The third and final installment of this series on Administrative Requirement pertains to 01 33 00 – submittal procedure requirements. There are thirteen CSI subheadings under this category of which we are chiefly concerned with but one – albeit all encompassing – 01 33 23 Shop Drawings, Product Data, and Samples. The remainder of the category pertains to Sustainable Design and LEED requirements.

Of the three Administrative Requirement categories I discuss submittal procedure requirements are the most resource volatile and unpredictable. Experienced contractors know the submittal/approval process can become an insidious black hole of constant redundancy, a thankless effort for which they spend, yet cannot assign a value to in their Application for Payment, as paperwork has no capital value.

There’s a tacit understanding that a contractor buries submittal procedure requirements costs in General Conditions or overhead, yet it’s next to impossible to guess just what that scope of work or cost will be, or even what it was by completion. Thus, like other roles, the job is typically left to Assistant Project Managers (APMs) who spend their days cycling and recycling submittals, along with their general quotidian. Soon enough, submittal issues become their quotidian, overtaking less pressing activities that become overlooked.

However, as some submittals are endlessly returned with a Rejected or Revise and Resubmit status, inevitably a Project Manager will have to join the effort in order to steer the submittal toward Approved as Noted status. (There was once a status called ‘Approved,’ however, the practice was abandoned decades ago, as designers perceived it as increasing their liability. The stamp itself is seldom seen outside an antique shop.  Approved as Noted status gives designers a caveat to abdicate responsibility, a strategy which contractors have always resented.

Different submittal scenarios create variable risk and consequences. Base contract submittals are perhaps the least risky. This is assuming the design intent is clear in contract documentation. If not, it falls on the contractor’s sketchers to fill in the gaps. At a certain point, it can become apparent that, indeed, the sketcher is doing the work of the design team. Soon enough, the sketchers are blamed for design delays they didn’t create. If there are multiple cycles (resubmittals), a contractor may send an invoice for the extra sketch work for which the general contractor will invariably be unable to successfully pass on to ownership.

If submittals are rejected for flaws, or lack of clarity, the blame will fall to the sketcher and contractor. This is true even if designs had errors and omissions (E&Os). For that reason, smart contractors will issue RFIs before they issue submittals for work in question, such that they have complete information. RFIs for unseen conditions will eventually translate to extra submittal/review cycles that could not have been predicted. Like any other submittal, even those for existing conditions can blame delays on the contractor. Unforeseen submittals create an extra burden, and routinely the contractor is unfairly blamed. Rather, the contractor should be compensated for them.

LEED design and construction allows an owner to gain tax credits for implementing sustainable design programs of a multitude of applications: recycled products, non-VOC, Indoor Air Quality (IAC, and so forth). These requirements are generally found in the submittal requirements clauses of the project specifications. They generally consist of trades’ LEED product data, and tally sheets for procured materials and their proximity to the site. In truth, these documents make what should be a moderately simple task into a complex element that defies reason.

LEED submittal requirements are part of subcontractors’ and vendors’ issues and are routinely mixed in with shop drawings or product data, as the case may be. However, the tracking, documentation, and formalizing of the LEED paperwork to meet guidelines from a  contractor’s standpoint requires a good deal of specific knowledge about the process.

It’s incumbent on the general contractor and his resources to meet LEED requirements, including maintaining logs of where material or product was mined, sourced, or what it was fabricated from. Depending on the depth of LEED requirements for respective designations – Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, the resources necessary increase proportionately.

“LEED astray; “off one’s LEED, “LEED with the chin.” This alliteration may not be accidental.

LEED documentation can be tricky. The guidelines also change every few years, along with the paperwork. For that reason, contractors should be wary when calculating the cost of managing their LEED requirements, rather than pay someone who cannot accomplish the task. Contractors perceive LEED documentation much in the same way they do CPM scheduling: they don’t understand it, nor do they want to. They do so begrudgingly, and only under duress. Unlike scheduling, contractors have absolutely no imperative, nothing to gain in enforcing LEED requirements.

Just like any other submittal, LEED issues should be reviewed and corrected by the general contractor before sending it off to the design team, however, this is a step often omitted. Insofar as LEED submittals, the average contractor simply doesn’t have resources trained to meet the requirement, and may eventually have to outsource the work.

What can a contractor do to keep Submittal Procedure costs in abeyance? Minimize cycles or resubmittals. How does he do that?

• Issue RFIs as soon as possible and before they stop work flow. Much of this oversight should he done in the preconstruction design document review and (contractor) constructability analysis. In this way the contractor and his trades won’t become the de facto designer when there are errors and omissions
• Use due diligence in properly vetting submittals before they are released for review. Designers dislike having to constantly return half-cocked submittals. They soon suspect that all subsequent submittals will be likewise deficient – waiting with Revise and Resubmit stamp in hand
• Call out designers who omit redlines on one submittal only to point to the same deficiency in the subsequent, causing an extra cycle. That we call “a waste of time,” or a luxury for which they are not entitled. Hold the reviewer to the limited response window that is stipulated in the specifications – typically ten to twenty days
• Follow up on submittal status such that every review isn’t left to the last minute by the designers
• Organize shop drawing logs top-down, and in such a way that data doesn’t become fragmented and without structure
• Create a Submittal schedule that prioritizes long-lead material or equipment, critical path program, product that is typically resubmitted, such as duct shop drawings
• Breakdown trade submittals such that they aren’t all compacted into just one or a few bundles. Submittal bundling leads to partial approval or rejections, making it difficult to isolate various problem areas

For example, a contractor for a high-rise wouldn’t simply bundle all mechanical submittals under one ‘HVAC.’ Better to anticipate and divide into packages that he is all too familiar with:

• Equipment
• Utility connections
• Duct work
• Steamfitting
• Insulation and sealant
• Grilles and registers
• Controls and devices
• Air balancing
• Testing, Commissioning, and Warrantees
• LEED data

Readers will recognize this strategy as ‘divide and conquer.’ Moreover, it cuts the design team some slack by not inundating them with all the work at once. They will appreciate the staggering of submittals, a sentiment which translates to them being more serviceable, or less prone to conflict: helping them helps you.

Understand that owners are far more sympathetic to their design team for reasons that aren’t always fair to the contractor– such as designers have more education, are better spoken, and are the de facto owner agent by virtue of an AIA contract, if used. Owners trust their administration of the contract and are unlikely to side with a contractor who complains about review timeframes. Thus, if and whenever possible, establish friendly communications and supple working relationships with the design team. Avoid conflict without bending over too far, lest one be thrown under the bus.