In this 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? Listen in on their 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

• Industry insight: The industry continues to wrestle with over-documentation driven by habit rather than value. Submittals that once felt protective can now unintentionally expand professional liability, especially as projects accelerate and CA budgets shrink.

• Practice takeaway: Do not require manufacturer installation instructions as submittals. Instead, clearly state in Part 3 that work must be installed in accordance with manufacturer instructions, while addressing any project-specific deviations directly in the specifications..

• Process lesson: Resolve product compatibility and installation conflicts during design, not during submittals. The submittal phase confirms understanding of the contract documents—it is not a checkpoint for redesign, re-selection, or late discovery.

• Risk or opportunity: Every requested submittal carries implied responsibility. Reducing unnecessary submittals lowers liability exposure, minimizes review time during construction administration, and decreases the likelihood of change orders driven by specification ambiguity.

• People & culture: Good specification practice reflects professional trust and respect for roles. Clear boundaries between design responsibility and contractor means and methods foster healthier collaboration, reduce friction, and reinforce a culture of accountability across the project team.