Engineer reviews submittals--Is he on the hook?

[donw]

Okay, I'm the engineer, and I reviewed the light fixture submittals for the job and missed that the voltage for one type of fixture was 120V instead of 208V as the plans show. So the electrician who ordered the fixtures charges the owner extra to pull the neutral for the 120V fixtures. Does the electrician not share some responsibility for not reviewing his own order against the plans? The way I understand it is that submittal review is a service to the engineer's customer to make sure they are getting the quality of materials that were specified in the plans - not a tool to relieve the electrican from any responsibility for the order.

[roger]

No, the plans show a 208 volt circuit, the vendor prepared the submittals wrong and it got by you, (and obviously the EC, didn't he review and stamp them?) this doesn't relieve the EC from supplying the correct fixtures for the circuit.

All of the Contract Documents must be met, not just an approved set of submittals.

In the future I would include in your stamp something along the lines of "verify all voltages with the appropriate sheet of the plans"

Roger

[donw]

Thanks Roger. That makes me feel some what better. I don't even have a stamp for submittals, yet. I've only been in business for a few months. I simply signed them, and noted they were okay with my red-lined corrections.

[cadpoint]

Big,
Go get your rubber stamp, have the EC pull his two wires back and forth and tape one White. I'm assuming metal box and conduit. :rolleyes:
I'm still suffering from 208 V lights with no neutral, Op well ...

[chris kennedy]

I have to agree with Roger. Someone should have caught that before it got to you.

[infinity]

Big,
Go get your rubber stamp, have the EC pull his two wires back and forth and tape one White. I'm assuming metal box and conduit. :rolleyes:
I'm still suffering from 208 V lights with no neutral, Op well ...


What size conductors is he using, assuming that they can be re-identified as a grounded conductor?

[chris kennedy]

What size conductors is he using, assuming that they can be re-identified as a grounded conductor?

Good point, we all know that a conductor 6 or smaller will burst into flames if you put tape on it.

[quogueelectric]

However the electricians usually submit fixture substitutions to work out a better price with a fixture vendor. As in any larger purchase with one manufacturer a contractor can reduce his costs by substituting a similar fixture for a spec fixture. was the original fixture the correct voltage?? I dont think that the fixture vendor would intentionaly try to substitute a fixture that was a different voltage. But from my end of the project the architects job is to submit a set of working plans. In order to make money I need to install quickly and eficiently what is drawn on the print when I have to stop and ask for direction because what is on the drawings doesnt work I am losing money for a problem which is not mine. If the contractor is trying to charge you for a total rewire because the 208 requires 2 wires also the solution is to put a note on the prints for the contractor to verify all voltages in the field in the future to cya. I hate when an architect aproves a 6 inch tall high hat in a 5 inch soffit why should that be my problem??

[roger]

Don, hold your ground and make him supply the right fixtures, or in the least, tell him to make them work at no extra cost to the owner or yourself.

Roger

[donw]

Thanks, guys, for your support. The vendor's submittals did say "check voltage", and I guess I was thinking the electrician would. Another monkey wrench was that half of the fixtures were supposed to be reused existing fixtures, but the electrician didn't check the vendor, and actually ordered and replaced the existing ones--and charged the client for that, too!

[roger]

As in any larger purchase with one manufacturer a contractor can reduce his costs by substituting a similar fixture for a spec fixture.

If the substitution is not approved, then the bottom line is, there is no substitution.

If the substitution is approved, it would have to an equal in every aspect.

Roger

[quogueelectric]

If the substitution is not approved, then the bottom line is, there is no substitution.

If the substitution is approved, it would have to an equal in every aspect.

Roger Which leads me to believe that the original fixture was the wrong voltage. A fixture vendor will not try to substitute a fixture with a diferent voltage in my experience.

[donw]

Yeah, it was not a substitution. The vendor didn't bother to look at the plans to get the right voltage. The schedule was on the same page as the plan, which indicated 208V.

[cadpoint]

Big,
I won't use that statement as any defense, only mid-size to larger jobs
(plans) get the the estimater / pricer of only the larger supply houses.

[dbuckley]

From the point of view of both the electrician and the customer - whats the point of paying for and have an engineer sign off the document if the engineer isn't going to carry the can? Thats the whole point, surely...? And why the engineer caries professional indemnity insurance, to pay for his errors when he screws up?

[donw]

dbuckley,
As an engineer, I do not seal the submittals. It is not a my work product. In fact, I have no control of the actual order placement - quantities, etc. Do most electricians simply rely on the engineer's review of THEIR vendor submittal - and not review it themselves? I hope not. As was mentioned earlier, many submittals contain "value engineering" and many come from non-recommended vendors. I think I'll develop a stamp that says something along the lines of "This approval signifies that this submittal meets the general quality requirements of the plans/specifications. Review of the technical/compatibility specifics of the equipment depicted shall be the resposibility of the contractor."

