Sei sulla pagina 1di 7

"'-r

.. I
'

Professional
Practices
ENGINEERS AT THE BAR
Ig,
gto
goals

Shop Drawing Review: What does the Contract Say?


Editor's Note: This is the first install- ing submittals is "to demonstrate '" the of design for the purposes of implement-
ment in a two-part series on shop drawings. way by which the Contractor proposes ing the design intent.
The second part will appear next month to conform to the information given and '1\pproved as noted," "approved as cor-
(eSE, 01103). References to AlA Form the design concept expressed in the Con- rected" and similar language are invita-
A20I. General Conditions of the Con- tract Documents." Shop drawings also tions to disagreement, even when only
tract for Construction, are to the 1997 help engineers determine whether the minor changes are required. Engineers
'tration edition, unless otherwise noted. For pur- contractor understands the require- who mark changes on a submittal and
t mirror poses of processing shop drawings, the ments of the plans and specifications. return it "approved as noted" never know
architect's consulting engineers are its One sees here the basic difference whether the contractor and equipment
agents. Therefore, references in A20 1to the between how engineers look at shop supplier agree to make the requested
architect apply to the consulting engineers. drawings and the way contractors often changes. In fact, if the contractor releases
view them. Engineers review shop draw- the order for manufacture before receiv-
By KENNETH M. ELOVITZ, P.E., Esq. ings to increase the likelihood that defects ing shop drawing approval, there's a good
Energy Economics~ Inc. or deficiencies in the contractor's submit- chance that the change will not be made.
Foxboro, Moss. tals can be identified before offending Contractors incur little additional trouble
equipment or systems are installed. and expense to prepare corrected submit-
Reviewing a contractor's shop draw- But the only thing that contractors tals, which become part of the permanent
ings is one of my favorite parts of being really want to know is that it is OK to pro- project documentation.
a consulting engineer. Shop drawings ceed as indicated on the submittal. For this Similarly, to simply "reject" a shop
often provide more information than reason, engineers must be careful about drawing is also unhelpful. If a contractor
manufacturers publish in their catalogs. how they word their approvals. misunderstands some key aspect of the
Sometimes, they even explain how contract, rejection of the submittal does
equipment works and identify installa- Weasel words not solve the problem. "Revise and resub-
tion considerations. But most important By approving a submittal using mit" accompanied by notes that explain
is that shop drawings tell engineers how "reviewed," "checked" or "returning the required changes is far more likely to
well they communicated design intent without objection," an engineer is effec- produce a compliant resubmittal. A sim-
to contractors. tively saying that what has been submit- ple rejection might not communicate the
Keep in mind, however, that unre- ted is "as acceptable to the engineer for the need to make changes and try again.
sponsive shop drawings do not always project's desired end result as if the engi-
mean the engineer did a lousy job con- neer had included that particular item in Approved for what?
veying design intent. Contractors can be the plans and specifications." (see John R. When an engineer approves a shop
intractable. Sometimes a general con- Clark, "Focus on Shop Drawings," Engi- drawing, the question is not whether it
tractor~and even the owner-see the neers' Joint Contract Documents Com- is approved, reviewed or processed. The
plans and specifications as just a guide. mitteeNo.1910-9-C,1985, p. 6.) real question is: Approved for what?
But contractors should consider shop However, approving shop drawings The answer lies in another question:
drawings as a primary way to demon- does not guarantee the systems will work, What does the contract say? Shop draw-
strate their understanding of the con- or that equipment will be free from defect ing review was never intended to make
tract requirements-before lines on or properly installed. Take a product sub- the engineer a guarantor that the con-
paper become systems in a building. In stitution, for example. Approval simply tractor would perform in accordance
fact, AlA A20I. Section 3.12.4 explicit- means the submitted product is as good as with the contract requirements. AlA
iation ly states that the purpose of shop draw- the product the engineer used as the basis A201 Section 4.2.7 says shop drawing
