4.1 Project Delivery Methods and the Submittal/RFI Process
Key Takeaways
- Design-Bid-Build keeps design risk with the owner/A/E; Design-Build shifts it to the contractor and removes the Spearin shield.
- CM at Risk provides a Guaranteed Maximum Price; CM Agency carries no construction risk.
- Submittal review by the A/E never relieves the contractor of field dimensions, quantities, or means and methods.
- An RFI clarifies documents but does not authorize extra cost or time — a Change Order does.
- Order of precedence: addenda > agreement > specs (quality) > drawings (quantity); written dimensions beat scaled.
Project Delivery Methods
The delivery method defines the contractual relationships among the owner, designer (Architect/Engineer, A/E), and General Contractor (GC), and it controls who carries design risk and how money flows. NASCLA exam items expect you to match a scenario to the correct method and to know who holds the design liability.
The four methods you must distinguish:
| Method | Contracts | Who holds design risk | Typical use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design-Bid-Build (DBB) | Owner holds 2 separate contracts (A/E + GC) | Owner/A/E | Public lump-sum work |
| Design-Build (DB) | Owner holds 1 contract; DB entity designs + builds | DB contractor | Fast-track, single point |
| Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) | CM joins early, gives a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) | CM (cost) / A/E (design) | Complex commercial |
| CM Agency (CMA) | CM is owner's advisor, no construction risk | Owner | Owner wants advice only |
Trap: Spearin Doctrine
Under the Spearin Doctrine (US Supreme Court, United States v. Spearin, 1918), when the owner furnishes the plans and specifications, the owner impliedly warrants they are buildable. In Design-Bid-Build the GC is not liable for design defects in owner-furnished documents. Exam trap: in Design-Build the Spearin shield disappears because the contractor also owns the design.
The Submittal Process
Submittals are contractor-supplied documents the A/E reviews to confirm conformance with the Contract Documents before fabrication or installation. They do not change the contract. Common types:
- Shop drawings — fabricator details (steel, rebar, trusses)
- Product data — manufacturer cut sheets
- Samples — physical color/finish/material chips
- Mock-ups — full-scale assemblies (e.g., a masonry panel)
- Test reports / certifications — ASTM, mill certs
Submittal review stamps
The A/E review does not relieve the contractor of responsibility for dimensions, quantities, and means/methods — only the contractor verifies field dimensions. Standard return actions: No Exceptions Taken, Make Corrections Noted, Revise and Resubmit, and Rejected. The contractor manages the submittal schedule and submittal log (item, spec section, date sent, date returned, status).
Worked scenario — submittal lead time
A structural-steel package needs 21 calendar days for A/E review plus 8 weeks (56 days) fabrication and 5 days delivery. To erect on Day 120, the latest submittal date = 120 − (21 + 56 + 5) = Day 38. Missing this date pushes a critical-path activity and exposes the GC to liquidated damages. The exam rewards backward counting from the need date.
Requests for Information (RFI)
An RFI is the formal written question used when the Contract Documents are unclear, conflicting, or incomplete. Key rules: RFIs are tracked in an RFI log, must reference the drawing/spec section, and do not by themselves authorize extra cost or time. If the A/E's RFI answer adds scope, the contractor submits a Change Order Request / Change Proposal — never proceed on an RFI answer alone for added cost.
Order of precedence when documents conflict (typical AIA hierarchy): (1) modifications/addenda, (2) the Agreement, (3) Specifications generally govern quality, (4) Drawings govern quantity/location, (5) figured (written) dimensions govern over scaled dimensions.
A GC discovers a beam size on the structural drawings conflicts with the specifications. Per typical order of precedence, which controls the quality requirement?
Under the Spearin Doctrine, in a Design-Bid-Build project the owner impliedly warrants what to the contractor?
Comparing the Major Delivery Methods
| Method | Contracts | Risk / Trait |
|---|---|---|
| Design-Bid-Build (DBB) | Owner holds separate design + GC contracts | Lowest first cost; owner owns design errors; sequential = slow |
| Design-Build (DB) | Single entity designs + builds | Single point of responsibility; fast; less owner control |
| CM at-Risk (CMAR) | CM gives a GMP, builds | Early CM input; GMP caps owner cost |
| CM Agency | CM is owner's advisor only | CM has no construction risk |
In DBB the owner warrants the design (Spearin doctrine — owner is liable for defective plans it furnished). In DB, that risk shifts to the design-builder.
The Submittal Workflow
Submittals (shop drawings, product data, samples) prove the contractor's proposed materials meet the specs before fabrication. Flow: contractor → GC review/stamp → architect/engineer review → returned "approved," "approved as noted," "revise and resubmit," or "rejected." The architect reviews for conformance with design intent, NOT for exact dimensions or quantities — those remain the contractor's responsibility. Ordering material before submittal approval is at the contractor's risk.
RFIs and Their Cost
A Request for Information (RFI) is a written question resolving a gap, conflict, or ambiguity in the documents. A timely RFI protects the contractor from guessing; an excessive RFI volume signals incomplete documents and can itself support a delay claim. The exam links RFIs to precedence (Ch. 3): use the hierarchy first, RFI only when documents truly conflict or are silent.
Common Exam Traps
- Trap: The architect's submittal approval relieves the contractor of dimension/quantity errors. It does not.
- Trap: In design-build the owner still warrants the design. No — design risk shifts to the design-builder.
- Trap: CM-agency carries construction risk. Agency CM is an advisor; CM-at-risk holds the GMP.
- Trap: Fabricating before submittal approval.
Under a design-build contract, a design error causes rework. Who generally bears responsibility?
Integrated Project Delivery and Procurement Routes
Beyond the four core methods, Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) binds owner, designer, and builder in a multi-party agreement that shares risk and reward. Procurement also varies: competitive sealed bidding (low bid, common on public work) versus negotiated or best-value selection that weighs qualifications and price. Match the route to the project: low-bid suits well-defined public work, while negotiated/CMAR suits complex or fast-track jobs where early builder input and a GMP control risk better than a hard bid would.