Construction Contract Administration

 View Only
Back to discussion forums
Expand all | Collapse all

re: According to Hoyle: The Submittal Process

  • 1.  re: According to Hoyle: The Submittal Process

    Posted 10-10-2025 01:49 PM

    Gustavo Lima recently reposted the 20-year-old article "According to Hoyle: The Submittal Process." I couldn't reply directly to the article post, so I'm commenting here instead.

    What a fabulous read - thank you for sharing it! I encourage everyone to revisit this piece.

    Near the end, in the "Tough Cards to Play" section, there's a recommendation for architects to send the contractor an AIA Document G716 (Request for Information). The form itself notes it can be used among the owner, architect, and contractor - but I'm curious: does anyone actually send RFIs to the contractor or owner in practice?



    ------------------------------
    Jonathan Taylor AIA
    LLB Architects
    Providence RI
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: re: According to Hoyle: The Submittal Process

    Posted 10-10-2025 05:43 PM

    Not to nitpick excessively, but a couple of things in this needed correction when it was written and definitely need correction now:   The references to Masterspec should be changed to read "Masterspec Division 01, Section 013300 "Submittal Procedures" tracks....  In the line regarding Informational Submittals, these "do not require the architect's approval", but they can require the architect's action. We do review the information submittals, and sometimes they are incorrect or non-responsive.     (And note that in subsequent references to Masterspec sections -- there have not been 4-digit section numbers since before 1960; they are now 6-digit numbers.  ) 

    The other items have evolved over time, with a heavier use of the RFI, and changed submittal requirements in Design/Build contracts, but those changes are part of the evolution of the process. 



    ------------------------------
    Anne Whitacre FCSI
    Senior Specification Writer, Principal
    HOK
    San Francisco CA
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: re: According to Hoyle: The Submittal Process

    Posted 10-13-2025 11:51 AM

    Hello Anne; On a divergent topic, to your point about "Informational Submittals". MasterSpec is only "system" where there is a differentiation. I find it hard to believe these submittals don't have and actionable response unless necessary. We ask for it, it should be reviewed and it's "good or not" (generalization).  Isn't that what's done for the "Action Submittals"? In my practice, we remove that term (Information submittal) and edit those items accordingly as being something we really do want to review.



    ------------------------------
    Janene Christopher AIA
    Steinberg Hart
    San Diego CA
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: re: According to Hoyle: The Submittal Process

    Posted 10-13-2025 12:24 PM

    Janene:

    I was on the Masterspec Review Committee at the time we split up the submittals into "Action" and "Information" submittals and at the time, the "Information" side was more or less intended for the variety of sustainability submittals that we wanted for our and Owner's information, but we only reviewed them for completeness and didn't take action on them.  Where I work now, we include more items as "information" submittals, but we do have an action on our stamp that is equivalent to a "revise and resubmit" if the submittal is incorrect or incomplete.   As to the other question – I've never seen an owner use an RFI but with our delivery methods that encourage the entire team to be in a "Big Room", there are undoubtedly a lot of questions and answers that are taken care of much more informally.

    And, I should note here that we seldom use the full suite of AIA documents.  In many of our projects, either the Owner or Contractor have their own contracts that we negotiate with them, and most of our submittal and RFI documents are in the category of "mutually agreed upon" as part of the tracking/management  software that the project uses.  Our Substitution form is much more rigorous than the typical, though. 

     

    ANNE WHITACRE  FCSI, CCS, Associate AIA, LEED AP BD+C
    Principal  |  Sr. Specification Writer

    HOK
    One Bush Street, Suite 200  |  San Francisco, CA 94104 USA
    t +1 415 356 8685  m +1 510 388 4333  anne.whitacre@hok.com

    hok.com  |  privacy policy




    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: re: According to Hoyle: The Submittal Process

    Posted 10-10-2025 07:26 PM

    Thanks, Jonathon, for the "Hoyle" article.

    Regarding submittal schedules, on a few project CPM schedules, I've seen Submittal activities noted, beginning with when major submittals from subcontractors or suppliers are required.  That is a nice reminder for everyone who deals with them.

