Vol. 2, Ch. 3.92, “Construction Contract Administration”)

Elovitz, Kenneth M., P.E., Esq. A Guide to Shop Drawings: What Does the Contract Say? Consulting-Specifying Engineer, December 2002. www.csemag.com

Elovitz, Kenneth M., P.E., Esq. A Guide to Shop Drawings: Who Should Review? Consulting-Specifying Engineer, January 2003. www.csemag.com

Heller, Barbara. “Overcoming Pitfalls in Product Literature.” Architectural Record August 1996: 50ff. http://archrecord.construction.com

Victor O. Shinnerer & Co., The Value of Establishing Submittal Procedures, 2003. www.shinnerer.com

Wyatt, David J. “The Submittal Process.” Construction Specifier July 1997: 26-28. http://www.csinet.org

5

We are looking to solve an recurring issue-- the lack of contractor review of submittals, which then forces us to expend time and money [all of which is NOT included in our fee] to make extensive reviews of poorly executed submittals.

Even though our specs call for the Contractor’s review, too often they come through unreviewed, and then we face the issue of “do we take the time and fee to review them OR do we send them back” [as our specs indicate] for the proper processing and review. If we send them back then we often are scored by Owner and Contractor for upsetting the schedule with the added time involved. BUT if we don’t review them, Lord only knows what the Owner will come-by on the project and how much other time will be required to resolve problems.

To me this is also an importnat issue for our collegaues to both be aware of and consider/resolve.

6

Hard as it is, I’d send them back right away, especially at the very beginning of the project to set the proper tone. Couple it with a phone conversation to the contractor explaining why they need to do it right. (Time savings, accuracy, blah, blah, blah.) They’ll complain I’m sure. As to the Owner, they need to be educated about the lines of responsibility, and also to the liabilities they face for shorting the process.

7

Brett, assuming you have access to the young architects, it’s a simple enough matter to teach them to read a spec section. Then you can just write them correctly and they’ll know how to find what they’re looking for. It seems to me that many young architects don’t realize that they need to be looking at the spec to review the submittals… it’s an important first step just to show them that the important criteria are right there in the spec!

You can be as benevolent as William, but if the architect doesn’t ask then you don’t know there’s a problem until there’s a construction problem.

I start every spec lesson with a young architect (and some older ones, too) with something like this: “You know that specs are organized in three parts, right? So you might see the same product three times, once in Performance Criteria, once in Products, and once again in Execution.” This way, I’m teaching (or reminding) that specs aren’t narrative but do have a standardized order. Then, since our specs are usually proprietary, it’s a matter of encouraging them to enforce what they find in the spec.

Consider making a copy of a good submittal with good comments on it, and using it to instruct architects. We have a local window subcontractor to whom I’d like to send all our young architects to learn to draft; I kept a copy of one of their submittals that I’d reviewed with my boss, and I occasionally pull it out to demonstrate the kind of information that needs to be in a submittal review. I think it helps, sometimes, to take the teaching out of the context of a specific project, because the pupil is so easily sidetracked by the project itself.

I agree with John that the first contractor-unreviewed submittal has to go back, and that you have to talk to the project engineer or project manager about your expectations and their obligations. Teach your young architects to stand up for their right to a complete and coordinated submittal!

8

Two items if I may.

  1. We have a proposal in the works where we re-format our SUBMITTALS Section to deal more openly and explicitly with the issue of Contractor approval. May not fully meet CSI “muster” but we need to resolve this issue in our office.
  2. Have done 1 lunch session on Submittals in general, but with new hires, and a program to assist interns etc. outside our office, I am developing a checklist for the submittal review process. Will share if you are interested, and if you hold your “whippings” to mild lashes!!![also will be grateful for any insight, comments, changes, or additions]
9

Ralph:

I would love to have a copy of your checklist.

Tracy

10

How can I get it to you, Tracy?

11

Ralph - suggest you look at Andrew Civitello 's book - Contractor’s Guide to Change Orders (2nd edition) - he has several pages of insight that he bestows to contractors regarding submittal review process. Surprising, Amazon.com has the lowest price on this book currently, so we strongly suggest you buy it if you do not have it - it is one of my primary reference books for specification writing and resolving CA disputes.
BTW - I would also be interested in seeing your checklist and contributing to its success.

12

Ralph, I would also like your checklist. Thanks!

13

Ralph:
I would like your checklist, also.
Anne

14

Looks like a best-seller - count me in!

15

Thanks everyone for the excellent feedback. Sitting down with the reviewing architect at the start of each CA period is a great idea. Sounds somewhat daunting and overwhelming, quite intriguing. A general overview of the organization and process will cover most of the issues. However, there are specific issues for certain products that I want to point out to them. That could get very intensive.

I thought about a check list, but people here seem to dislike the idea. We have so many already that they disregard. I hate to have to be the enforcer, but Ive found that it comes with the territory. Ralph: I appreciate the offer and would love to review your checklist.

Thanks,

Brett

16

I would certainly appreciate a copy of it also!!

17

I would also appreciate a copy of the checklist.

Thank you,
David

18

I think a review with the firm’s errors and omissions insurance carrier, of the subject of submittals review, will bring focus to the significance of the process. The magnitude of problems caused during submittals review lead some to conclude that junior and inexperienced staff should not touch submittals. Yet, it is considered a clerical task and something to economize on. Afterall, hasn’t the fee been almost used up before the construction contract administration phase starts?

If submittals are something to take lightly, then why waste the design firm’s time and resources ($$) reviewing submittals? Perhaps the best place to start is to eliminate submittals from the specifications. If submittals are important, then devote trained staff to the review process. Give sufficient guidance to those reviewing the submittals, even it means following a checklist.

As for contractor review of submittals, if you don’t specify this requirement in Division 1 AND ENFORCE IT RIGOUROUSLY then it’s like a big leak in the design professional’s bank account.

The design professional is not a cop whose job it is to catch the contractor’s attempts to cheat. Look carefully at General Conditions of the Contract such as AIA A201. Find the part where substitutions and non-compliance are allowed. You won’t find it. It doesn’t exist. AIA A201 requires the Contractor to demonstrate compliance and does not recognize non-compliance. Take this as the purpose of submittals: the Contractor demonstrates how the requirements of the Contract Documents are going to be fulfilled and the architect or engineer validates that the Contractor has correctly interpreted the design intent and requirements of the Contract Documents.

19

Ralph, I’d like to have a copy of your submittal review checklist as well. What’s the best way to transmit it? As an e-mail file attachment? If you would be willing to post your e-mail address, we could send you ours directly, without cluttering up so many mailboxes. Thanks in advance!

20

Jerome, Helaine, Brett, David, Mitch, Sheldon,Robert-- Just checking to see if you all received the checklist you requested.