We are beginning the process of reviewing the submittals we typically require to identify those that are unnecessary, in the hope of conserving Construction Phase time. I expect we will have different requirements applying to different project categories. If anyone has been through this process lately, I would appreciate any wisdom you can share.
One effective technique is to classify non-critical submittal items as Informational verses Action submittals.
For example, you might omit MSDS’s from the required Action submittals and make them informational. As the architect, I don’t review MSDS’s, but I do want the contractor to have them.
Nathan: If it’s in the specification as a submittal, then you’re requiring the contractor to give it to you. The difference between an “Informational” and an “Action” submittal is what the architect does after it is submitted to him/her. Informational submittals are given to the architect for his/her information only, and no response is necessary unless the submittal doesn’t comply with requirements. On the other hand, action submittals require a response from the architect so that the contractor knows if the submittals are approved or not.
T.A. Gilmore: I haven’t been through that process, but each of my clients have different needs when it comes to submittals. I’ve asked them to identify what submittals they want and I edit the specs accordingly.
You can create a submittal list for each section and ask that the PMs, designers and CAs to check off those that they want. Additionally, the checklist can identify those submittals that are the office “minimums” and the rest are considered optional.
I think it will be difficult to create a system that will cover every possible project type, delivery method, and construction.
Keep in mind that there are a whole bunch of submittals that are required if you are going after a LEED certification; you might classify those as a whole different category.
Weve been limiting submittals to be reviewed and processed by us for several years with little problem. We have identified stuff that we dont care to see (like a sample of a piece of gyp bd for example) and do not request that particular submittal. We dont really need to see product data for a bunch of stuff as well and exclude many of those from our required list as well. In fact, for a select few product types, we say that if youre going to provide the exact product / manufacturer / model number / etc that we have specd, dont send us any submittals. Obviously thats not the case for curtainwall and other complex Systems but it does work for toilet accessories and such.
Be very careful about how you limit submittals though. Its imperative that the Contractor have all the appropriate shop drawings, product data, etc. from his subs even if you dont want to see them. For this we tell the Contractor that he has to maintain a copy of all submittals at the job site and well look at them periodically before processing pay apps.
Thanks! We already classify submittals in 5 categories including pre-procurement (elevators usually), action, LEED, information, and closeout. I coach our CA architects how to deal with information submittals, and that has helped. There still needs to be some education for the Owners and Contractor about our response to info submittals.
We separate action and information submittals based on the PRM. Ron, are you suggesting that we might reassign shop drawings for example from action to information submittal category?
T.A. Gilmore: I’m not suggesting it, but shop drawings can be submitted in whatever manner you want them to be submitted. If you don’t want to mark up shop drawings and return them to the contractor, then they could be considered “informational,” provided Section 01 33 00, Submittal Procedures, states that shop drawings are informational submittals.
However, if you do consider shop drawings as informational, as a courtesy to the contractor, I would let them know through some direct communication (preconstruction meeting, letter, etc.) in addition to the specifications. Tradition is hard to change, even if it’s clearly stated in the specs; and, you don’t want the contractor sitting around for a response that will never come.
Twice recently I’ve been through the process of evaluating submittals required. I’d be happy to share the executive summary from one committee that looked at submittals, along with a list of excellent references on the subject. Email geverding@cannondesign and I’ll send by return email.
The informational/action break can be very valuable in reducing a/e time and effort (not to mention liability). It is interesting to note that the new Section Format addresses a distinction between information and action submittals. For MasterSpec users, the evaluations for 01 3300 is a good background.
…er…cannondesign.com as pointed out to me in a just received email.
Has anyone, as a means of reducing the number of submittals, requested a “Letter of Conformance”?
I have a client who wants to implement this process and has done so in the past with some good results.
Obviously some submittals are necessary (steel shop drawings, fire performance data for AHJs, etc.), so the LOC cannot completely supplant the submittal review process.
I’ve only allowed “Letter of Conformance” type submittal on phased projects, where Phase 2 incorporates the same materials, and more importantly, the same sub-contractors as the origional phase.
I’ve occasionally specified or allowed LOC use for items that are not HSW/life safety issues or building envelope issues.
Marriott International references Letters of Conformance in their Guide Specs. The Guide specs include a form that is titled “Letter of Conformance” that must be completed by GC and submitted, the following is an excerpt: “This Letter of Conformance is provided as a Submittal for Information in accordance with Section 01330 (01 33 00) - Submittals and Substitutions. The undersigned hereby declares that the Product identified above by manufacturer’s name and model number is (one of) the product(s) specified and is suitable for the intended use as defined within the Contract Documents and will be provided and placed in operational condition in accordance with the manufacturer’s published instructions and the Contract Documents.”
Marriott defines LOC’s as: “Short-form informational submittals which are to be used instead of shop drawings, product data and samples. They are also to be used to supplement shop drawings, product data and samples.”
Also know as a product or material certificate, included in the text of many Masterspec sections.
This has been helpful. What I am really looking for are some principles to guide me in the judicious pruning back of our submittal requirements that, being a conservative specifier, I tend to choose just because they might in some cases reduce our risk, or help avoid having the Contractor do something stupid. Where is that fine line between due diligence (the standard of care) and too much monkey business?
T.A.
Take a look at Andrew Civitello’s book - “Contractor’s Guide to Change Orders” (maybe you can borrow a copy), he has a chapter on “Approval Submissions” addressing it from the Contractor’s viewpoint - worth the read. I’ll check my library, I seem to recall another book out there that may shed some light on your concerns - perhaps Ralph or Tom H (if they are lurking out there) can chime in with some sage advice.
Lurking???
Jerome, I’m getting qualms about you as my PR guy!
I am willing to share our recent revision of our submittals policy, if any one is interested.
It started with the concept of “Zero Submittals”. Don’t gag! We were suffering from submittal text in our masters that our Project Leads just let slide over, project to project, producing needless submitals. So we went with the MasterSpec submittal categories, and stripped all residual text from our masters.
NOW, the Leads must think IF they really need/want a submittal, and WHAT specifically they want to see.
End of synopsis-- interested? e-mail me
Qualms!!!
I don’t have time to do PR for my own firm (that’s probably a good thing) so you need not worry - I just know that you are a wealth of information, and if you don’t know it, or don’t know how to get it, well, TA is really in trouble.
Civitello’s book is excellent. I read it because of a recommendation in a previous thread here. One word of caution, reading it from the point of view of an architect or specifier, it sort of reads like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It is very graphic and very stomach churning. Highly enlightening though.
Don, back on Feb 23, 2007 I started a thread called ‘OneBook’ and Andrew’s book was my one book, though later others were mentioned. It is a scary book to read, but how often as a specwriter can you get a glimpse of the mind of a Contractor, esp. when it comes to Change Orders. I own both the first and second editions, and only wish I had time to fully read them fully, but I have read, flagged, and have used portions of the book in my work.