A201 includes 3.12.7 The Contractor shall perform no portion of the Work for which the Contract Documents require submittal and review of Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples or similar submittals until the respective submittal has been reviewed and approved by the Architect.
Does everyone understand this to include informational submittals (for instance design calcs)? If informational submittals do not require Architect’s responsive action, how does the GC know they can move forward with the work? It seems like we should either return a receipt or have language that allows Work to proceed if we havent reacted negatively within a few days.
I normally don’t specify anything as an informational submittal.
From the PRM “7.5.3.6 Informational Submittals:
QA and QC submittals do not typically require A/E approval. These submittals are furnished to document the construction or to provide various kinds of information that the A/E needs to verify compliance with the construction documents. For example, the A/E does not need to approve test reports or manufacturers installation instructions. The A/E reviews these submittals to verify compliance with contract requirements. The A/E notifies the contractor if the item covered by the information or test does not comply with the contract. The contract documents should clearly differentiate between submittals that require A/E review and those that do not. Informational submittals document information the A/E requires to verify performance and quality of project components, but do not require approval. They are also used as verification and certification that the installed work or portion of the work meets the specified requirements. Product representatives may have little or no involvement in the preparation of these submittals. Occasionally, the contractor may ask product representatives to assist in obtaining test reports, certificates of compliance, or manufacturers instructions for inclusion in the submittal. I’m not sure design calculations belong in the catagory of informational submittals.”
I don’t think shop drawings, product date, etc. are informational submittals. To me 3.12.7 applies to submittals that require review and approval.
3.12.7 does NOT pertain to informational submittals, by virtue of the provision in 3.12.4:
" . . . Informational submitals upon which the Architect is not expected to take responsive action may be so identified in the Contract Documents."
So if the Part I articles in the various spec sections clearly segregate or otherwise identify ACTION submittals versus INFORMATIONAL submittals, you have thereby “identified” them as described in 3.12.4. Therefore, the Contractor would not be entitled to the Architect’s APPROVAL of them.
This provision dates back to at least the 1987 edition of A201. As the segregation has gained more recognition and understanding over the past two decades, SectionFormat now addresses ways to handle that segregation, as does MasterSpec.
I like the idea of informational submittals since it helps to clarify what I have reviewed but I believe that the issue may have some subtalties.
When design of some system has been delegated to the contractor I do not want to review his calculations but I believe that we need evidence that he has retained a registered engineer to perform the design. This evidence needs to be provided before the system is constructed or installed otherwise it becomes much more difficult to receive them. In this context I believe that it would be appropriate to notify contractor that the signed calculations were received.
While the A/E does not approve informational submittals he should communicate receipt of them to the contractor.
Similarly while manufacturers installation instructions are not reviewed the inspectors may need them to assure that the work was installed in accordance with the instructions, as required by some specifications. These instructions can be useful in sorting out later problems with the work and if not availible prior to construction they may become much harder to obtain.
Test reports provided by the contractor are necessary quality assurance activity and while we do not check the validity of the test we do compare test results to requirements. These are classical submittals.
Special inspections and other tests and inspections performed by the owner’s testing laboratory are not a contractor submittal. The Owner provides the results of these tests and inspections to the contractor primarily so that the contractor cannot claim that he was not informed of problems.
This is a long-standing issue I took up with Arcom’s review comittee,and found no answer. It is an issue “never thought of” much less resolved. Seems the references noted is all there is and while the AIA alludes to them there is no explanation of them, as I was told.
They are, I agree, quite handy, and certainly if “looked at” and found with error, due notice is appropriate, BUT formal approval action is not required. Yes, to those who see increased liability on the DPs for “loooking at” them in the first place and then not doing anything if something is askew. Damned if you do; damned if you don’t!!
Yet another issue unresolved-- have fun!
I disagree with Mark about not reviewing delegated design submittals. I think we have a responsibility to review calculations just to verify that the delegated designer used the correct design criteria and followed any code requirements. I’m not about to check his methodology or math.
