I am curious how other folks handle submittals. I've been working with developers that contract S/MEP consultants themselves. We typically have an aggressive construction schedule, and GC wants submittals back ASAP. The expectation is 3 days for review, 1 week max for one particular project we have in CA. (For reference, project is 20,000 sf of mixed use new construction, spec development, but higher end.)
Because of the short turn around time, we usually review concurrently with consultants. The mech engineer is insisting that we (architect) review before they review. I'm curious how everyone else handles this. With the short turn around, it's just not feasible for us to review and then have them review.
My past experience with a public project where we (architect) contracted all consultants, we did review submittals before consultants, but we also had 2 weeks for review. This particular project where the mech engineer wants us to review before them, the GC does appear to review the submittal at all based on some obvious errors I've seen, they just pass along to us.
I am working on another project as well where the GC's project manager is awesome and reviews all submittals for compliance with docs before sending them to us, so she catches a lot of the obvious errors in shops & submittals. That project also has an aggressive schedule for submittal turn-around, but the whole team is on board with concurrent review, plus the fact that the PM actually reviews them first really streamlines the process.
I'm interested in any insight into how other people handle this and any tips for streamlining. We are always trying to ensure we don't blow our fees in CA.
wurdan freo
Jun 16, 18 2:45 pm
should be defined in the contract.
llbb
Jun 16, 18 2:58 pm
It's based on A102, but the owner/developer doesn't let us see his contract with the builder, so we don't know exactly what is in it.
Our contract with the owner does not elaborate the exact terms of CA, and it's not really a contractual issue; I am just curious how other people are handling submittals.
wurdan freo
Jun 16, 18 5:38 pm
If you're not defining CA in the contract how do you know what your responsibilities are?
Why do you even owe them a submittal review?
llbb
Jun 16, 18 6:17 pm
The reality is that the contract is just looser than that. Our contracts are usually 5 or so pages. Besides the one public project, we aren't using AIA contracts, and the owners and developers we work with wouldn't sign an AIA owner/architect anyway. It's really not a contractual issue, at least not between us & any entity. We are on board with the schedule and timeline. The only issue is the mech engineer not wanting to do concurrent review. And if he continues slows down the schedule the owner/developer (who has a contract with him and is paying him) will get him on track. I am just curious what other people are doing these days, especially with what seems to be a trend towards consultants being contracted directly by the owner.
archinine
Jun 16, 18 5:49 pm
Typically our consultants, MEPS, review then we do, projects are similar in size or greater than what OP mentions. However we usually retain those consultants. Further our CA terms are clearly spelled out in our contracts which are heavily modified from AIA. We have done plenty of 2 party reviewing within 3 days, especially for smaller packages. The ability to do so really hinges on how busy the CA architect is with other work.
Sometimes work load makes it such that one simply cannot review within 3 days or whatever stringent timeline. While it’s nice to do it within the contractors ‘due date’ bear in mind this is often an artificial due date, and the true time limit, if specific, will be outlaid in your contracts. Further if I receive a submittal for review at 5:30pm, I mark that as received the next business in my submittal log, regardless what the contractor has on the sheet.
It doesn’t matter what the owner-contractor contract says, your review duration must be outlined in a contract you signed. How could you be obligated to adhere to a contract to which you are neither party nor privy to?
llbb
Jun 16, 18 6:24 pm
The owner-contractor contract specifies schedules and outlines LD's based on the schedule, which in turn is affected by how quickly submittals are turned around. You are right that we are not obligated to adhere to it as we are not party to that contract.
We also work with the GC and owner a lot, so we want to keep everyone happy to keep that work coming & have a GC to recommend to other clients. Some submittals are artificial due dates, but some are critical path. The specific submittal that led me to post this was a grease trap and critical path, and the mech engineer was just dropping the ball. He was insistent that we review first, and I just thought that was unnecessary, so I was curious what other people are doing.
archinine
Jun 16, 18 6:42 pm
Based on your description of the separate direct contracts between services and owner, and the precedence of simultaneous review, it does seem odd that this particular submittal diverts from that establish protocol. Particularly for what it is...grease trap seems rather minor in terms of mech - arch coordination items for a ground up project. Why would this submittal break the rhythm?
Miles Jaffe
Jun 16, 18 7:48 pm
Two questions asked.
