Observations on Construction Submittals
/Per the AIA (A201, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction), the purpose of submittals are “to demonstrate for those portions of Work for which submittals are required, the way by which the Contractor proposes to conform to the information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents.”
Submittals are the confirmation of the contractor’s intent to comply with the design concept. The importance of this compliance process is emphasized by the prerequisite condition stated in A201: “The Contractor shall perform no portion of the Work for which the Contract Documents require submittal and review of Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples, or similar submittals until the respective submittal has been approved by the Architect.”
At a minimum, designers should be generating construction documents that contain enough detail that clearly demonstrate a design intent. Additional detail from designers - equipment or process specifics - is beneficial but not critical to project success (albeit with a higher risk of overages). For projects with expedited project timelines (design-build, EPC), minimum designer input dictating general sizing, spatial relationships, and arrangement can be enough information to advance project steps. In these scenarios, the submittal process can be utilized by the designers to fine tune a design and verify system coordination to ensure performance needs are met.
However, on standard or typical projects, submittals are not intended to be an opportunity to alter the design concept by either designer or contractor, but the reality is they often function in that capacity. This 2006 AIA article takes it a step further describing the process as a game between the design and construction teams. While most may treat it this way – a cat and dog fight – the analogy cuts to the root of many of the process’s problems.
Image courtesy of Looney Tunes
The reality is submittals and the submittal process are really critical to project success. It represents one of the last opportunities to make changes (large and small) without causing a compounded affect to cost. For a seemingly typical and simple process, the problems are well rooted in construction culture and are still largely evident. The workflow has improved recently with shared project management software, but there are still efficiency gains to be had.
A case study authored by Catarina Pestana and Thais Alves of San Diego State University titled “Study of the Submittal Process Using Lean Construction Principles” did an analysis of submittal cycle time for a 12-story, 220,000 sf, mixed-use, CIP concrete new construction project in San Diego, CA around 2010. They were able to calculate actual cycle times at each process step (GC initial review, A or A/E review, GC distribution) and compare against estimated times. Most of the results were expected: actual lead times exceeded estimated, actual lead times average and median were about 32 days. A few of the surprise findings were:
The GC distribution cycle time exceeded GC initial review cycle time by about 3 days.
Submittal distribution is expected to be the least burdensome step as it should require less technical review than the other two.
Shop drawing review lead times (generally more complex) were about 10 days less than product data reviews.
Shop drawings are generally more complex and thus the expectation would be for a longer lead time.
Architect-only review lead times on average were 12 days longer than those also requiring the review of an engineer.
Because an A/E review requires additional hand-off to/from the engineer, it would be expected that the cycle time would be longer.
Interestingly, it was the GC review and distribution that caused the difference in lead times for both 2 and 3 above; the cycle time for the design professional review was the same for both. In this study, the longer distribution times were attributed by the contractor to “the architect finishing the design”, thus requiring change orders (part of the change order process was incorporated into the “distribution” step).
From my experience, here’s where I see waste in the submittal process:
A submittal is received that did not follow the compliance requirements.
A submittal is incomplete (covers only part of system/equipment).
A submittal is poorly labeled; it is unclear what is being submitted on.
A submittal is submitted in the wrong sequence (a sub-component to a larger component that has yet to be submitted on).
A submittal is submitted that is not required.
A submittal is disguised as a substitution request.
A submittal is not previously reviewed by the GC.
A submittal is overlooked or forgotten (all parties guilty here).
A submittal is not applicable to the project at-hand.
A submittal is provided by a project team member deep down the contractor org chart (sub-vendor to a vendor to a sub-subcontractor to a subcontractor to a GC).
From my experience, here are a few solutions to minimize submittal process waste:
Require a standardized control number for all parties involved.
Why? This improves coordination, avoids confusion, and eliminates the unnecessary step of manually creating/adding/altering unique control numbers.
Require the GC generate a schedule of submittals prior to issuing submittals and have it reviewed by the design team for completeness.
Why? This gives the design professionals an opportunity to ensure all critical components/equipment/systems are accounted for.
Specs should clearly describe what submittals are needed.
Why? While the general spec format is standardized, how specific submittals are requested is oftentimes determined by the architect (and is not standardized).
Specs should clearly describe how submittals are to be replied.
Why? Compliance statements clarify communication between contractor and designer. The designer can verify that the contractor reviewed the specification and the contractor can explain why their product or drawing deviates from spec.
If sub-subcontractors or sub-vendors are utilized, it should be the responsibility of the prime subcontractor to directly issue and manage all relevant submittals.
Why? Each document hand-off step is an opportunity for delay, increasing the probability of a longer cycle or lead time.
Change workflow such that any obvious consultant items are sent direct, bypassing the architect “review” step.
Why? Oftentimes submittals for engineer review get hung-up with the architect for no reason other than they are busy. Eliminating this step can decrease cycle and lead time.
Change the workflow such that submittal reviews are two-step. Step one is a cursory review for proper formatting (stamps, equipment labeling, compliance statements) and should have a 2-4 day lead time. Step two would consist of the full review which would carry that same lead time.
Why? Where is the value in waiting 8 days for a submittal response that will ultimately get rejected on a technicality after a 15 minute review?
Designers to provide clear, listed responses that can be tracked over each issuance.
Why? The submittal comment format is not standardized and oftentimes comments are buried in the documentation. Cleanly formatted lists ensure all comments will be visible to the receiver.
Set a goal for no more than two re-submittals. The third should be for record only.
Why? Goals help “set the tone” or set expectations for all project parties.
Triage submittals by categories “Ordinary”, “Semi-Custom”, “Specialized” to indicate product lead times.
Why? Categories can signal to the submittal reviewer approximate time to review or criticality of review. For example, valves labeled “Ordinary” would signal a short review, whereas a pump labeled “Specialized” would signal long delivery lead time and expedited review.
GC to expedite the first submittals for larger equipment that are anticipated to undergo multiple reviews.
Why? Initial submittal steps after the log is generated should be to prioritize submittals for larger/more complex equipment with long lead times.
GC to reduce expected review times on R&R resubmittals.
Why? The first submittal review on average should take longer than second or third reviews. The second or third review should be intended to verify earlier comments are addressed.