Richard I believe that you go down a slipery slope when you start to look at the design criteria. Sometimes there is a fine line between looking at the criteria and the calculations. Once you take on the duty to review the use of criteria if there is a later problem you might be heald liabile because you didn’t perform a thorough enough review. Once you take on a duty you cannot do it half way. You are often better not to take on a duty that you do not have to.
AIA A201 States that the “…Architect shall be entitled to rely upon the adequacy, accuracy and completneness of the services, certifications, or approvals performed by such design professionals…” I believe that this language makes it clear that contracturally we have no obligation to perform review.
Note that if engineers are asked to review calculations prepared by another engineer on a project where they were not the EOR common practice is that the reviewing engineer would receive a limititation of liability provision in the agreement.
Mark: The A201 defines our contractual responsibility, however, our responsibility under state practice statutes may be and often is quite different. As the A/EOR we are ultimately responsible for all design aspects of the project. It is the A/EOR’s responsibility to provide the correct design criteria or at least direct the deligated designer to the correct design criteria as required by the applicable codes and AHJ. My experience is that many AHJs require the A/EOR to review and approve all deligated design submittals and calculations that are submitted as part of the permit process. Fairfax County Virginia is particularly stringent (anal) about this requirement. I don’t know where you practice but in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Virginia where I am registered limitation of liability provisions for professional services are not legal, by law no one can limit or relieve me of my professional liability.
Review of delegated designs is an issue that gets very messy and gets people talking about moral responsibility. If taken to an extreme we find ourselves in a situation where no body can meet these responsibilities. On the other hand the reality is that there is a significant difference between the suggested responsibility and what is done in practice, by reputable firms. Hopefully by exploring some of the issues here we can put this into perspective.
While I recognize that the prime design professional has a responsibility for the completed project, I will suggest that the standard of care need not require review of the calculations for the delegated designs. I have found licensing laws to often include very general statements but the risk to the design professional is driven by our contractual obligations and standard of care expectations.
One situation that I find irritating is when it is suggested that the engineering fee be reduced because major system, for example the roof, is a delegated design yet the engineer is requested to review the delegated design calculations thus accepting liability for the system. Thus your fee is reduced, you are not in a position to control the design and thus limit risks, yet you are expected to spend time reviewing the design and as a result accept liability for the design.
There is no disagreement that we need to specify the design criteria for the delegated designer. The question is do we need to verify the criteria or check the calculations?
When AHJs demand approval of delegated designs they have at times required the design professional of record to stamp the delegated designs. This creates an over stamping situation which can create conflict with state licensing law. In the case of the agency in California that regulates schools we instead provide a statement that we have reviewed the interface with the delegated system.
When the AHJ requires approval of the delegated design, as opposed to coordination between systems, a question could be asked whether the agency is regulating the practice of architecture or engineering. It is my understanding that they do not have this authority. Their responsibility is limited to reviewing the project for code compliance and if the work was signed by a registered architect or engineer and it complies with the code they cannot require more.
There is a legitimate concern that the interface between the delegated design and the rest of the project be coordinated.
There are situations when dealing with specialized systems where the design professional does not have the expertise to perform a review of the calculations. Would this require you to hire a consultant to review the calculations? You might find that the only expert works for another manufacturer.
Would your obligation to review the calculations change if instead of delegating the design in the contract documents the Owner hired the specialty contractor, during design, to perform the design so that it could be checked by the building department? Since you are still delegating design do you still need to review the calculations of the consultant? Do you as the prime design professional perform a technical review of all of your consultants.
In California limitations of liability clauses are legal. While you still have the professional liability the other party to the agreement will limit the consequences to you. Of course this is only of use if the other party has the resources to fulfill his obligation.
As to Tom’s original question, my understanding has traditionally been that the GC is to believe that ‘no news is good news’. Many specifiers used to require that submittals be delivered with integral delivery receipt such as FedEx or UPS since they provide tracking for every package. Now with the industry moving to electronic submittals, preferably on project websites created and maintained by the GC, the GC can see whether and when their e-submittals were received and opened. The submittals are in PDF format, whether for Action or Information, so no special software is required. When information submittals are received, review makes sure that content was submitted as specified. Try to limit review of Delegated Design Submittals to see that the PE signature and stamp appears on each page without extensive review.