This contractor also submitted a service entrance drawing that was NEMA 3R instead of NEMA 1, and wouldn't have fit in the SES closet. Thankfully, I cought it.

[bradleyelectric]

Okay, I'm the engineer, and I reviewed the light fixture submittals for the job and missed that the voltage for one type of fixture was 120V instead of 208V as the plans show. So the electrician who ordered the fixtures charges the owner extra to pull the neutral for the 120V fixtures. Does the electrician not share some responsibility for not reviewing his own order against the plans?

Looks to me like the electrician changed the voltage to the fixtures, not you. You did approve the fact that he could. Up to him to make the changed fixtures work. Otherwise, its between him and his vendor.

[charlie b]

As an engineer, I do not seal the submittals. It is not a my work product.
That is an important point. An engineer cannot seal a document not prepared by that engineer or under that engineer’s supervision. There are instances (and this is not one of them) in which an engineer can review someone else’s work, write a report that describes the review and its results, and then seal that report. Even so, the engineer’s responsibility is limited to the contents of the report, not the contents of the document addressed in the review.

I think I'll develop a stamp that says something along the lines of "This approval signifies that this submittal meets the general quality requirements of the plans/specifications. Review of the technical/compatibility specifics of the equipment depicted shall be the responsibility of the contractor."
I think you need to shop around for other possible ways to word that. Regrettably, my current company does not have a standard stamp for this purpose, else I would quote that for you. But I would avoid use of the word “approval” and any of its derivative forms. You are not approving the submittal; you are offering comments (i.e., “revise and resubmit”) or you are stating that you have no comments.

[donw]

bradley,
I think you're right that the electrician changed the voltage of the fixtures. I was looking at the American Institute of Architects contract A201 (General Conditions of the Contract for Construction) which states the following:

§ 3.12.6 By approving and submitting Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples and similar submittals, the Contractor
represents that the Contractor has determined and verified materials, field measurements and field construction
criteria related thereto, or will do so, and has checked and coordinated the information contained within such
submittals with the requirements of the Work and of the Contract Documents.
§ 3.12.7 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.
§ 3.12.8 The Work shall be in accordance with approved submittals except that the Contractor shall not be relieved of
responsibility for deviations from requirements of the Contract Documents by the Architect's approval of Shop
Drawings, Product Data, Samples or similar submittals unless the Contractor has specifically informed the Architect
in writing of such deviation at the time of submittal and (1) the Architect has given written approval to the specific
deviation as a minor change in the Work, or (2) a Change Order or Construction Change Directive has been issued
authorizing the deviation. The Contractor shall not be relieved of responsibility for errors or omissions in Shop
Drawings, Product Data, Samples or similar submittals by the Architect's approval thereof.

So the can't "slip in" a change without bringing it to the Architect's (engineer, as consultant to Architect) attention, and the Contractor isn't relieved of responsibility for errors in shop drawings by the engineer's approval.

Charlie b,
You're right, I don't like the wording either. But I was reading a commentary on A201 that said that not approving submittals by using other wording does not protect you - you still either approved it or rejected it. Recommended wording for submittal stamp was "No responsibility is assumed for correctness of dimensions or details." Maybe mine should be "No responsibility is assumed for correctness of voltages/compatibility or details."

[hmspe]

My submittal review stamp reads:

"This review is for general conformance with the plans and specifications only. Any deviations from the plans and specifications not clearly noted have not been reviewed. This review does not constitute a complete check and shall not relieve the contractor of any contractual responsibility for any error or deviation from contract requirements."

There are check boxes for []Reviewed, []Revise and resubmit, []Make corrections noted, and []Rejected.

I don't review anything that appears to be "value engineering". That's written into my plan specs. I consider "value engineering" to be the practice of engineering by a non-registrant.

Martin

[donw]

Thanks, Martin - that looks good! How are you doing?

[boater bill]

Martin,

How did you get my submittal stamp?

It is a difficult tightrope on submittals. I treat them as a way to ensure the fixtures look, operate and are of quality that the architect or owner is expecting. Sometimes things get missed, such as the voltage.
I did have the pleasure of rejecting site lighting submittals on a project for over a year until the installing contractor understood what the owner wanted and was willing to provide them. If I hadn't have done this the owner would have been happy to sue my company and probably contractor for non-compliance.

If the plans called for 208 volt fixtures then that's what the owner gets since that was the bid document.

Good luck Don.

[Mr. Bill]

I've got an article from April 2002 in ohioconstructionlaw.com that states, "To be relieved from having to comply with the requirements of the plans and specifications, the Contractor must specifically inform the Architect in writing of any such deviation from the plans and specifications at the time of the submittal."

The Contractor is responsible for reviewing their own submittals. The Construction Manager reviews the submittals and then the Engineer reviews the submittals. The only time that I've heard of the Engineer having to pay for errors on a submittal is when the cost was divided 3 ways.

