In this week's episode, Dave Stutzman, Steve Gantner, and Elias Saltz unpack a deceptively simple question with serious implications: Why don’t we recommend requiring manufacturer instructions as a submittal? What follows is a candid discussion on liability, means and methods, and the unintended consequences of asking for information that design teams neither control nor should be reviewing during construction. From informational submittals to samples that add little value, the team reinforces a core principle of good specification practice: clarity during design reduces risk, rework, and unnecessary burden during construction administration.
Learning Points:
- Requesting manufacturer instructions as a submittal can increase architect liability, even if reviewed “for record only.”
- Simply receiving information implies responsibility to review, identify errors, and act on them.
- Manufacturer instructions fall squarely within contractor means and methods, not design review.
- Submittals are not contract documents and should not be used to tweak design decisions late in the process.
- Fewer, more intentional submittals save significant time and cost during construction administration.
- Product compatibility issues must be resolved during design, not after bidding or procurement.
- Over-specifying submittals often exceeds realistic CA budgets and site observation scope.
- Clear specifications reduce change orders, finger-pointing, and downstream risk.