Leom CONSULTING-SPECIFYING ENGINEER, DECEMBER, 2002 13
Professional
Practices
review is "only for the limited purpose of drawing review seriously and recognize
checking for conformance with infor- that one important purpose of shop
mation given and the design concept drawings is to check for errors that affect
expressed in the Contract Documents." performance of the submitted item.
Those words say more about what For engineers-and their lawyers-
shop drawing review is not than what who are concerned about the precise
it is. The section also says a lot about language used, "complies" might be a
"design concept" without really better choice than" approved." The engi-
explaining it. And so, clients-and neer's review determines whether the
courts-can be understandably con- shop drawing complies with the require-
fused about the design professional's ments stated in the contract documents.
role in shop drawing review. Clear contract language that defines j
A good guideline is that design con- the contractor's responsibilities to pre-
cept means elements important to pare shop drawings and circumscribes
achieve the performance or end results the engineer's responsibility for review
that the specifications intend. This helps everyone understand who is
implies a duty to craft the specifications responsible for what. As always. behav-
to focus on the essential equipment and ior can expand responsibilities and alter
system functions and not on unneces- the allocation of risks in a contract. For
At Gamewell, as an independent sary detail. It also implies that engineers that reason, engineers need to know
manufacturer we know that you who write specifications and review what the contract says and conform 1
have choices in the selection of their behavior to it. r
shop drawings understand the specified
advanced Fire Alarm Systems.
requirements and can discern how the
Let us simplify the process
with our: submitted equipment meets or does not Substitutions: design-build?
meet those requirements. But what about substitutions? Plans
• Dependable, full-featured
family of fire alarm systems One engineer learned this lesson the and specifications show one way to carry
• Dedicated system engineering hard way. A specification for a steel stair- out the design, but specifications often
sales support team way called for 10-ga. steel landing pads allow the contractor to supply "equal"
• Network of independent with angle supports, but the contrac- equipment by another named manufac-
Engineered Systems tor's shop drawing listed 14-ga. steel turer. In reality. no two products are
Distributors. instead. The architect stamped the sub- exactly equal. There are always some
To select the right Gamewell mittal "Furnish as Submitted." The variations among products. Manufac-
system for your application, please stairway collapsed. injuring two work- turers use those variations to distinguish
contact us today.
ers. The architect was sued and argued their products from those of competitors.
that its approval did not extend to every When a contractor selects a product
detail of the submittal. But the court other than the one that was the basis of
found the designers liable. Uaeger v. Hen- design, does it introduce an element of
ningson, Durham & Richardson, Inc., 714 design-build into the project? Some engi-
F.2d 773 (8th Cir.1983)] neers say it does. The design responsibility
Since the Jaeger ruling, AIA A201 has associated with using different equipment
been revised twice. Section 4.2.7 now can vary greatly. For example. a contrac-
contains language that submittal review tor's redesign of a fitting to accommodate
is not conducted for the purpose of deter- a different size air-handling unit is trivial.
mining the accuracy and completeness of However. the design responsibility is quite
other details such as dimensions and significant when the different dimensions
quantities. or for substantiating instruc- of an AHU require rearranging piping or
tions for installation or performance of relocating fans to make everything fit.
equipment or systems-all of which In public work, engineers might not
remain the responsibility of the contrac- be able to hold contractors responsible
Gamewell Worldwide
tor as required by the contract documents. for coordinating equipment other than
60 Pleasant Street, Ashland, MA 01721
The revised language might have that which is used as the basis of design.
Tel (888) FIREBOX· (508) 231·1400
been an attempt to avoid the liability For example. in one case the specifi-
Fax (508) 231·0900
imposed in the Jaeger case. On the other cations for a fire station called for a par-
www.gamewell.com hand, engineers ought to take shop ticular system or approved equal. The