As donw said, an engineer's work product is the sealed set of plans and specs. This is where their liability is. This is what their professional insurance will cover.

[mkgrady]

What really matters is what the contract says about the submittal process. Every job is different. Reciting what is normally found in an AIA document is not relevant unless that contract provision is in the instant contract. I've done jobs where if the engineer approved a contractors incorrect submittil the engineer is at fault and contracts where the exact opposite is the case. If the contract is silent I'd say the supplier is the least at fault because he specifically asked that voltages be verified. He is the weasel that made the mistake but was smart enough to cover himself. That leaves the contractor and engineer both being partly at fault for not catching the suppliers mistake.

[donw]

mkgrady, the contract is silent, but from the research I've been doing, I think construction law is on the engineer/architect's side for this one (reference Mr. Bill's ohioconstructionLAW.com article.)

[hardworkingstiff]

Good point, we all know that a conductor 6 or smaller will burst into flames if you put tape on it.

OMG that was funny!!!!


:grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:

[romexking]

What was the voltage on the original fixture schedule? If is say 120, then that what the EC should have ordered. In a perfect world, yes it should have been caught, but in the same breath you could say that it should have be on the drawings correctly.

donw,
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation, but if 120 volt was on the plans, it was someone else's fault, not the EC. I'm not saying this is a great contractor, (because is should have been noticed), but stop trying to push the results of incorrect, incomplete, or ambiguous plans onto the backs of the EC. (I am referring to your thread about the utility conduit installation). As ECs, we are paid to install not engineer. I don't think it should be our responsibility to scour every drawing and specification with the intent of discovering errors or conflicts. It's hard enough making money on a project with a good set of plans let alone poorly engineered plans.

[romexking]

OK, after rereading the thread, it sounds like the drawings showed a 208v fixture. If this is the case, even if the submittals were approved, I think the EC ison the hook.

How could the EC charge extral for replacing all of the lights? Was there not a fixed price contract in place? If there was, it sounds like the owner got some "free" fixtures. (sure... he did actually pay for them in the contract price). If the fixture cost was not included in the contract, then I think the EC should eat that cost too!

[hmspe]

Martin,

How did you get my submittal stamp?



I think it's like panel schedule blanks. Back when we went to CAD there were apparently three people who drew up a block for panels. We've been passing them around ever since.

The text I use came from a previous firm. No idea where they borrowed it from.

Martin

[Polarcat]

In response to the original post,

Here’s my 2 cents, it’s a double edged sword!!!

Everyone say's the EC is on the hook and should pay, as always the subcontractors are at fault! This always makes me angry.
Why is it the contractor’s problem? What is the engineers review for, if not to pick up submittal errors? The engineer is paid to review and approve.

What if someone told the contractor that’s what they wanted/needed, and that’s what he submitted on?

Let’s go further what if the drawings showed 208v type but the spec called for 120v, and the contractor submitted on the 120v lights and where approved, however the engineer comes back and says the intent was for the 208v. Sorry mister contractor you pay again...

Sorry if I sound bitter but I am, the owners, GC, engineers always find a way to push the blame to the subs, there never wrong, and they have a blanket clause somewhere (whether it be in the contract, drawings specifications. I had on engineer try to hang me using a clause from division 3 in the spec!! come On!!) to make the contractor eat it.

I have a hundred of examples of this kind of stuff going on! But this would be 3 pages long.

I don’t agree with this being only the contractors responsibility at all, if any thing it should be shared.

Joe
Member of {Moderator's Note: I removed the link to the web site. We don't allow advertising on this Forum.}

[iwire]

Joe I agree with you to some extent, I think it has to be decide on a case by case basis.

We had a job where the EE specified a specific part number for a specific fixture. We submitted on that part number and the submittal came back approved.

The EE specified model number was incorrect, unusable and nonreturnable, it was a $6000 to $7000 mistake that the GC tried to pass on to us. We fought it and the EE had to pay.

[roger]

Polarcat, sounds like you've been here for before. :wink:

BTW, IMO the EC dropped the ball in this particular case and is trying to get around what he is required to furnish, and for the record, I am an EC.

Roger

[Polarcat]

yes I have been put in these situations before, when you do a lot of volume it happens. you are right it is a case by case thing, but more then not, they try to hang the sub on it right or wrong.

all i am saying is that there is always verbage in the contract or spec. protecting the GC/owner/engineer. they almost never admit they where wrong and they owe you extras. dont get me wrong we win a lot of these argumnets, but why do we have to have an argument in the first place!

Joe
Member of {Moderator's Note: I removed the link to the web site. We don't allow advertising on this Forum.}

[hmspe]

The engineer is paid to review and approve.

