A ‘non-compliant’ submission includes product data sheets, shop drawings or samples that do not meet the criteria. These can have a wrong manufacturer, insufficient performance rating, or missing required documentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reviewers usually respond to a non-compliant submission in one of three ways. They may reject the submission and request a resubmission, or approve it with exceptions that the contractor must address. On rare occasions, reviewers may approve a legitimate substitution request if the performance requirement of the specification is met, even though the language of the specification’s basis of design is not met exactly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is far less costly to identify a non-compliance issue in a submission than to identify one after the material has been ordered or installed. A non-compliant door hardware submission review results in a resubmission, likely a two-week wait. If the hardware is installed and non-compliant is found, it results in complete removal and hardware replacement, as well as a delay to the work installed after it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this case, the individual instances are less important than the overall patterns. A subcontractor that consistently provides non-compliant submissions, resulting in multiple resubmissions of multiple items, likely has a poor understanding of the specification requirements or poor quality control and should therefore be reviewed by a project manager.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A commonly encountered type of call that should be identified directly is the ability to distinguish a truly non-compliant submittal from one that is not compliant but is a functionally equivalent substitute for what the spec requires. Rejecting minor deviations without regard to performance will create unnecessary additional submittals and schedule issues. A reviewer who is overly permissive in overlooking deviations may approve a submission that does not meet the project’s requirements. This can only be helped by experience and good judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tracking non-compliance patterns across an entire project, not just per submittal, gives project leadership useful early warning about a specific subcontractor’s overall quality control on the office side, before that same lack of rigour potentially shows up in actual field installation quality as well. A sub submitting carelessly at the paperwork stage isn’t necessarily careless everywhere, but it’s a signal worth watching more closely going forward. Answering each rejection from a subcontractor often has a positive effect on their subsequent submissions, as it helps correct mistakes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A ‘non-compliant’ submission includes product data sheets, shop drawings or samples that do not meet the criteria. These can have a wrong manufacturer, insufficient performance rating, or missing required documentation. Reviewers usually respond to a non-compliant submission in one of three ways. They may reject the submission and request a resubmission, or approve it with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-n"],"yoast_head":"\n