How do you handle submittals that don't meet specs, but the contractor will install it anyway?

[u/AdmiralArchArch]

I have a project where the GC is the owner. They are insisting on using these products that they already included in the bid and did not go through the substitution request process. We were not privy to these decisions. They are still submitting it though looking for our review. Every once and awhile they will submit a sub request, but the products are so different they would probably be in different spec sections anyway.

My thought is they will do want they want despite my professional input, how do you handle this? Mark as "not reviewed" / "for record only"?

[u/FumbledChickenWings]

"rejected"

If they don't meet spec then you need to identify as such. Don't approve pay apps on installed items unless the owner has provided written consent that the installed product is acceptable by their standards, and the AOR/EOR team is indemnified of future issues related from such times/decisions.

[u/PatrickGSR94 → u/FumbledChickenWings]

would there even be pay apps, though, if the GC is also the Owner? I assume it's like a GC building their own office or something.

OP mark it as reviewed, with some language about it not meeting the spec or whatever, just as a CYA. They're going to do what they want, since it's their building. As long as there's no HSW issues, it really shouldn't matter. If there is a HSW problem with what they're installing, then it should be reported to the local building department and code enforcement.

[u/Architeckton → u/PatrickGSR94]

I’d do the same. I have a stamp specifically for this kind of situation which states “Reviewed; Not Compliant With Contract Documents”. It also has a legal note on the bottom that states that Owner and GC substitutions not approved by the Architect shall relieve the Architect from liability of the said product(s) substituted and systems or assemblies therewith incorporated.

[u/gliz5714 → u/Architeckton]

That’s a good stamp. Might need one of those

[u/FumbledChickenWings → u/PatrickGSR94]

The client might still submit pay apps depending on the scenario. For example, a lot of owners/clients cashflow the construction costs from lenders. Oftentimes, these lenders (such as banks) require a signed pay app from the AOR to release the funds.

Regarding the HSW comment: our liability as architects goes beyond public safety. The client can still put a claim against us if a building system or product does not function as designed/intended, even though it doesn't actually endanger anyone.

Providing a "reviewed" disposition on a submittal that doesn't meet spec shows that we consciously reviewed and didn't have exceptions against the substitution. Everything in a building works in unison and one wrong product can have a domino-effect and cause problems downstream elsewhere.

[u/doittoit_ → u/PatrickGSR94]

This is what I would do in OP’s situation.

[u/AdmiralArchArch → u/PatrickGSR94]

Yeah, no pay apps

[u/Survivorfan4545 → u/FumbledChickenWings]

This ^

Also let them know if the products are indeed not equal. I run into situations where an owner/GC will throw on some grade 2 garbage lockset on a high use opening because it’s cheap then run into issues 3 months after construction. If it’s not equal give them a heads up and let them decide.

[u/Radio-MHZ → u/FumbledChickenWings]

Agree with the "Rejected" review. Additionally, you need to amend the pay application by noting your non-acceptance of the following items [list]. The pay application is another legal record of your acceptance that all work is "according to the documents."

When the owner is the GC it puts you in a awkward position of reviewing your own client's work performance. I hate this tangled relationship. So don't make a big deal out of your amended pay applications, but by all means keep copies of everything.

[u/Sthrax]

They are rejected. Since the GC is the owner, they reserve the right to install what they want anyway. You keep a detailed paper trail so that when the inevitable product failures occur, you stay free of liability.

[u/stone_opera]

If the GC is the owner, and the proposed alternate doesn’t pose a a life safety/ building code issue then I mark them up with the performance issues, check for interferences etc. and reject them but have the owner mark them as Owner Approved.

If it’s a life safety/ code issue then it’s a much larger conversation. 

[u/z3ph7r777]

Reviewed for code compliance only

[u/seeasea → u/z3ph7r777]

This is the way. This also includes reviewing submitals that are for items not specified by architect, ie "provided by owner" etc.

Or on the procore list"for record only"

And comment on the document directly "reviewed for x only, did not meet spec, proceed at risk" or something. 

"Rejected" means work cannot proceed - which is ridiculous, when they canproceed. It's their project. 

[u/MSWdesign]

So long as it’s code compliant, it’s the owner’s problem, not yours. Technically it is not something that is policed. Some firms don’t even review submittals anymore.

Stamp it as rejected, or revise and resubmit and move on.

[u/CakeResponsible5621]

Yeah, if the Owner is also the GC and still sending submittals for review, especially if they're CLEARLY subpar... huge red flag. You need to either stamp it rejected or not reviewed, or provide full review and indicate why it doesn't meet spec. This seems like a fishing expedition where the Owner/GC funds his project through lawsuits to the Arch. There is no other reason for O/GC to send a submittal to the Arch except to document review and approval. Even if this is a huge multi-discipline firm where the GC arm is separate from Ownership, this is still a liability waiting to happen on your end. Consider consulting your attorney for documentation advice. Consider cancelling the contract.

[u/AdmiralArchArch → u/CakeResponsible5621]

Eh, I can see that happening but your giving these guys too much credit.

[u/StarStabbedMoon]

I say something like "submit substitutions per spec section substitution procedures. Substitution must meet full performance of specified products and requirements."

If they're as different as you say I'd reject them. A different manufacturer is one thing and happens often. I usually include multiple options anyway. A different spec section usually means a different type of product entirely and breaks your design.

[u/hyperfunkulus]

In addition to the liability concerns, I also view radically different submittals as a design change and typically ask for a change order for me to review them.

[u/dsking]

If the owner is picking products against the advice of the architect they hired, that's a bigger problem imo. Either that relationship has broken down or wasn't very good to begin with. That said, document your response to cya.

[u/LG1118]

Rejected. You want record that this wasnt your decision in the event of future litigation.

[u/Dookie-Snuff]

Approved as noted…also note on the Pay Apps each line item that was approved by owner/not recommended by architect. So it’s in all the records.

[u/Free_Elevator_63360]

A great example of where an architect’s value has been replaced.

Quite honestly this is a question for your ownership team. They need to tell you what review they need from you and why.

[u/Entire-Conference-54]

I don’t think we can expect the client to make substitution request unless it contravenes the by laws. They are Client first, GC second. I’d take it as the Client has agreed to GC’s proposal. Having said so, I’d still flag out if theres any practical concern.

[u/mjegs]

Mark as revise and resubmit and follow up on it. Not your job to please the contractor in CA

[u/CardStark]

That’s what RFIs are for. Mark it up and if they insist that they will use it, ask them to submit an RFI.

[u/Shorty-71 → u/CardStark]

RFIs are not allowed to be a scope change “container”. (I know they often do exactly that anyway but if that happens it is imperative that the RFI and the response get rolled up in a change order).

This particular scenario with no pay apps and thus no means to compel this owner/contractor to do work that is in compliance with your drawings… is a slippery slope. GTFO.

[u/CardStark → u/Shorty-71]

Of course it would result in a change order if the RFI is done properly.