For more information enter # 210


contractor submitted a substitution. Section 3.1.2 of AlA A20I requires
'Revise and resubmit'
When the submittal was rejected. the the contractor to perform the work in
contractor asked the architect to iden.- with an explanation accordance with the contract documents.
tify two additional manufacturers If the specifications name more than one
whose products he would accept. The
of changes is likely to product as suitable for a particular appli-
architect refused. saying it was the con- produce compliant cation. those products. even if they are not
tractor's problem if he did not want to resubmittals the ones shown on the drawings as the
use the specified product. The contrac- basis of the design. are not substitutions.
tor eventually furnished the specified Substitutions are products not named in
product. sued for the extra cost and vendor and placing the burden on the the specifications. Substitutions may be
won. (E. Amanti & Sons. Inc. v.R. C. Grif- bidder to discover alternatives did not appropriate if the specified product is not
s fin. Inc .. 53 Mass. App. Ct. 245. 2001.) constitute competitive specifications." available. On a plans-and-specification
:- The public bidding statute required The case did not discuss who would job. substitutions generally are not appro-
S specifications to contain the names of at be responsible if differences among priate if their only reason is a lower cost to
IV least three eligible suppliers. The prob- three named products required design the contractor. Engineers and contractors
S lem for engineers is the court's remark modifications. However. the decision both should be aware of section 3.4.2 of
r- that the awarding authority must seems to imply that contractors should AlA A20I. Section 3.4.2 allows the con-
~r "demonstrate that there are at least not have to take any initiative to make a tractor to make substitutions only with
lr three sources from which a bidder could specified product work with the rest of the consent of the owner. after evaluation
w obtain essential items for the project." the design. by the architect. lesel
:n The court also said the bidder is not The Amanti case applies to conven- In next month's Professional Practices.
responsible to identify "three sources for tional specifications. It does not discuss the author will discuss procedural questions.
materials subject to a competitive bid." performance specifications. where dif- such as which shop drawings to review and
and that "providing the name of a single ferent rules might apply. who should conduct the review.
I1S
n '---/
.re
.IC-
ne
lsh
lCt
;IC-
ry of
,rs.
ent
11"
lity
Igi-

The Global Innovation Leaders.


e technical insulation, #1 in quality and service.

Inventors Inventors Inventors Inventors Continuing


Armaflex· marine & 25/50 convenient the legacy of
flexible offshore white continuous- Innovation
closed-cell Arma"chek· elastomeric length Leadership."
elastomeric insulation AP/Armaflex Armaflex
'ac- W Coil
systems
late
rial.
uite
ons
gor

not
;ible ARMACELL LLC
han MEBANE, NC 27302
1 800 86~5638
;igr www.armacell.com

:ci,,- Copyright 0 2002 AnTIaceU LLC

par-
The
For information enter # 211 on the Reader Service Card
CONSULTING-SPECIFYING ENGINEER· DECEMBER, 2002 15
r

Professional
Practices
ENGINEERS AT THE BAR

A Guide to Shop Drawings: Who Should Review?


Editor's Note: This is the second error-professional liability defense lawyer's eyes, it means there was some
installment in a two-part series on review- lawyers sometimes call this concept the need to have the engineer evaluate the
ing and approving shop drawings. Refer- principle of "betterment." drawing--otherwise, it would not have
ences to AlA Form A20 1, General Condi- Back to the subject of the independ- been submitted. Instead, return the
tions of the Contract for Construction, ent reviewer. Depending on the job and drawing with a memo stating that the
1997 edition
> are to the unless otherwise
noted. For purposes of processing shop
the circumstances, an outside engineer
can sometimes be more objective about
submittal is not required by the contract
and has not been reviewed, and the
drawings, when a consulting engineer is the whether a contractor's submittals com- engineer offers no comment on it. By
architect's agent, references in A20I to the ply with plans and specifications. Such a taking precise action and clearly stating
architect apply to the consulting engineer. scenario might also provide a kind of the basis for it, engineers can avoid con-
internal peer review. For example, if the fusion over whether they did review or
By KENNETH M. ELOVITZ, P.E., Esq. reviewing engineer finds a problem, or if should have reviewed the shop drawing.
Energy Economics, Inc. the two differ, they can discuss it pri- Remember that the engineer writes the
'---'
Foxboro, Mass. vately and professionally. specifications and the general condi-
2r
tar
n-
her
al
r-
n
ch
)0
)f
~-
IC-
)st
In
lty Of course, being able to tell clients tions of the contract that define the
)f
W
Many firms assign low-level staff to about design problems without losing engineer's obligations and scope of serv-
process shop drawings. But the prac- their confidence is a skill that few have ices-the contractor does not define the
tice-even if perceived as a menial mastered. The key seems to be in provid- engineer's duties.
duty-deprives a firm of a useful oppor- ing solutions, not just identifying prob-
tunity to make desired changes before lems. A proposed contract change Do not do the contractor's job
the work is done. Consider this: hire an issued during shop drawing review, A second headache reliever involves
outside consultant to review the draw- accompanied by an explanation, is insisting that contractors do their jobs.
ings and note suggested changes. bound to be less painful than blaming Under sections 3.12.6 and 3.12.7 of AlA
Before dismissing the notion as too one another when the system does not A201, the contractor must review and
costly, consider the benefits. Sure, any work as intended. approve shop drawings before sending
changes this independent consultant them to the architect or engineer. Engi-
might make could result in an extra cost Review only what's noted neers should not accept submittals
to the contractor, but they'll certainly be In examining the whole process, directly from a subcontractor or vendor.
nowhere near the cost of a problem that there are many steps that can be enact- This bypasses the general contractor's
is not discovered until after the work is ed to save headaches. First, specifica- opportunity to review drawings for
completed. Moreover, if the change is tions should call for only those shop coordination. If a submittal contains
something that would have been includ- drawings the engineer believes are need- obvious errors, the engineer should
ed in the bid documents had the engi- ed. If a contractor submits a non- return it immediately with an explana-
neer thought of it in time, the bids would required shop drawing, and the engi- tion and a requirement to resubmit once