That said, while it is best to not typically review content in delegated design submittals, this differs from other informational submittals such as mix design, mill reports, and certifications which should be checked to make sure their content complies with specified requirements per A201. If a certification letter contains incorrect content like the wrong Installers name as approved applicator don’t you notify the GC? If the mix design received is for 3000 psi concrete instead of the 4000 psi specified, don’t you still act on that submittal even though it was submitted for information, not action? You don’t analyze whether the mix listed achieves the design strength, only whether or not the specified criteria is being met.
When the GC doesnt hear anything after submitting information, they should proceed with the Work. They assume the same level of risk, still having to comply with the Contract Documents regardless of the content of the submittal unless some acceptable form of modification has been identified and approved in writing.
As to the string of answers I’m just curious, have any of you spoken with your insurance carriers? Most Owners dont push arbitrary requirements like these when they receive written notice that proceeding will result in voiding that portion of your E&O insurance. Ask your carrier to put that on their letterhead.
AIA A201-2007 addresses the extent of action required when reviewing delegated design submittals. As Mark noted, ‘Section’ 3.12.10, includes reliance on the services provided by the Contractor’s design professional. It continues with “…the Architect will review, approve or take other appropriate action on submittals only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents…” This is sufficiently vague as to cause me to believe that Design Professionals should not review delegated design submittals without a clearly defined limit of liability and additional compensation.
I wish you success in convincing your clients.
I do not consider concrete mix designs and mill reports as informational submittals.
The IBC has a number of special inspection requirements that relate to traditional submittals that would prevent them from being treated as informational submittals. For example Table 1704.3 requires material verification of structural steel, bolts, and weld filler metal. This means that a copy of the submittal be provided to the special inspector. Traditionally I have reviewed these submittals but it would be acceptable to delegate this review to the special inspector.
2006 IBC Table 1704.4 requires the verification that the contractor is using the required design mix. This is one submittal who’s review I would not delegate to the special inspector.
It would be interesting to know how many master specifications have been updated to reflect the code changes in the 2006 and 2009 IBC’s
Thanks, Ken for reviving this string and returning us to the original question. At todays typical pace, I dont think no news is good news still works, and have added to our master In accordance with General Conditions, the Architect is not expected to take responsive action on Informational Submittals; however when requested by the Contractor, Architect will acknowledge receipt.
As architects, my firm has no expertise to review content in most delegated design submittals beyond verifying a registered engineer has performed the design, and many of our Engineers decline to review delegated design submittals saying its not in their scope. However, we still forward the delegated design submittals to the appropriate EoR for their record and (if appropriate) their response.
We promote a triage review in my firm, in the first 24 hours after receiving a submittal, when the submittals can be rejected without major impact on the GCs schedule. This initial review is to ensure the submittal is properly prepared, reviewed and signed by the GC, etc. Since its relatively easy to verify whether mix designs, mill reports, and certifications are in basic compliance, that should be included in the triage review as well.
I agree with Mark that concrete mix designs and mill reports are submittals for review. As such, they are required by A201 3.11 to be available to the Architect on site.
According to A201 3.12.4 “Informational Submittal” means that no action is to be taken. The current SectionFormat states that “The “Informational Submittal” Article is used to categorize submittals, not to require responsive action by the A/E.” It goes on to state that, in essence, Division 00 can be used to turn Info Submittals into a type of ‘Limited Action Submittal’ which is the missing link we seem to need here.
I’m not comfortable calling mix designs ‘Action Submittals’. It’s one thing to check to make sure that the lab gets the performance numbers right (compressive strength, slump, etc) but who is qualified to check the list of ingredients and decide that the quantities of various admixtures don’t adversely react or affect the performance. Tweaking aggregate sizes and amounts, water-cement ratios, and other minutiae is why we require laboratory mix designs and specify performance. Checking that mix design to make sure they used the specified corrosion inhibitor or fiber reinforcing is fine, but at what point do the lines get crossed and the liabilities transfer because the cylinders don’t pass? What gives the A/E the right to arbitrarily decide to stop the review? How is that communicated? That wording sure isnt in A201.
