This is related to a current project I'm doing CA on.
I'm used to having submittals being issued 'grouped' together. For example: all the plumbing fixtures are in one submittal.
Recently I've been encountering GC's submitting individual items separately. Their reasoning is that it's easier to do in Procore and it makes the project closeout easier.
This is not acceptable to me. In the future, I'm going to provide language in our front end specs that requires grouping of items within a submittal.
I'm wondering what others experiences are with this. Do you get 'grouped' submittals? Do you have language in your project manual directing how submittals should be 'grouped'?
Unless something is a long lead item that requires an early submittal, my subcontracts require submittals to be group by at least specification section and for MEP, often we outline groups of spec sections within a given division. For fire protection, they have to give us everything in the division at once. For more complex envelopes, with multiple trades interfacing, we will tie the trades together so we can review submittals holistically. Lastly, as a GC, we schedule the due date (last date... latest date..) for all submittals and include that in our CPM schedule that is an attachment to the subcontract. We also do not use Procore.
Thanks. That is what I'm used to as well. I've never had to put language in our general conditions before to make this happen. It's very odd.
Aug 13, 24 6:26 pm ·
·
betonbrut
It is indicative of poor project management at the GC level to allow that through... and frankly poor management on the plumbing contractor as well, but I have come to expect that from some subs.
You've probably checked, but I say it because just about everybody I work with doesn't, but check what your Div 01 sections say about submittal procedures. You might already have language you can enforce to this effect. Very common (because it's in MasterSpec and that's formed the basis of so many versions of Div 01 sections) that your submittal procedures section will state that the contractor is to submit all items required for each specification section concurrently unless you've previously approved partial submittals in the submittal schedule.
That's the other thing ... you should be getting a submittal schedule and approving it before all of this starts happening. It should indicate the submittals, the date they are to be submitted to meet the construction schedule (including time for review, ordering, fabrication, etc. *and* time for making corrections or revisions to submittals), and if they need partial submittals for some reason (long lead times, etc.).
The headaches will continue until Architects learn how to be better contract administrators.
I've checked our Div 01. Nothing. I'll be adding a 'grouping' clause to the division.
We do get a submittal schedule. It has all the normal items - just not required 'groupings' of items. This will be something that I add to Div 01 requirements going forward.
The GC's that are guilty of providing excessive submittals are very large companies. Think nationwide. They have a hard enough time following Div 01. I'm sure when I make the submittal changes they will either not notice it OR simply not comply unless we fight with them.
FWIW, Procore outlines a pretty good submittal process here in detail. They also talk about creating a submittal schedule and grouping submittals into packages for review and approval. https://www.procore.com/library/construction-submittals
Yeah, just adding language into Div 01 isn't going to change anything. Contractors don't pay attention to it unless it helps them, or they are forced to. You can force them to pay attention to it by rejecting submittals until they are submitted properly. They'll notice that and change quite quickly when they learn you're actually going to enforce the contract as written. They'll hate you for it, but your job is to represent your client, not make friends with the contractor. You can better represent your client if they follow the contract. In some cases I've actually had the contractor come around to my view and start enforcing these things on their subs more strictly. I had one tell me that they were actually reviewing and rejecting submittals from their subs to get them right before they sent them to me. That was a good feeling. (It's also the bare minimum they were required to do by contract anyway ... but it still felt good to have them admit it)
I know that submittals can be grouped in Procore. I don't buy the idea that it's easier for the GG to no group things.
On a related note. The GC's I'm referring to are very large. They're used to throwing their weight around to get things the way they want. That's never worked on me. Then again, I'm not a managing partner so . . . .
Just out of curiosity, do you know where your Div 01 sections came from for the project? Are they the Owner's sections they provided, are they your office masters? Are you using a set of guide masters from MasterSpec, SpecLink, other?
If you've got a MasterSpec subscription, you've got language there you can use. I can't overstate how ubiquitous this language is in the industry. Your big nationwide contractors will definitely have multiple projects they are working on right now where this is the case. Posting it here, including the copyright notice at the bottom, for educational purposes.
Near the end of the section, they even give you language you can use to reject incomplete submittals, and to hold them to submitting only partial submittals when previously approved.
