Part 2: Three Common Types of Submittals
Previously, we looked at the general terms involved with submittal review and how they are the most cost-effective way to catch mistakes before they happen. Now, let’s go over the three most common types of submittals, which are product data, physical material samples, and shop drawings, and how to review each one. We will start with product data submittals and physical material samples, as they are directly related.
Product Data
For a submittal package primarily containing product data, such as flooring, the review is completed by checking the project documents. If the contents of the submittal are in conformance with plans, specs, and A’s & C’s, it is a complete submittal package. Meaning it contains all relevant data for installation and can be transmitted to the design team for review.
Let’s not run by that last bit, though, “all relevant data for installation.” That means a flooring submittal doesn’t just contain product data for the three flooring types. It also contains product data for floor leveling compound, glue, primers, sealants, base, and so on. A complete submittal package is one where work is not halted. For example, the rubber base adhesive was missing in the submittal, but it must meet strict low-VOC requirements. Only when a submittal contains all required product data for the complete scope of work and is in conformance with the project documents can it be submitted.
Physical Material Samples
If we stick with the flooring example, physical samples of the flooring must also be submitted. Make sure to request physical samples at the same time you request the product data sheets for the material. Data sheets can be sent digitally the same day, while physical samples can take some time to acquire (and usually do). You should request a minimum of three of each physical sample: two for the design team and one for you.
Once you have received your physical flooring samples, verify that they are the correct material, the correct size, and labeled correctly, then take photographs of them. While they are physical samples and will physically be handed off to the design team in some fashion, they still need to be submitted digitally so approval or rejection can be documented. Physical samples are usually straightforward because you handle all the legwork up front with the product data submittal.
Shop Drawings
For shop drawings, or just “shops,” we could talk about a variety of building components like windows, access control plans, or rebar. But we are going to focus on structural steel and cabinets, because I think structural steel is fun and cabinets are not. Both items have similarities in review, and both need to be reviewed against the contract documents.
Do the cabinet sizes, colors, and layout match the plans? Do the connection details on the steel shop drawings match those in the structural documents? Does the cabinet layout meet ADA code? Are there any adjustments needed due to structural conflicts? Is the steel design constructable? Does the design need to be modified? These are items you work through in your initial review of the shop drawings and are completed by comparing the architectural and structural plans.
Once you have reviewed the shop drawings and confirmed that they match the contract documents, you need to review them in the field. For cabinets, there are critical items to look for when field-verifying shop drawings. Verifying things like the overall size of the opening where cabinets are being installed, that all appliances will fit and open, and that all mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) rough-in locations are correct. Sometimes you will need to lay out the cabinets on the floor to truly verify the fit.
Verifying MEP rough-in is especially important on renovation projects. The MEP rough-in in old buildings is often less predictable than in new buildings. For example, the sink is designed to be 48” from the north wall per plan, but the plumbing rough-in is 61” from the north wall. Does the cabinet layout need to be revised, or should we move the plumbing rough-in? These are problems that need to be worked through with the design team and will not be found by simply comparing and contrasting two sets of plans on a computer screen. When these discrepancies and conflicts are identified, we think of our mantra: “An RFI is Better Than a Change Order.”
Continuing with the example of the plumbing rough-in being in a different location, an RFI can potentially save a change order. On a previous project, we had this exact scenario: the existing plumbing rough-in was not where it was supposed to be and did not align with the new cabinet layout. Physically moving the plumbing rough-in location was considered, but it would have cost a substantial sum of money. However, revising the cabinet layout did not incur any cost, and we were able to rearrange the cabinets to accommodate the inconsistent plumbing. This required careful coordination and documentation, as we went from roughly ten kitchen layouts across seven buildings to over twenty-five different kitchen layouts.
The same attention to detail and coordination needs to be applied to structural steel shop drawings. However, with structural steel, I think more in terms of constructability and impacts on other trades. Take the shop drawing review of a canopy assembly as an example; there are a variety of factors that can go sideways. Does that canopy have an integral gutter? Where does that gutter discharge? Can the plumbing be concealed within the canopy soffit? To answer these questions, you truly have to build the canopy in your head to uncover the potential problems. Creating scaled sketches can also save you here, and has saved me. And finally, you have to involve other trades. You can review these items on your own island, but that’s how farther-reaching impacts can be overlooked. You might find that your canopy light fixture doesn’t fit, that you didn’t account for additional flashings, or that you planned on using two inch pipe for your canopy plumbing even though code requires three inch pipe. Working with your project partners helps avoid building in problems and can help you find solutions. A simple way to include your project partners is to share. For example, you need to share the finalized cabinet drawings with your MEP partners on the project so they too can participate in design review.
In the next installment of this series, we will discuss what and how to share with our construction partners. Join me next time for “Review the Return, and Return the Review,” as we connect these lessons to effective collaboration.
Part 1 – Why Terminology Matters
Part 2 – Three Common Types of Submittals
Part 3 – Review the Return, and Return the Review