That would be an incorrect statement for at least 80% of the jobs I design. For the other 20% or so review of submittals is part of my contract, but I can't recall any projects (out of 1700+) where I had a contractual requirement to approve submittals.

Martin

[iwire]

That would be an incorrect statement for at least 80% of the jobs I design. For the other 20% or so review of submittals is part of my contract, but I can't recall any projects (out of 1700+) where I had a contractual requirement to approve submittals.

Martin

100% of the jobs we do that have an engineer have the engineer reviewing, approving and stamping the submittals.

[hmspe]

100% of the jobs we do that have an engineer have the engineer reviewing, approving and stamping the submittals.

As has been pointed out in several recent threads, different jurisdictions have different requirements and different standard procedures.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "approved" and what do you mean by "stamped". Does the engineer use his seal, or is it just a review stamp? If it's the latter, what does the stamp say? Does it use the word "approved" or the word "reviewed"? You'll never see the word "approved" on submittals that pass through my office.

Martin

[don_resqcapt19]

I have never seen a submittal come back with a stamp that did not say "approved" (or rejected).
Don

[Greg Swartz]

Ok, I'm an EC. Hypothetical situation here, but all to common.

I order a fixture package. It's the ones on the plans, in the fixture schedule. It actually comes in correctly (ok, that doesn't happen very much), and on time (that either).

I ordered the ones on the fixture schedule, those ones come in... following me?

The owner says... those are not the right ones... These are the ones I wanted... right here on page so & so (a footnote on an architectural page)... you made the mistake eat it...

Whose fault is it? Mine, theirs, engineer who drew up the plans, or architect who did the arch drawings...

These are the things I see all the time. What do you all say?

[petersonra]

I think you have at least two people who made a mistake and they ought to share in the cost of fixing it. This is something that the GC should work out with the parties involved and the owner should not be involved at all.

[charlie b]

100% of the jobs we do that have an engineer have the engineer reviewing, approving and stamping the submittals.
May I presume that the "stamp" to which you refer is not the one that is more properly called the "PE Seal"? The engineer may have a stamp similar to the ones described earlier in this thread (i.e., "Reviewed and Approved by. . . "), in addition to the one that says, "This work was done by me or under my supervision."

[iwire]

May I presume that the "stamp" to which you refer is not the one that is more properly called the "PE Seal"?

That is correct.

I also dug out one from a previous job to check it out.

It is a stamp with the Engineering firms info with a signature added of the particular engineer for the job.

It does not say 'approved'

It says

'Reviewed and found generally acceptable. Minor deviations may be noted. No further submittal required if notations are complied with'

I did not find any notations so it appears this is their standard 'approval' stamp.

[Mr. Bill]

Everyone say's the EC is on the hook and should pay, as always the subcontractors are at fault! This always makes me angry.
Why is it the contractor’s problem? What is the engineers review for, if not to pick up submittal errors? The engineer is paid to review and approve.

The engineer is paid to review the submittals to reduce the amount of incorrect products that would otherwise show up on the jobsite and which the EC would be told to replace in the punchlist. Not good for schedules that way or for the EC's budget.

What is the EC liable for? IMO, the EC is responsible for building per plans and specs. If the EC wants to install a product that is different, then the Owner needs to be aware of that before accepting the EC's bid. That's what voluntary alternates are for on the bid form. If the drawings are garbage then state what was bid.

If drawings and specs have different voltages for light fixtures then submit an RFI or look at the panel it's wired to. If the Engineer reviewed it and then later said it's the other voltage I'd say the EC is entitled to an extra. Paid for by the Engineer rather than the Owner. There's no value added to justify billing the Owner additional money.

And from Greg's example, I'd say if the EC ordered per the luminaire schedule and no where on the electrical drawings does it reference additional or alternative luminaires on the architectural sheets then that would be an extra for the EC also. The EC should coordinate with other trade's drawings, expecially the mechanical schedule, but I don't think the EC should have to hunt and peck thru the entire bid set for what they need to bid.

I try to be fair but it usually angers the EC.

[acdcmontana]

Engineering Submittal review is limited to the information shown on the submittal and/or shop plans and only for general conformance with the design concept of the project and general compliance with the information given in the contract documents and does not relieve contractor from complying with all requirements of the contract plans and specifications and occurs only after General Contractor approval. Any action shown is subject to the requirements & terms of the plans and specifications.

Contractor is responsible within the standard of care for the profession for dimension, electrical, & fit issues, which shall be confirmed and correlated at the job site; fabrication processes and techniques of construction; method and means; installation; coordination of his work with that of all other trades; and the safe & satisfactory performance of work. Engineer not responsible for incorrect or incompatible equipment, parts, or devices, shown on submittals and/or shop plans where differing from any part of plans; whether or not mentioned or noted on submittal review.

[hgrace]

In over 30 years as an EC , I have never seen an EE pick up any cost for any err or omission.