Generally, I want grouped submittals, however that ideally would occur after I see the product data sheets first. That way if they are submitting an item not listed I can reject, without having to look at 60 pages of wrong storefront submittals. I definitely want it grouped after I approve the product. Others I see grouped are items from division 9; light gauge, gyp bd, etc. I'd prefer all division 8 to be grouped too; doors frames and hardware. Other CPMs like to see everything submitted separately, but honestly contractors will never do that anyway even if you have something in the front end. What are the actions you will take if they don't follow through? I typically have a fee if I have to review your submittal more than three times, but hey I need to get paid.
Exactly. What would we do if they don't follow through? Reject the submittal? Then the construction stops, the owner get's upset and it becomes a blame game. Even if we (arch) are in the right we'd destroy our relationship with the contractor. Considering the contractors in my situation are nationwide we'd lose a lot of work.
Yes, you reject the submittal. You send it back as soon as it comes through and you note why it's being rejected with a reference to the paragraph(s) in Div 01 that outline the procedures they need to follow. That is literally our job during construction. Do it quickly (don't wait until the submittal is due), and do it early on to set the tone for the project, and you'll be shocked at how smoothly the rest of the project will go.
Ideally, if you suspect this is going to be a problem, you bring this up during the preconstruction meeting. You let the contractor know you're not going to just take submittals whenever and however they feel like it. You let them know the procedures are clear and they need to follow them. If they don't like it, they didn't have to bid the work.
Obviously there is nuance and I suspect we are all able to figure out how to handle the situation and relationships, but it kills me how much we bend over for the contractor to the detriment of our fee and sanity during CA.
You won't lose any work you didn't want to do in the first place. The people you'll make mad won't be the people deciding what projects to pursue anyway. And those people who get mad wouldn't follow the contract anyway, and they shouldn't be working on your projects. If they can't follow simple administrative procedures, do you really want them managing the construction of your client's buildings? If your clients start complaining that the contractor is mad at you, educate them.
b3ta, all of those things seem reasonable. You could write those groupings encompassing multiple sections into the specifications to get them submitted together. You could also mark up the submittal schedule to the same effect (approved as noted, etc.).
We're going to be explain to the GC's on future projects about the submittal requirements and what will happen if they don't comply. I expect the two GG's I know to still attempt to not comply. Like I said, they're huge and throw their weight around. I'm going to enjoy saying "NO".
Here's the ultimate problem, I do schools, projects with fundamentally challenging schedules and budgets. We're dealing with low bid contractors. We're also dealing with the reality that the contractors work for the owners and not the architects. When we, in the mind of the contractor, reject submittals for "nonsense" issues - again this is how the contractor frames the issue to the owner - we bear the brunt of the blowback. Now, I'm adept at dealing with the contractor and can do my best to frame our concerns, but often the owners are frustrated with both sides, and would rather not engage their rights and responsibilities as the owner. I see it all the time. I've given the owner enough evidence to pull bonding, project 6 months behind schedule, nothing. It's painful.
I will reject shops as I received them if they misspell my name or the office's name. I will also reject them if they are not in English or use imperial dimensions. No comments added, just straight up return to sender, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
All understandable concerns. I've learned all of this working on mostly public, low-bid, K-12 projects. If you're not a jerk about it and you set the tone early enough, your contractor will come around. It takes some effort, but you'll make it up over the course of an entire project.
You need to do a cursory review of each submittal *as soon as it comes through* to determine if it's complete and should be reviewed for the project. If it's incomplete you reject it immediately and kindly let them know why, so they can address it before it causes issues with their schedule.
Where I see people run into problems with contractors is when they decide to start being hard asses in the middle of a project, having previously let a lot of this stuff go earlier in the project. Or, they keep waiting until the submittal is 2 weeks old and then they reject it saying it's incomplete. That's 2 weeks of lost time the contractor could have resolved it, but we just sat on it. You're not going to win over anyone that way (even if you are within your rights). They need to think you're helping them, not being an asshole.
Submittal Packages
This is related to a current project I'm doing CA on.
I'm used to having submittals being issued 'grouped' together. For example: all the plumbing fixtures are in one submittal.
