Succeeding With Substitution Requests

The statement suggests that literature is not as useful as technical data sheets for the A/E when submitted with a Substitution Request Form. This implies that technical data sheets provide more relevant and necessary information compared to literature in the context of a Substitution Request Form. Therefore, the correct answer is False, indicating that literature is not more useful than technical data sheets in this scenario.

The statement is false because an A/E (Architect/Engineer) is not required to review every product that is submitted with a Substitution Request Form. While an A/E may review some products, it is not mandatory for them to review every single one.

The explanation for the given correct answer is that reading Divisions 00 and 01 is important to determine whether it is allowed to make a voluntary Substitution Request Form submission. This suggests that there are specific guidelines or rules mentioned in Divisions 00 and 01 that need to be followed before making a substitution request. Therefore, it is necessary to review these divisions to ensure that the submission is permissible.

The statement is true because information regarding substitution requests can be placed in various sections of the Project Manual. This allows for flexibility in organizing and locating this information, depending on the specific project requirements and preferences of the project team. By providing multiple options for placement, the Project Manual ensures that substitution requests can be easily referenced and followed by all relevant parties involved in the project.

The general statement of "meets specs" cannot be used when completing a Substitution Request Form. This implies that there are specific requirements or specifications that need to be met, and simply stating "meets specs" would not provide the necessary information. Therefore, the given answer "False" is correct.

Public projects typically have more stringent substitution requirements compared to privately funded projects. This is because public projects are subject to various regulations and guidelines that prioritize factors such as safety, quality, and compliance with specific standards. These requirements ensure that any substitutions made in public projects meet the necessary criteria and do not compromise the overall integrity of the project. On the other hand, privately funded projects may have more flexibility in terms of substitutions as they are often driven by cost-effectiveness and individual preferences. Therefore, the statement that substitution requirements for public projects are generally more restrictive than in privately funded projects is false.

The CSI Substitution Request Form (CSI Form 13.1A) does require providing a reason for not providing the specified item.

Substitution Request Forms should indeed be submitted to the A/E (Architect/Engineer) by the contractor. This is a standard procedure in construction projects where contractors need to request a substitution for certain materials, equipment, or methods. The A/E is responsible for evaluating the request and determining if the proposed substitution meets the project requirements and specifications. Therefore, the statement is true.

The statement suggests that when a substitution is requested, it is the responsibility of the entity making the request to thoroughly investigate and provide evidence that the substitution is equivalent. This implies that the burden of proof lies with the requester, indicating that the statement is true.

The statement is true because the A/E (Architect/Engineer) should not consider substitutions unless they have been reviewed and approved by the contractor. This means that the contractor has evaluated the proposed substitution and determined that it meets the necessary requirements and specifications. Without this review and approval, the A/E should not take the substitution into consideration as it may not be suitable or meet the necessary standards for the project.