Product Submittal Approval Language 1

[CPENG78]

Hello All,
Would anyone point me to a link or a site that may contain standard language that should be included when approving product submittals, shop drawing submittals and others? Let me know if more clarification is needed. Thanks in advance.

 

[bimr]

It should be included in your Contract document. You can't change the Contract by coming up with different review language if the Contract already states something.

Here is a discussion:

http://m.csemag.com/index.php?id=2832&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=22535&cHash=66af12691f

 

[Ron]

Contracts typically do not include the approval language. They usually only commit you to reviewing the submittals, not approving them.

As for the review stamp language, this has been debated ad infinitum. The bottom line is that you can caveat your review/approval/rejection/resubmit language all you want, but ultimately you did the review, you had an awareness of what was being used, you either concur with its use or you do not. In my opinion, the safest bet is to critically review each submittal and determine if it complies in all respects with the specified requirements. Yes...all means all. Don't compromise in the review and approval process...get what you ask for or don't accept it.

 

[CPENG78]

Bimr,
Thank you but it is typically not included in the contract documents, at least in all the projects that I have been involved.

Ron,
I agree. That is actually my approach. I either approve or I don't. I look to get what I asked for.

...and yes, at the end of the day I approved or I don't. However where I am currently employed, the language on the stamp does not make sense. So I am trying to create a stamp that is more "standardized" in language and I understand these are big quotation marks. I know I have used something better before but I just don't have the language of what I used before.

 

[fel3]

Here are a couple of examples:

========================

One company I worked for used this language:

"Submittal reviewed by _____ Engineering. The review is only for general conformance with the design concept of the project and general compliance with the plans and specifications and shall not be construed as relieving the Contractor of the full responsibility for providing materials, equipment, and work required by the Contract; the proper fitting and construction of the work; the accuracy and completeness of the submittal; selecting fabrication processes and techniques of construction; and performing the work in a safe manner."

Following this was two check boxes:
[tt][ ] Please correct and resubmit
[ ] Resubmittal is not required. Corrections, if any, are noted.[/tt]
Finally there was the name of the company in big letters and places to write the job number, the reviewer's initials, and the date. Missing was a place to write the sumbittal number.

========================

Another company I worked for headed their stamp with five check boxes, which were named to match their in-house submittal tracking software:

[tt]A. Furnish as submitted.............[ ]..........{note, the dots are only to line things up because extra space characters are removed}
B. Furnish as noted.................[ ]
C. Revise and resubmit..............[ ]
D. Rejected.........................[ ]
E. Engineer's review not required...[ ][/tt]

Here is their text: "This review is for general conformance with the design concept only. Any deviation from the plans or specifications not clearly noted by the Contractor has not been reviewed. Review by the Engineer shall not serve to relive the Contractor of the contractual responsibility for an error or deviation from the contract requirements."

This was followed by the name of the company and places for the reviewer's initials, the date, the sumbittal number, and the project number.

========================

A contractor I worked with on several projects had a stamp they used before passing along submittals from subcontractors. It was headed by the name of the construction company, which was followed by five check boxes:

[tt][ ] Reviewed......................[ ] No exceptions taken
[ ] Revise and resubmit...........[ ] Make corrections noted
..................................[ ] Rejected[/tt]

Here is their text: "This submittal has been reivewed for general compliance with the Contract Documents. Approval does not relieve Subcontracotr/Supplier of the responsibility for conformance to the quality standards as set forth in the Contract Documents nor does it relieve responsibility for field verification of all conditions relating to the work of Subcontractor/Supplier. Subcontractor/Supplier is responsible for dimensions and quantities of materials relating to this contract."

At the bottom of the stamp was a place for the reviewer's initials, the date, and the submittal number.

========================

There are things to like and dislike about each one, but I had no control over the language.



==========
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

 

[dik]

In addition, my drawing General Notes contain the following:

SHOP DRAWINGS AND SAMPLES

CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE A LIST OF SUBMISSIONS

REFER TO GENERAL NOTES FOR PARTS OF THE WORK THAT REQUIRE SHOP DRAWINGS/SAMPLES. ALLOW 2 WEEKS FOR REVIEW FOR EACH COMPONENT U/N

SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS/SAMPLES WELL IN ADVANCE OF DELIVERY

SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS TO THE [CONSULTANT | ENGINEER]

SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS THEY ARE PREPARED. UNLESS PRIOR ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE, DUE TO SCHEDULING DEMANDS, ETC. THE [CONSULTANT | ENGINEER] CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DELAYS CAUSED BY THE RECEIPT A LARGE NUMBER OF SHOP DRAWINGS IN A SHORT TIME PERIOD

CONTRACTOR SHALL ALLOW AND SCHEDULE FOR TWO WEEKS FOR [CONSULTANT | ENGINEER] TO REVIEW EACH SUBMITTED SHOP DRAWING/SAMPLE

ELEVATIONS AND DIMENSIONS USED SHALL BE THE SAME AS THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS U/N

SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL SHOW ALL MATERIALS AND DESIGN, FABRICATION, CONSTRUCTION, FASTENING, AND FINISHING DETAILS AS REQD

CONCRETE REINFORCING STEEL SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL SHOW:
ALL DIMENSIONS, AND ALL ELEVATIONS,
LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS TO ALL OPENINGS
LOCATION OF ALL CONST AND POUR JOINTS, AND
LOCATION OF ALL CONTROL JOINTS

SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL IDENTIFY ALL VARIATIONS FROM THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT 1 SET OF SHOP DRAWINGS IN DIGITAL FORMAT PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR THE [CONSULTANT | ENGINEER]'S REVIEW. SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR THE FOLLOWING WORK U/N:
CONCRETE POUR SCHEDULE INCLUDING ALL CONSTRUCTION/CONTROL JOINTS
REINFORCING STEEL
PRECAST CONCRETE ELEMENTS
CONCRETE FORMWORK
STRUCTURAL STEEL
OPEN WEB STEEL JOISTS
LONG SPAN STEEL TRUSS
STEEL FLOOR DECK
STEEL ROOF DECK
METAL SIDING
METAL FABRICATIONS
COLD FORMED METAL FRAMING
WOOD 'I' JOISTS
WOOD GLUED LAMINATED PRODUCTS
FACTORY FABRICATED WOOD TRUSSES
STEEL BUILDING SYSTEM (ALL COMPONENTS)
FIBRE REINFORCED PLASTIC COMPONENTS

PRIOR TO REVIEW BY OUR OFFICE, SHOP DRAWINGS MUST BE REVIEWED AND COORDINATED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THEY MUST BEAR A REVIEW STAMP, DATE AND SIGNATURE SIGNIFYING HIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT HIS RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE:
-DIMENSIONS WHICH SHALL BE CONFIRMED AND COORDINATED WITH JOB SITE CONDITIONS,
-INFORMATION THAT PERTAINS SOLELY TO FABRICATION PROCESSES, MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES AND PROCEDURES OF CONSTRUCTION,
-SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND PROGRAMS IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK,
-COORDINATION OF THE WORK WITH THAT OF ALL OTHER TRADES, AND
-SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK

SHOP DRAWINGS NOT BEARING A REVIEW STAMP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE WILL BE RETURNED

SHOP DRAWINGS FOR NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS WHICH MAY IMPACT THE BUILDING STRUCTURE SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE [CONSULTANT | ENGINEER]

SHOP DRAWING REVIEW BY THE [CONSULTANT | ENGINEER] IS ONLY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF CHECKING FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. REVIEW IS NOT CONDUCTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS SUCH AS DIMENSIONS OR QUANTITIES

Edited as required for each project...

Dik

 

[bimr]

The review terms are in the EJCDC C-700 Standard General Conditions of the Construction Contracts 2002 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC.

Issued and Published Jointly By
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE
a practice division of the
NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
___________________
AMERICAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL
___________________
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
___________________
This document has been approved and endorsed by The Associated General Contractors of America and the Construction Specification Institute

My understanding is that this form of contract is widely used.

See the attachment for the responsibilities.



Here is a separate discussion of the review process:

http://m.csemag.com/index.php?id=2832&tx_ttnew...

 

[CPENG78]

Thank you all for the valuable information.

Fed3 - The samples you provided are along the lines of what I was looking for. Thank you again,

Dik - Great additional information

Bimr - I believe and forgive as I tried to scheme through it really fast but the language within the document you provided appears to prove Ron's point and what I'm used to seeing. Section 6.17 D 1-3 talks about the procedure and 6.17 C2 apparently calls for the submittal approval. In any case, thank you for the information. I will make a note of this section.

 

[bimr]

Again, I would start with the Contract. The Contract is between the Owner (municipality) and the General Contractor. The Contract spells out the terms and conditions as well as the responsibilities of the parties.

Many municipalities use the EJCDC C-700 document as the basis for a Contract's general conditions.

One can't make up additional contract terms and conditions after a Contract is signed just by putting statements on drawings or making up a review stamp. If a problem develops and you go to court, the law will always go back to what is in the Contract.

 

[dik]

bimr... I agree completely, and that's why I use my general notes... they are coordinated with the spec for each project, and on a typical project, I may have 3 or 4 sheets of General Notes. My text file for notes is over 320K in size and I edit it as required. It is a compendium of 40 years of 'mistakes'...

Dik

 

[Ron]

As bimr noted, submittal review is addressed in the EJCDC docs, but as noted in the following paragraph from C-700, 6.17.D:

D. Engineer’s Review:
1. Engineer will provide timely review of Shop Drawings and Samples in accordance with the Schedule of Submittals acceptable to Engineer. Engineer’s review and approval will be only to determine if the items covered by the submittals will, after installation or incorporation in the Work, conform to the information given in the Contract Documents and be compatible with the design concept of the completed Project as a functioning whole as indicated by the Contract Documents.

there is no specific language requirement in the contract general conditions for the Engineer's "stamp" for shop drawings.

 

[dik]

I tie the review into the notes by affixing the attached stamp to the shop drawings.

Dik

 

[bimr]

I think we are all in agreement.

 

[stanier]

You will probably find in your contract document that the would 'approve" constitutes a direction. Search the definition of direction. The difficulty with this is that it opens you up to risk. that is why common usage is not to approve drawings but use other language that leaves the responsibility of compliance with the supplier/contractor.

The examples given above by fel3 are commendable.

“The beautiful thing about learning is that no one can take it away from you.”
---B.B. King

http://waterhammer.hopout.com.au/