Recently I've been encountering GC's submitting individual items separately. Their reasoning is that it's easier to do in Procore and it makes the project closeout easier.
This is not acceptable to me. In the future, I'm going to provide language in our front end specs that requires grouping of items within a submittal.
I'm wondering what others experiences are with this. Do you get 'grouped' submittals? Do you have language in your project manual directing how submittals should be 'grouped'?
Unless something is a long lead item that requires an early submittal, my subcontracts require submittals to be group by at least specification section and for MEP, often we outline groups of spec sections within a given division. For fire protection, they have to give us everything in the division at once. For more complex envelopes, with multiple trades interfacing, we will tie the trades together so we can review submittals holistically. Lastly, as a GC, we schedule the due date (last date... latest date..) for all submittals and include that in our CPM schedule that is an attachment to the subcontract. We also do not use Procore.
Thanks. That is what I'm used to as well. I've never had to put language in our general conditions before to make this happen. It's very odd.
It is indicative of poor project management at the GC level to allow that through... and frankly poor management on the plumbing contractor as well, but I have come to expect that from some subs.
It seems like the GC prefers it this way because it's easier for them at closeout. I suspect it has something to do with how they've setup Procore.
You've probably checked, but I say it because just about everybody I work with doesn't, but check what your Div 01 sections say about submittal procedures. You might already have language you can enforce to this effect. Very common (because it's in MasterSpec and that's formed the basis of so many versions of Div 01 sections) that your submittal procedures section will state that the contractor is to submit all items required for each specification section concurrently unless you've previously approved partial submittals in the submittal schedule.
That's the other thing ... you should be getting a submittal schedule and approving it before all of this starts happening. It should indicate the submittals, the date they are to be submitted to meet the construction schedule (including time for review, ordering, fabrication, etc. *and* time for making corrections or revisions to submittals), and if they need partial submittals for some reason (long lead times, etc.).
The headaches will continue until Architects learn how to be better contract administrators.
Thanks for the input!
I've checked our Div 01. Nothing. I'll be adding a 'grouping' clause to the division.
We do get a submittal schedule. It has all the normal items - just not required 'groupings' of items. This will be something that I add to Div 01 requirements going forward.
The GC's that are guilty of providing excessive submittals are very large companies. Think nationwide. They have a hard enough time following Div 01. I'm sure when I make the submittal changes they will either not notice it OR simply not comply unless we fight with them.
FWIW, Procore outlines a pretty good submittal process here in detail. They also talk about creating a submittal schedule and grouping submittals into packages for review and approval. https://www.procore.com/library/construction-submittals
Yeah, just adding language into Div 01 isn't going to change anything. Contractors don't pay attention to it unless it helps them, or they are forced to. You can force them to pay attention to it by rejecting submittals until they are submitted properly. They'll notice that and change quite quickly when they learn you're actually going to enforce the contract as written. They'll hate you for it, but your job is to represent your client, not make friends with the contractor. You can better represent your client if they follow the contract. In some cases I've actually had the contractor come around to my view and start enforcing these things on their subs more strictly. I had one tell me that they were actually reviewing and rejecting submittals from their subs to get them right before they sent them to me. That was a good feeling. (It's also the bare minimum they were required to do by contract anyway ... but it still felt good to have them admit it)
I agree.
I know that submittals can be grouped in Procore. I don't buy the idea that it's easier for the GG to no group things.
On a related note. The GC's I'm referring to are very large. They're used to throwing their weight around to get things the way they want. That's never worked on me. Then again, I'm not a managing partner so . . . .
Just out of curiosity, do you know where your Div 01 sections came from for the project? Are they the Owner's sections they provided, are they your office masters? Are you using a set of guide masters from MasterSpec, SpecLink, other?
Office masters.
Do you know how those were originally written/developed?
A combination of custom writing with a lawyer, MasterSpec, and SpecLink over the last decade. Our Div 01 is normally revised every year or so.
Adding a section detailing the grouping of submittals won't be an issue. We'll run it all through our lawyers.
If you've got a MasterSpec subscription, you've got language there you can use. I can't overstate how ubiquitous this language is in the industry. Your big nationwide contractors will definitely have multiple projects they are working on right now where this is the case. Posting it here, including the copyright notice at the bottom, for educational purposes.