I
have been correspondingly higher to neer reviews it anyway. he or she will the contractor has corrected any errors.
reflect the additional work. likely be held responsible for having Likewise, if it looks like a contractor rub-
Again, before rolling your eyes, keep approved it. ber stamped a submittal without
in mind that the change order cost does Don't simply return these shop draw- reviewing it carefully, the engineer
not necessarily have to be passed on to ings marked "not reviewed." It leaves should .return it with instructions to
com~
the owner, nor should the client expect open the question of why it was not resubmit after the contractor has com-
reimbursement for any claimed design reviewed, and in the contractor's pleted its review. Keeping a record of the
~862

CONSULTING-SPECIFYING ENGINEER· JANUARY. 2003 15


Professional
Practices
errors or discrepancies in the initial submittal might facilitate Further, the designer should insist that the contractor
review of the resubmittal. express the schedule in terms of milestones, not specific dates.
Section 3.12.8 of ALA A20 1 requires the contractor to advise For example, the engineer might agree to process all shop
the architect specifically, in writing at the time of submittal, of drawings within 10 business days of receipt. An engineer who
any ways that submitted products deviate from the contract agrees to process shop drawings by March 15 is asking for
requirements. The contractor's approval stamp is the contrac- trouble, because the contractor might not make the submittal
tor's representation that he or she fulfilled this responsibility. By until March 14 or even March 16, The schedule should also
insisting on the contractor's approval stamp, engineers gain address or provide the possibility that resubmittals will be
some insulation against claims that they implicitly waived a required. Integrating shop drawing review-with adequate
contract requirement by accepting non-conforming materials time allowed for review-into the construction schedule at the
or equipment. Engineers can still get into trouble by approving beginning of the job and adhering to schedule commitments
I shop drawings with deviations that the contractor identified, can help engineers defend delay claims.
but at least it will not be due to unknowing approval.
These precautions may impact the schedule, but remember Revoking shop drawing approval
it is not the only thing that is important. A job that finishes on Shop drawings cannot change a contract. In other
time but does not meet the contract requirements breeds words, the engineer cannot use the review to impose new
unhappiness. The contractor is in charge of schedule, and requirements. But it also means the contractor cannot use
engineers must not let shop drawing review interfere with the shop drawings to escape a contract's requirements. That is
contractor's schedule. Section 3.10.2 of ALA A20 1 calls for the not to say the strategy has never been tried. For example, the
contractor to prepare a schedule of submittals that allows the specifications for steam piping at a certain university called
design team reasonable time for review. If the contractor is for welded or threaded pipe. Nevertheless. the contractor
going to hold the designer to the review schedule, the design- submitted-and the engineer approved-grooved piping.
er should insist that the contractor prepare a schedule in Later, the engineer ordered the contractor to stop work and
advance. replace the grooved pipe with welded pipe. The contractor
sued the owner and the engineer to recover the cost of the
extra work. The contractor was not allowed to rely on the
TM
engineer's initial approval of a non-conforming submittal
ELECTRONIC FLOWHOOD to change the contract requirements and leave the grooved
DIRECT DIGITAL READOUT 0-2500 CFM piping in place. However, the court allowed the contractor
to proceed with his action against the engineer for damages
[Detweiler Bros., Inc. v. John Graham & Co., 412 F. Supp. 416
(B.D. Wash. 1976)].
In another case, a contract called for a fire-alarm system to
,"~ be wired with solid copper No. 12 wire. The engineer approved
the contractor's submittal "as noted" with a long list of
required corrective actions. None of the comments addressed
wire size, in part because the submittal did not say anything
about wire size.
During construction, a consultant hired for construction
observation reported that the fire-alarm system wire was
stranded No. 14. The contractor had to replace it. The con-
tractor then filed a claim for a change order.