    On some projects, I've encountered what I consider to be GC's weasel stamp (apologies to weasels) which says something like "subcontractor is responsible to get it right".  Some of those times, I've asked the GC's PM if such a stamp means that they are abrogating their responsibility to coordinate the work; some of them were bright enough to understand what I was  asking, others just had a blank look.  Other times, I just crossed out the part of the text that tried to wash their hands of the responsibility.

    I have edited the Div 01 Submittals section to include text stating that material received which does not show GC's review will be returned without comment.  That was in response to GCs who forwarded submittals without any review.

    Regarding "work installed without an approved submittal" - you can tell the contractor that you can't determine if such conforms to the contract requirements, and so you will not certify payment for it.  If that doesn't get the message across, estimate and withhold an amount appropriate for removing the non-conforming work as well.  Hard ball, but occasionally necessary.

    On one project where my role was  as Owner's rep, the fire sprinkler system  design ignored the need to coordinate above-ceiling space with ductwork, and the sprinkler pipes went in first.  This caused a lot of duct offsets (extra expense for the HVAC subcontractor, and reduced efficiency for the air distribution, extra static pressure (and higher operating and maintenance/replacement costs eventually) for the Owner.  Something the GC could have dealt with.  We turned down their attempt to pass-through HVAC subcontractor's request for additional payment.



    ------------------------------
    Joel Niemi AIA
    Joel Niemi Architect
    Snohomish, WA
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: re: According to Hoyle: The Submittal Process

    Posted 10-11-2025 04:40 PM
    Edited by Janene Christopher, AIA 10-13-2025 11:35 AM

    I believe G716 - RFI form was developed for the Contractor to send to Architect.  Rather than sending an RFI to the GC, I would ensure it was brought up in the OAC site meeting and thus documented in the minutes and addressed. 



    ------------------------------
    Janene Christopher AIA
    Steinberg Hart
    San Diego CA
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: re: According to Hoyle: The Submittal Process

    Posted 10-11-2025 05:34 PM
    RFI  "usually" only comes from GC, but when you read the synopsis on the AIA website, it says Contractor, Owner, Architect can all use it as a way to formally request information from another party on the project.

    Whether or not that multiple use is documented in Division 01 text is another matter.

    And whether or not any party pays $49.95 for a one-time use is entirely another matter.  Often Div 01 has a  project-specific form to be used, or a GC's standard form is accepted.

    Still, I do like the idea of documenting questions to the GC.  "Please inform us when you will be following this specific contract requirement" is a good one, but may not get a warm and fuzzy reply.

    --
    best regards,
    Joel Niemi     - Architect
    425.422.4276
    jniemiarchitect@gmail.com
    http://www.linkedin.com/in/jniemiarchitect



    Original Message


  • 8.  RE: re: According to Hoyle: The Submittal Process

    Posted 10-13-2025 12:02 PM

    This is a great article - thanks, I've shared with my CCA staff. We have many projects that are Design-Build and so we are signing the GC's contract, no AIA contractual language. Has anyone noticed, commented on those types of contracts and our responsibilities to them (the GC who is now our client) with respect to submittals? 



    ------------------------------
    Janene Christopher AIA
    Steinberg Hart
    San Diego CA
    ------------------------------



  • 9.  RE: re: According to Hoyle: The Submittal Process

    Posted 10-13-2025 05:17 PM

    I don't think I have ever really seen this done [Arch-to-GC RFI] though clearly there are times where it would have been helpful or necessary during the course of construction.  



    ------------------------------
    Matthew Bartner AIA
    Thriven Design
    Collingswood NJ
    ------------------------------



  • 10.  RE: re: According to Hoyle: The Submittal Process

    Posted 10-14-2025 05:34 PM

    I've never submitted an RFI to a Contractor, though often request they submit one on a particular item based on field conditions discussed onsite. I would imagine most of their heads would explode upon receiving one…It's fun to imagine the cranky emails we'd receive as it aged into "overdue" status.



    ------------------------------
    Thomas Stablein AIA
    The Collaborative Inc.
    Toledo OH
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


Related Content