First - overentitled impatient developer has MEP under contract. In other words not your problem, manage it accordingly.
Second - limiting CA losses: bill hourly, yeah, I know, cheapass developers won't do that.
Hi All-
I am curious how other folks handle submittals. I've been working with developers that contract S/MEP consultants themselves. We typically have an aggressive construction schedule, and GC wants submittals back ASAP. The expectation is 3 days for review, 1 week max for one particular project we have in CA. (For reference, project is 20,000 sf of mixed use new construction, spec development, but higher end.)
Because of the short turn around time, we usually review concurrently with consultants. The mech engineer is insisting that we (architect) review before they review. I'm curious how everyone else handles this. With the short turn around, it's just not feasible for us to review and then have them review.
My past experience with a public project where we (architect) contracted all consultants, we did review submittals before consultants, but we also had 2 weeks for review. This particular project where the mech engineer wants us to review before them, the GC does appear to review the submittal at all based on some obvious errors I've seen, they just pass along to us.
I am working on another project as well where the GC's project manager is awesome and reviews all submittals for compliance with docs before sending them to us, so she catches a lot of the obvious errors in shops & submittals. That project also has an aggressive schedule for submittal turn-around, but the whole team is on board with concurrent review, plus the fact that the PM actually reviews them first really streamlines the process.
I'm interested in any insight into how other people handle this and any tips for streamlining. We are always trying to ensure we don't blow our fees in CA.
should be defined in the contract.
It's based on A102, but the owner/developer doesn't let us see his contract with the builder, so we don't know exactly what is in it. Our contract with the owner does not elaborate the exact terms of CA, and it's not really a contractual issue; I am just curious how other people are handling submittals.
If you're not defining CA in the contract how do you know what your responsibilities are?
Why do you even owe them a submittal review?
The reality is that the contract is just looser than that. Our contracts are usually 5 or so pages. Besides the one public project, we aren't using AIA contracts, and the owners and developers we work with wouldn't sign an AIA owner/architect anyway. It's really not a contractual issue, at least not between us & any entity. We are on board with the schedule and timeline. The only issue is the mech engineer not wanting to do concurrent review. And if he continues slows down the schedule the owner/developer (who has a contract with him and is paying him) will get him on track. I am just curious what other people are doing these days, especially with what seems to be a trend towards consultants being contracted directly by the owner.
Typically our consultants, MEPS, review then we do, projects are similar in size or greater than what OP mentions. However we usually retain those consultants. Further our CA terms are clearly spelled out in our contracts which are heavily modified from AIA. We have done plenty of 2 party reviewing within 3 days, especially for smaller packages. The ability to do so really hinges on how busy the CA architect is with other work.
Sometimes work load makes it such that one simply cannot review within 3 days or whatever stringent timeline. While it’s nice to do it within the contractors ‘due date’ bear in mind this is often an artificial due date, and the true time limit, if specific, will be outlaid in your contracts. Further if I receive a submittal for review at 5:30pm, I mark that as received the next business in my submittal log, regardless what the contractor has on the sheet.
It doesn’t matter what the owner-contractor contract says, your review duration must be outlined in a contract you signed. How could you be obligated to adhere to a contract to which you are neither party nor privy to?
The owner-contractor contract specifies schedules and outlines LD's based on the schedule, which in turn is affected by how quickly submittals are turned around. You are right that we are not obligated to adhere to it as we are not party to that contract. We also work with the GC and owner a lot, so we want to keep everyone happy to keep that work coming & have a GC to recommend to other clients. Some submittals are artificial due dates, but some are critical path. The specific submittal that led me to post this was a grease trap and critical path, and the mech engineer was just dropping the ball. He was insistent that we review first, and I just thought that was unnecessary, so I was curious what other people are doing.
Based on your description of the separate direct contracts between services and owner, and the precedence of simultaneous review, it does seem odd that this particular submittal diverts from that establish protocol. Particularly for what it is...grease trap seems rather minor in terms of mech - arch coordination items for a ground up project. Why would this submittal break the rhythm?
Two questions asked.
First - overentitled impatient developer has MEP under contract. In other words not your problem, manage it accordingly.
Second - limiting CA losses: bill hourly, yeah, I know, cheapass developers won't do that.