The contractor argued that neither it nor its supplier
AUTOMATICALLY CORRECTS FOR AIR DENSITY &
BACKPRESSURE thought the No. 14 wire was a "substitution" or "deviation."
CHOICE OF METERS· AIR FLOW ONLY, OR AIR FLOW,
For that reason, the contractor claimed it could not be faulted
VELOCITY, PRESSURE & TEMPERATURE for failing to call the wire size to the engineer's attention dur-
OPTIONS INCLUDE: MEMORY, AVERAGE & SUM TO 100 ing the submittal process. The court disagreed with the con-
READINGS, SEQUENTIAL RECALL, AUTO·READ tractor, noting that. '1\nyone working in the electrical field
REPAIR POLICY· ONE WEEK TURNAROUND OR LESS I ought to know that stranded conductor is not solid, and that
CUSTOM TOPS MADE TO ORDER 14 AWG wire has a smaller diameter than 12 AWG."
The submittal approval could not alter the contract require-
Shortridge Instruments, Inc. ment. The approval was effectively revoked, and the contractor
7855 East Redfield Road • Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 had to replace the work at its own cost [Twigg Corporation v. Gen-
(480) 991-6744 FAX (4811)44)-1267 eral Services Administration, GSBCA 14 387, cross-motions for

For more info, enter # 211 on the Reader Service Card


11':
Professional
Practices
summary relief denied: June 4, 1998, GSB responsibilities on the part of the a procedure for making a cut-over from
CA 14386,14387 denied: GSBCA14899 contractor that need to be specified in old to new systems on critial opera-
granted in part: February 11, 2000]. that contract. tions. The engineer also might want a
contractor to submit a written phasing
Design delegation Temporary vs. permanent plan that shows how the contractor
In the market today, there a number Even people in the construction industry plans to maintain continuity of service.
of specific shop drawing related issues sometimes lose sight of the distinction In these examples, the purpose of the
engineers need to be aware of. The first between temporary and permanent engineer's review is only to see whether
involves the controversy over design del- work. The former falls within the con- the contractor has developed a reason-
egation vs. abdication. tractor's exclusive realm. Shop drawings able plan, not evaluate details or pro-
For years, specialized systems have are permanent work to describe systems vide an opinion on whether the plan is
been specified on a performance basis. as they will be configured. appropriate. To avoid interfering with
The architect specifies criteria, and the As a general rule, engineers should the contractor's sole and exclusive
vendor provides the detailed design. In not review submittals concerning the right of control over means, methods,
HVAC, for example, the design engineer proposed implementation of means, techniques, sequences or procedures of
specifies a sequence of operation for methods, techniques, sequences or construction, the engineer's review or
temperature controls and the specialty procedures of construction. Engineers comment letter should state the scope
contractor selects the hardware to also generally should not review shop and purpose of the review-that the
implement the specified sequence. drawings for temporary work. Review- engineer's review is intended to
Contractors sometimes claim the ing them could subject the engineer to confirm that the contractor has
drawings for these systems contain too have accepted responsibility not nor- developed a plan-and not to make
little information as to how to build mally undertaken by a design profes- an independent evaluation of the
something, forcing them to design the sional. There are exceptions: An engi- suitability of the plan.
system themselves. Designers claim neer might want a contractor to submit Continued on p. 49
they are appropriately delegating
details of design, like steel connec-
tions, to specially qualified profession-
als like steel fabricators.
In such cases, the contractors' argu-
ment is not so far-fetched. Shop draw-
ings are not a substitute for design doc-
uments and designers should not expect
contractors to design the project or fig-
ure out how to make the building orthe
system work. Section 3.12.10 of AlA
A201 attempts to define the division of
design responsibility between the archi-
tect-responsible for the design of the
project-and the contractor, who the
contract might require to design a por-
tion of the work, but who is usually lim-
ited to a sub-system or ancillary work.
When the contract delegates a por-
tion of the design to the contractor,
the architect must specify all per- '";';".