Near the end of the section, they even give you language you can use to reject incomplete submittals, and to hold them to submitting only partial submittals when previously approved.
We don't use Masterspec anymore. SpecLink has similar language though.
Generally, I want grouped submittals, however that ideally would occur after I see the product data sheets first. That way if they are submitting an item not listed I can reject, without having to look at 60 pages of wrong storefront submittals. I definitely want it grouped after I approve the product. Others I see grouped are items from division 9; light gauge, gyp bd, etc. I'd prefer all division 8 to be grouped too; doors frames and hardware. Other CPMs like to see everything submitted separately, but honestly contractors will never do that anyway even if you have something in the front end. What are the actions you will take if they don't follow through? I typically have a fee if I have to review your submittal more than three times, but hey I need to get paid.
Exactly. What would we do if they don't follow through? Reject the submittal? Then the construction stops, the owner get's upset and it becomes a blame game. Even if we (arch) are in the right we'd destroy our relationship with the contractor. Considering the contractors in my situation are nationwide we'd lose a lot of work.
Yes, you reject the submittal. You send it back as soon as it comes through and you note why it's being rejected with a reference to the paragraph(s) in Div 01 that outline the procedures they need to follow. That is literally our job during construction. Do it quickly (don't wait until the submittal is due), and do it early on to set the tone for the project, and you'll be shocked at how smoothly the rest of the project will go.
Ideally, if you suspect this is going to be a problem, you bring this up during the preconstruction meeting. You let the contractor know you're not going to just take submittals whenever and however they feel like it. You let them know the procedures are clear and they need to follow them. If they don't like it, they didn't have to bid the work.
Obviously there is nuance and I suspect we are all able to figure out how to handle the situation and relationships, but it kills me how much we bend over for the contractor to the detriment of our fee and sanity during CA.
You won't lose any work you didn't want to do in the first place. The people you'll make mad won't be the people deciding what projects to pursue anyway. And those people who get mad wouldn't follow the contract anyway, and they shouldn't be working on your projects. If they can't follow simple administrative procedures, do you really want them managing the construction of your client's buildings? If your clients start complaining that the contractor is mad at you, educate them.
b3ta, all of those things seem reasonable. You could write those groupings encompassing multiple sections into the specifications to get them submitted together. You could also mark up the submittal schedule to the same effect (approved as noted, etc.).
We're going to be explain to the GC's on future projects about the submittal requirements and what will happen if they don't comply. I expect the two GG's I know to still attempt to not comply. Like I said, they're huge and throw their weight around. I'm going to enjoy saying "NO".
Here's the ultimate problem, I do schools, projects with fundamentally challenging schedules and budgets. We're dealing with low bid contractors. We're also dealing with the reality that the contractors work for the owners and not the architects. When we, in the mind of the contractor, reject submittals for "nonsense" issues - again this is how the contractor frames the issue to the owner - we bear the brunt of the blowback. Now, I'm adept at dealing with the contractor and can do my best to frame our concerns, but often the owners are frustrated with both sides, and would rather not engage their rights and responsibilities as the owner. I see it all the time. I've given the owner enough evidence to pull bonding, project 6 months behind schedule, nothing. It's painful.
I will reject shops as I received them if they misspell my name or the office's name. I will also reject them if they are not in English or use imperial dimensions. No comments added, just straight up return to sender, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
All understandable concerns. I've learned all of this working on mostly public, low-bid, K-12 projects. If you're not a jerk about it and you set the tone early enough, your contractor will come around. It takes some effort, but you'll make it up over the course of an entire project.
You need to do a cursory review of each submittal *as soon as it comes through* to determine if it's complete and should be reviewed for the project. If it's incomplete you reject it immediately and kindly let them know why, so they can address it before it causes issues with their schedule.
Where I see people run into problems with contractors is when they decide to start being hard asses in the middle of a project, having previously let a lot of this stuff go earlier in the project. Or, they keep waiting until the submittal is 2 weeks old and then they reject it saying it's incomplete. That's 2 weeks of lost time the contractor could have resolved it, but we just sat on it. You're not going to win over anyone that way (even if you are within your rights). They need to think you're helping them, not being an asshole.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.