The most recent copy of 013300 in MasterSpec that I found states in part:
Informational Submittals: Architect will review each submittal and will not return it, or will return it if it does not comply with requirements.
Again, I’m not clear on what we base our ability to conduct partial reviews, but apparently MasterSpec thinks it’s okay. My thought is to use the A201 wording regarding review of delegated design - “…the Architect will review, approve or take other appropriate action on submittals only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents…” - and apply it towards Informational Submittals. Hopefully we can find a better way to state it.
Otherwise, as Tom noted, an acknowledgement of receipt would seem appropriate if not already inherent in your method of communicating with the GC.
Tom, thanks for pointing out this potential weak link in the documents.
Best wishes to all for a very happy new year.
The mix design review focuses on the issues addressed in the specification. For example if you said min 15% fly ash then you verify that the presented mix design shows a minimum of 15%. Similarly if you specified water cement ratio you would verify that the reported w/c ratio is acceptable.
The secret to not being on the hook for low strength is to not over specifying things and placing responsibility for compliance on the contractor. You would not want to specify source and proportions of cement, aggregate, and admixtures. You would not want to specify a 5 sack mix.
Typically the specifications will require that the contractor take responsibility for making sure that the various admixtures are compatible. In some situations you may require a certification to this effect from the contractor.
I do not understand the reference to arbitrarily deciding to stop the review. If you limit you review to the requirements in the specifications there should be no problem. As I noted previoussly the special inspection provisions in the IBC effectively require this review.
We are not arbitrarily deciding to stop a review. A201 3.12.4 includes: “Informational submittals upon which the Architect is not expected to take responsive action may be so identified in the Contract Documents”, and SectionFormat lists Informational submittals, and PRM 7.5.3.6 instructs: “Informational Submittals: QA and QC submittals do not typically require A/E approvalThe contract documents should clearly differentiate between submittals that require A/E review and those that do not”.
It occurs to me that one of the issues is confusion over “review” and “approval”. This is made worse by the language that many firms use in their CDs and on their Shop Drawing stamp that avoides the use of the word “Approved” in favor of other terms including “Reviewed.” It seems to me that the A/E should (or maybe must) “review” informational submittals which, as Mr. Gilmore points out, “do not typically required A/E approval.”
Almost every A/E would look at the lab report on the concrete cylinder’s 28-day break. If the compressive strength comes up short, action is taken. The action, however, does not involve “approval” of the lab results; the action involves calling the contractor and structural engineer (who may already be talking about the situation) to seek out a resolution of what may be a very serious problem.
When the A/E’s Shop Drawing stamp uses a term like “Reviewed” in place of “Approved”, it does lead to some confusion about what the A/E has actually done. I can see a checkbox for “Reviewed” being very useful on Informational Submittals along with appropriate places for the signature of the reviewer and the date. This indicates that the A/E has actually looked at the submittal. I do believe use of an “Approved” checkbox would be inappropriate on such submittals.
Peter; Use of “reviewed” has been driven by liability insurers. I’ve had more than one conversation with them about terminology and text when getting stamps made. Don’t know what their current thinking on this is, though.
Seems with the open-ended, non-conclusive, and “optional” provisions and the other “laws” that may apply, it is reasonable for each design professional to decide what they wish to do [consultation with their legal counsel might be wise].
Common sense would seem to indicate, of course, look at them to ensure you got what you asked for. Seeing any error or other discrepancies it would seem wise and prudent to call them out to the submitter, so the project work is not also errant.
BUT you are not required to do either! [unless some other law applies]
Informational submittals are not reviewed. Standard of care would suggest that you review a submittal prior to approving it.
I believe that the difference between review and approve has to do with the difference between I looked at the submittal and found no mistakes and the contractor totally complies with the contract. This is significant if the Contractor relied on the approval on the submittal and finds that he must later go back and make corrections after the work was installed.
In many circumstances the Owner reserves for himself the right to approve the contractors work with the design professionals making recommendations to the Owner. Even if the Architect has the right to approve the contractor’s work this does not extend to his sub consultants such as the structural engineer.