formance and design criteria that the


contractor's detailed design must sat- ~Faii1rorcea;er8ctii~'heat~rsu~~,~elri"
~non~l1atMdolJ~ ~umid'el1Vironmm-:,' ,c','
isfy. The architect is not responsible ·t20.voltcontrors-'· . ;.-~ y ..
for checking that the contractor car-
ried out the design properly, but the
contractor is not responsible for the
+jn~~:CK···
, .....,. ••• - to • ....., .
adequacy of the specified performance
or design criteria. Design-build proj- ·rorlf~~·r,~~~';~:'~:#~~~'ted~~~~~
;-
ects present more extensive design
For more info, enter # 213 on the Reader Service Card
CONSULTING·SPECIFYING ENGINEER· JANUARY, 2003 19
Professional "I Saved
Practices Our School
Continued from p. 19
One final thought on shop drawings:
District
Engineers should not underestimate
their value as a way to learn about prod-
ucts. Sometimes. contractors select
products simply on price. Sometimes, it's
$124 ooo':l~,
, ·."'M,

based on incentives like expense-paid LastYear ",


sales J;onferences at desirable vacation
spots. But just as often, contractors with
select products based on reliability-no
callbacks. technical support and service WORLD
after the sale. Engineers rarely have the
opportunity to experience first-hand
DRYER"
how products perform over time. Con-
tractors who service the equipment
have that opportunity daily.
A reliable contractor's choice of a par-
ticular product is one of the strongest
recommendations a product can obtain.
Engineers should make shop drawing
review part of delivering a functional
project, not a bureaucratic obstacle.

Real power: Use it wisely


For more info. enter # 226 on the Reader Service Card
Shop drawings really are a thing of
beauty. How so? The engineer writes the
contract-in the form of the specifica-
tions-and is then allowed to adminis-
ter. enforce and interpret it. Perhaps the
first answer to any question about man-
aging shop drawings should be another
question: "What does the contract say?"
Maybe engineers should challenge
every section in their specifications by
asking. "Why do I need this?" or "What
do I really want here?" Enforcing the
contract specifications will be a lot easi-
er under challenge if every requirement
has a sound reason.
But consistency is important. Engi-
neers should be careful that their
actions do not contradict either the
Water, St_m, Evaporator
words or intent of the contract. Engi- Condenser, and Booster Coils
neers should check that their contract Custom Built and Made-to-Flt
for professional services and their sec- Field Measurement by Factory Trained Reps
Computerized Coli Selections
tions of the specifications are consistent Quallty Construction
with each other and with the other pro- ARI and ISO 9002 Cel'tlflcatlon
fessional services agreements as well as 2 & 5 Days Explcllted Shipments Available
the contract for construction.
Finally, with specific regard to shop
drawings. samples and other submittals.
HEATCRAFTI.
specify and review only those that are Ooutokumpu· heatctaft
1-aoo-225-4328
necessary-and have a reason why they _h ••••crllftcp.~m collsGheatc:I'lIft.~
•••
are needed. lesel
For more info. enter # 225 on the Reader Service Card
CONSULTING-SPECIFYING ENGINEER· JANUARY. 2003 49

Potrebbero piacerti anche