Vol. 9 No. 10		October 1990

What is it about shop drawings that leaves all of us with feelings of such profound discomfort? The issue seems to surface time and again: How much responsibility for the information they contain rests with the architects and engineers who review them; how much with the contractors, subcontractors, and fabricators who prepare them?

There may be no completely satisfactory answer. Perhaps to a greater extent than at any other point of interaction between professionals and the work force, responsibilities are easily and, often, hopelessly confused. We seek comfort in distinguishing between design concept and construction detail, only to discover, when the uncompromising hand of fate intervenes, that there is little comfort to be found there.

Picture this: A boiler explodes during startup testing on one of your projects. The explosion kills two workers. The cause? The boiler was installed without a pressure relief valve. The valve was not shown on a contractor submittal requesting "or equal" approval, and you approved the substitution.

Now imagine the following courtroom drama:

Counsel: "Is it true that your contract with the owner required that you review shop drawings, product data, samples, and other contractor submittals for conformance with the information given and the design concepts expressed in the Contract Documents?"

Engineer: "Yes, it is."

Counsel: "And did you review the submittal for the boiler in question for conformance with the information so given and the design concept so expressed?:

Engineer: "Yes, I did."

Counsel: "Then, please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury and the grieving families of the deceased who sit before you today, was it consistent with the information given in the Contract Documents that this boiler be installed without a pressure relief value? Was it the intent of your design that it explode and kill two, innocent people?"

Small wonder the question of responsibility for contractor submittals produces such profound discomfort. That the engineer was eventually exonerated on appeal in this particular case offers little relief.

Unsettling scenarios such as this have led a number of attorneys serving architects and engineers to the conclusion that the very fact that you review contractor submittals at all creates a responsibility for every scrap of information they contain. Others continue to support the notion that the limited responsibilities so carefully articulated in the standard documents afford an effective shield in most cases. This difference of opinion notwithstanding, more and more evidence seems to point to the conclusion that the only safe rule of thumb is, "If you pick it up, the responsibility is yours."

What do you do in light of all this? Consider the following suggestions:

1. Refine your commitment.

   The standard documents are a place to start, but if what you truly intend to do is review architectural details for aesthetics and engineering submissions for their technical content, take the time and the trouble to make this distinction in your agreement. The standard documents do not do so. They blur the distinction by requiring, without qualification or definition, review of submittals for conformance with both the design concept and the information given in the Contract Documents. It is not clear whether "design concept" means visual aspects only, but it is clear that conformance with "the information given" includes all technical aspects and details of the design. Thus, arguably at least, every piece of information which could be tested against the technical content of the design should be. Therein lies the problem--and the need for a clearer definition of just what it is you are going to do in the course of your review.

2. Pinpoint your requirements.

   Specify and review only those submittals you must have to protect the integrity of your design. This does not include plumbing or lighting fixtures, and the fact that it does not makes some architects and engineers uneasy. Shop drawings and other submittals have long been used 1) to verify the contractor's compliance with the plans and specifications and 2) as a final check on the design. The former should not be necessary-it only confuses responsibilities. The latter is misplaced timing. There are more appropriate points in the process for design review and plan checking. "Not Required for Review" is the only reasonable response to submittals which represent little more than an invitation to share a responsibility which would not otherwise (and should not) be yours.

3. Insist on review by the contractor.

   The General Conditions require review and approval by the general contractor before shop drawings and other submittals are forwarded to you. Be prepared to insist that this obligation be met, even if it means you have to reject submittals which have obviously not been reviewed. The contractor will have to be advised of your intentions during the pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and you can expect that your resolve will be challenged--but stick to your guns. You will prevail if you persist, and you have every reasonable right to do so.

4. Control the flow of submittals.

   You need time for adequate review, and you cannot afford to be stampeded by the contractor into turning out approvals as if you were stamping out sausages in a sausage factory. Insist that a schedule of submittals be prepared prior to the start of construction, and hold the contractor to it (or to reasonable and timely revisions necessitated by circumstances beyond the contractor's control). Document deviations, and inform the contractor in writing of any delay in your processing caused by the failure to meet the approved schedule.

5. Take your responsibility seriously.

   If you review contractor submittals for their technical content (as you must in some cases) be prepared to accept responsibility for every detail, dimension, calculation, and margin note. As the tragedy at the Kansas City Hyatt made painfully clear, there is no solace in the fact that the contractor may have a duty to identify changes to the plans and specifications for your benefit. Structural steel, structural connections, stairways, railings, and any other submittal you require for technical review command meticulous attention to detail. Anything less may well be adjudged an abdication of the responsibility you assumed when you insisted on reviewing the submittal in the first place.

These steps are prudent precautions. They will not eliminate all opportunities for confusion over responsibility, but they just may relieve some of the profound discomfort we feel about the way we have approached the problem in the past.