Master this essential documentation concept
A document, sample, or product data submitted by a contractor to an architect or engineer for review and approval to confirm it meets project specifications.
A document, sample, or product data submitted by a contractor to an architect or engineer for review and approval to confirm it meets project specifications.
Many project teams walk through submittal requirements during kickoff meetings, pre-construction calls, or internal training sessions — capturing the nuances of what reviewers expect, how to format product data sheets, and which approval workflows apply to specific trades. That institutional knowledge often stays locked inside meeting recordings or video walkthroughs that nobody revisits.
The problem surfaces when a contractor submits materials mid-project and your team needs to verify whether a specific product meets the original specification intent. Scrubbing through a 90-minute recording to find the 4-minute segment where the engineer clarified acceptable substitutions is not a sustainable review process — especially when submittal volumes spike during active construction phases.
Converting those recordings into searchable documentation changes how your team handles the review process. When a submittal arrives, reviewers can search directly for the relevant specification section, material standard, or product category discussed in earlier meetings — rather than relying on memory or re-watching footage. You can also build a living reference that captures decisions made across multiple review cycles, making it easier to onboard new team members to your submittal approval standards without scheduling additional walkthroughs.
If your team regularly captures submittal guidance through recorded meetings or training videos, see how a video-to-documentation workflow can make that knowledge consistently accessible →
Structural steel fabricators submit dozens of shop drawings simultaneously. Without a tracked submittal log, architects lose visibility into which drawings are under review, which have been approved, and which are blocking fabrication schedules, causing costly steel delivery delays.
A formal Submittal register ties each shop drawing package to its specification section, assigned reviewer, due date, and current status, ensuring no submittal falls through the cracks and fabrication can only proceed after stamped approval.
['Create a Submittal register in Procore or Autodesk Construction Cloud, linking each shop drawing to its CSI spec section (e.g., 05 12 00 Structural Steel Framing).', 'Assign the structural engineer of record as the designated reviewer with a contractual 14-day review window per the project specifications.', 'Track each submittal through statuses: Received, Under Review, Approved, Approved as Noted, or Revise and Resubmit, notifying the contractor automatically on status change.', 'Archive the stamped, approved shop drawings in the project document management system as the authoritative record for field installation.']
Fabrication bottlenecks are eliminated because the steel contractor knows exactly which packages are approved, reducing steel delivery delays by up to 3 weeks on a typical high-rise project.
Mechanical contractors frequently submit cut sheets for HVAC equipment that does not match the specified efficiency ratings or dimensional requirements. Without systematic submittal review, non-compliant equipment gets installed, requiring expensive rip-out and replacement.
Routing all MEP product data submittals through a structured review workflow forces the mechanical engineer to verify SEER ratings, CFM capacities, and physical dimensions against the specifications before any equipment is ordered or installed.
['Require the mechanical contractor to submit manufacturer cut sheets and performance data for all HVAC units at least 8 weeks before the scheduled installation date.', 'The mechanical engineer reviews each submittal against Spec Section 23 74 00, checking efficiency ratings, airflow capacities, electrical requirements, and clearance dimensions.', 'If equipment does not meet specifications, issue a Revise and Resubmit response with specific deficiencies noted, citing the exact specification paragraph violated.', "Upon approval, stamp the cut sheet with the reviewer's seal and date, and attach it to the purchase order as the binding procurement document."]
Non-compliant equipment installations are caught at the review stage rather than after installation, eliminating an average of $45,000–$120,000 in rework costs per MEP-intensive project.
Interior designers and owners often approve finish materials verbally or via email without a formal sample submittal process. This leads to disputes at project closeout when installed finishes do not match the owner's expectations or the specification's stated color and texture requirements.
Requiring physical or digital sample submittals for all finish materials—flooring, paint, tile, millwork veneers—creates a documented record of exactly what the owner and architect approved, eliminating ambiguity at installation time.
['List all finish materials requiring sample submittals in the Submittal Schedule during pre-construction, referencing Spec Sections 09 65 00 (Resilient Flooring), 09 90 00 (Paints), and 09 30 00 (Tiling).', 'Require the contractor to submit physical samples at full specified size (e.g., 12x12 inch tile samples, 2-foot carpet swatches) along with manufacturer data sheets.', "Conduct a formal sample review meeting with the owner and architect present, documenting approvals in the submittal log with the owner's signature on the sample card.", 'Retain approved samples in the project office throughout construction as the physical benchmark for comparing installed materials during site inspections.']
Finish material disputes at project closeout drop to near zero because every installed material can be traced back to an owner-approved, architect-stamped sample submittal on record.
Contractors often submit materials for review too late, leaving insufficient review time before installation is scheduled. This compresses the architect's review window, forces hasty approvals, and creates schedule claims when reviews take the contractually allowed time.
Developing a Submittal Schedule at project kickoff that back-calculates required submittal dates from installation milestones ensures adequate review time is built into the project schedule, protecting both the contractor's timeline and the architect's review obligations.
["Pull the construction schedule's critical path activities and identify all items requiring submittals, noting their installation start dates and lead times for fabrication or procurement.", 'Back-calculate required submittal submission dates by subtracting fabrication lead time and the contractual review period (typically 14–21 days) from each installation start date.', 'Incorporate the Submittal Schedule as a baseline document in the project management system, with automatic alerts when a submittal is approaching its required submission date.', 'Review and update the Submittal Schedule monthly in owner-architect-contractor (OAC) meetings, adjusting for any schedule changes and flagging submittals at risk of missing their windows.']
Projects with a baseline Submittal Schedule experience 60% fewer schedule claims related to review delays, as both parties have documented agreement on submission and return dates from day one.
Each submittal should carry a unique identifier that references its corresponding Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) MasterFormat section, such as '09-30-00-001' for the first tile submittal. This creates an unambiguous link between the submitted product data and the specification it must satisfy, making compliance verification straightforward. It also prevents confusion when multiple submittals exist for the same specification section.
A Submittal Schedule should be established during pre-construction and agreed upon by the contractor, architect, and owner as a contract baseline document. This schedule must account for procurement lead times, fabrication durations, and the contractually specified review period for each submittal type. Without this schedule, submittals arrive reactively rather than proactively, creating review bottlenecks that compress the critical path.
Before routing a submittal to the architect or engineer for review, the contractor's responsible project manager or superintendent should certify in writing that they have reviewed the submittal and confirmed it complies with the contract documents. This shifts the first line of quality control to the contractor, filtering out obviously non-compliant submittals before they consume the design team's review time. It also creates accountability if a non-compliant product is later discovered in the field.
Most construction contracts specify a review period of 10–21 calendar days for submittal responses. Exceeding this window without notifying the contractor exposes the owner to schedule delay claims and potentially forces the contractor to proceed without approval. Architects and engineers should build submittal review into their weekly workflow as a standing obligation, not a task handled only when time permits.
When issuing a Revise and Resubmit or Approved as Noted response, every comment must cite the specific specification section, paragraph, and clause that the submittal fails to satisfy. Vague comments like 'does not meet specs' or 'revise per project requirements' provide no actionable guidance and lead to repeated resubmittals of still-non-compliant materials. Precise, referenced comments allow the contractor to make targeted corrections on the first resubmittal.
Join thousands of teams creating outstanding documentation
Start Free Trial