I agree in general with Mr. Burcope's comments, I do feel like there are two points which need to be addressed.
first, while I completely understand the need to find "value" when generating bids, I do not believe that simply slipping these substitutions into the regular submittal process is in ANYONES best interest. As long as these value proposals are treated like what they are, substitutions, and submitted and reviewed as such, then fine. We can have the appropriate discourse with the owner and GC in regard to the cost -vs- quality metric. rarely is there no trade off's with substitutions, and neither the GC nor the Architect should be making the determination as to the appropriate choice in a void. I understand to the GC typically less expensive is always "better" but we as AE professionals are responsible for the long term "VALUE" of a product. In 20 years of practice I have extremely rarely seen a GC make a "value engineering" recommendation based on life cycle costs or the reduced maintenance/durability of a product.
So, while I understand and appreciate the GC's efforts to reduce the owners first costs, the sooner we can stop the practice of passing off substitutions as submittals and subsequently blaming the design professional for "delaying" the process when we reject these submittals the better off we will all be.
The second point that needs to be addressed is the notion that it is in the A/E best interest to make a project MORE expensive by rejecting cheap alternatives, therefore raising construction costs and their commensurate fees. I find this downright insulting, while I have met some pretty unethical people in my life, I find it hard to believe anyone is actually doing this with the idea it will increase their fees. Not to mention the fact the many architects fees are fixed and based on the BUDGETED construction cost. I don't know how many of us actually adjust our fee based on FINAL construction cost, but would be interested in hearing others opinions on this practice.
-----------------------------------------
For the people who are not only contentious about the details of process and procedure, but also obviously passionate about the subject, let me offer another perspective that won't surprise anyone, coming from an MBA type such as myself. It's about the money!
All frustrations aside, this is an issue that comes down to money for both sides, and it is one for which there is no solution unless one can be found that modifies the financial incentives that motivate the actions cited repeatedly in previous posts.
The A/E's (Architects and Engineers) spend time reviewing documentation, which, in their view adds no value to the client, and the contractors are both delayed and penalized, in their view, when the A/E fails to respond in a timely and flexible manner, since they have committed to fixed price based on certain assumptions they had to make when preparing their bids.
For the A/E, time is money. It is a fallacy that their reluctance to review substitutions is in the Owner's interest. It is not, it is in their own interest to minimize the time spent on the project in order to maximize their own margins. No matter how many submittals are made, and no matter what form they take, consideration of them is always in the Owner's interest because this process effects the bids and bidding process of contractors, who will make every effort to find better value, lower cost products in order to get a bidding advantage, and do so speculatively at their own cost and risk. This is the process that creates competition and increases value.
This competition, which lowers construction costs, is another thing that is not in the A/E's interest since they are compensated as a percentage of the construction cost. There is no incentive for the A/E to improve value, in fact there is counter incentive NOT to improve value.
Once a bid is submitted and contract awarded, the contractor now has incentive to lower his own costs, and so will submit anything that might result; logically deferring any subjective judgment of equivalence to the A/E and Owner. It is not sinister, it is exactly what any other person would do in that situation, including the A/E's themselves.
This is one paradox present in the standard AE/GC and AE/CM project delivery models. It, along with the Change Order paradox and the Lack of Cost Accountability paradox, are the three most egregious issues in AEC industry.
Just one guy's observation.
-------------------------------------------
Alan Burcope AIA, MBA, LEED AP
VP Project Development
HBE Corporation
Saint Louis MO
-------------------------------------------