Construction Contract Administration

Is it typical practice when the GC provides us with a submittal they "stamp" said submittal certifying that review, coordination of information; verification of products, dimensions & adj construction work is in accordance with the contract documents? All of our construction projects are using Procore & we don't seem to be getting this "certification" stamp or verbiage from the GC. Anyone else requiring this certification or having issues getting the GC to comply?  The contracting vehicle is  Design-Bid-Build and CMAR and Owner GMP/negotiated  types of contracts. (For Design/Build projects this is not an issue.) Thank you.

Yes, it is typical practice for the GC to stamp a submittal with their approval stamp.  This is typically a requirement of your General Conditions of the Contract, and your Division 01-General Requirements will typically have a spec section for Submittal Procedures (01 33 00).  Some typical spec language will say something like, "Contractor shall review, mark-up as appropriate and stamp Shop Drawings, Product Data, and Samples prior to submission."  This requirement does not change due to the platform used like Procore, eBuilder, Forma (formerly ACC), etc.  

I have also experienced contractors in the early stages of CA not provide the stamp, but we return those right away and inform the contractor that the item was returned unreviewed due to the lack of GC's Approval stamp as required by <insert spec section here>.  They quickly figure it out and start providing it.  

Hope this helps. 😉

Janene:

IMO, for this matter, typical practice is what the Contract Documents require. If the Contractor has not stamped its submittals as reviewed, or upon your initial review, it has not met the burden for its obligation to review and coordinate its subcontractors, the submittal should be promptly rejected.  I review submittals for this purpose upon receipt, which I refer to as "triage", as I don't wish to wait 2 weeks, or whatever the allowable review period is, to reject a submittal for such cause. It should not really matter what type of contract it is unless, as you state, it is Design-Build and you are working for the D-B.

We include this requirement in the Division 01 specifications for submittal requirements (which includes requirement of a "...statement certifying that submittal has been reviewed, checked, and approved for compliance with the Contract Documents.") and as others have noted, there is also requirements included in the AIA A201 General Conditions. Some GCs and CMARs fight it and some try to use a review statement that puts all the onus on their subs, but ultimately, we push back and they comply as it is clearly a requirement in the Contract Documents and the GC or CMAR has the responsibility as the contract holder with the owner. One option is to include a submittal coversheet template in the specs that includes the requirements already or the GC/CM will just put the statement on their cover sheet, sign and date it. 

The fact that the contractor (CM or GC) "stamped" the submittal and forwarded it for review by the design team doesn't necessarily mean they actually performed their review of the submittal itself.  There's been a trend, especially with the increased use of Procore and other contractor focused construction software, to shift the contractor's submittal "review" to a clerical role, which can result in submittals getting passed through that should have been rejected before the design team even sees them.  This has potential to waste everyone's time and adversely impact the project schedule.  Don't hesitate to reject a submittal outright when it's obvious the contractor didn't perform their inbound review.

Yes, this is standard practice and well-established across both AIA contract documents and typical Division 01 specifications. 

AIA A201 General Conditions

§ 3.12.6 is the key provision. It requires that before submitting Shop Drawings, Product Data, and Samples to the Architect, the Contractor shall:

-       Review and approve them for conformance with the Contract Documents

-       Certify to the Architect that they have done so

-       Stamp or otherwise mark the submittals to indicate they have been reviewed and approved by the Contractor

The purpose is foundational: the Contractor's stamp is not a courtesy - it is a contractual certification that the Contractor has coordinated the submittal with field conditions, confirmed dimensions, and verified that it conforms to the Contract requirements.

The Architect is not obligated to review a submittal that lacks this certification, and doing so can inadvertently shift responsibility.

§ 3.12.8 reinforces this by stating the Architect's review is not for the purpose of determining accuracy and completeness of details, field dimensions, or coordination - that burden remains with the Contractor, and the stamp is the documentary evidence of the Contractor's acceptance of that burden.

Section 01 33 00 - Submittal Procedures - Typical language in 01 33 00 (whether MasterSpec, SpecText, or owner-customized) includes provisions along these lines:

-       "The Contractor shall review each submittal, sign or stamp with Contractor's approval, and date prior to submission to the Architect. Submittals not bearing the Contractor's stamp of approval will be returned without review."

-       The specific elements required on the stamp typically include:

-       Contractor's name and signature (or authorized representative), Date of Contractor's review

A certification statement such as: "Reviewed, approved, and in conformance with the Contract Documents" with Project name and number

-       Any notations of deviations or substitutions being requested (which must be explicitly flagged - not buried)

-       Some specs go further and require the stamp to affirmatively state "No exceptions taken"or "Reviewed - see notation" using specific language that mirrors the Architect's own review stamp categories, so the chain of review is documentarily clear.

The platform does not alter this requirement. Whether submittals are transmitted through Procore, Autodesk Construction Cloud (Forma/ACC), e-Builder, or paper, the contractual obligation under A201 § 3.12.6 travels with the Contractor, not with the delivery mechanism. Typical spec language addresses this directly:

-       "Submittals transmitted electronically shall bear a digital stamp or electronic signature meeting the same requirements as physical submittals. Transmission through a project management platform does not constitute Contractor review or approval."

This last sentence is critical - simply uploading a document to Procore's submittal workflow is not equivalent to the Contractor's review and approval. Some GCs have tried to argue that routing through the platform's workflow constitutes review; well-drafted specs foreclose that argument.

As the Architect/EOR, you have clear grounds under A201 to return without action any submittal lacking the Contractor's stamp. In fact, reviewing an unstamped submittal repeatedly without objection can create an implied waiver argument down the line.

Best practice is to note the deficiency in your action stamp response with language like:

-       "Returned without review - submittal does not bear Contractor's review and approval stamp as required by § 3.12.6 of the General Conditions and Section 01 33 00."

This protects your firm and reinforces the Contractor's accountability for coordination and conformance - which is precisely the risk allocation the AIA documents are structured to maintain.

The majority of contractor submittal stamps I see indicate "reviewed" and are more worded to put the onous on the sub for verifications.
My specifications state that any submittals received from the CM/GC are considered "approved" by them, no matter their wording. The CM/GC is responsible for coordination between subs and reviewing and approving their individual submittals for conformance with the Contract Documents.