The construction submittal process, step by step

Submittals are where a programme quietly disappears. Not dramatically, and not in a way that shows on a Gantt chart — just fourteen days at a time, several hundred times, until a package that was supposed to start in March starts in July.

This is the process in full, and where the time actually goes.

What a submittal is, and what it is not

A submittal is the contractor demonstrating that what they intend to install complies with the specification, before they install it. It covers material submittals, technical and shop drawing submissions, prequalification of subcontractors and suppliers, method statements and sample approvals.

It is not the same as an RFI. An RFI asks a question about the design. A submittal proposes a specific answer for approval. Confusing the two is a common source of delay, because a submittal used to ask a question gets rejected rather than answered.

Stage 1 — Preparing the submission

The single largest avoidable cost in the whole cycle is the incomplete first submission. An item returned unreviewed because an attachment was missing costs a full review period, and it is entirely preventable.

What a complete submission normally contains

• The specification section and clause the item is submitted against
• Manufacturer’s technical data, with the proposed model clearly identified
• Compliance statement, and a schedule of any deviations
• Test certificates or third-party approvals where the specification demands them
• Local authority approvals, where applicable — commonly the step forgotten on Gulf projects
• The transmittal reference and the submittal register number

Stage 2 — Routing and review

The submission goes to the consultant or engineer responsible for that discipline. The contractual review period is typically 14 days, though it varies; what matters is that the period is defined and that both parties can see the clock.

Time is lost here in two ways. Items reach the wrong reviewer and sit unassigned, or they reach the right reviewer who has forty other items and no visibility of which are ageing. Neither is a competence problem — it is a queue-visibility problem.

Stage 3 — Approval codes

Most projects use a four-code scheme, though the letters and wording vary by contract:

• Code A — Approved. Proceed with fabrication or installation.
• Code B — Approved as noted. Proceed, incorporating the comments. No resubmission required, though many contracts ask for a revised copy for record.
• Code C — Revise and resubmit. Do not proceed. The comments must be addressed and the item resubmitted.
• Code D — Rejected. The proposal does not comply; a different solution is required.

Agreeing the exact meaning of each code at the start of the project sounds bureaucratic and saves an enormous amount of argument later, particularly around whether a Code B permits fabrication.

Stage 4 — Resubmission

A Code C item should return as the next revision of the same submittal, carrying its history, comments and references. Treated as a brand-new submission, the reviewer starts from scratch and the second cycle takes as long as the first.

That single change — resubmissions inheriting their history — is one of the cheapest programme savings available on most projects.

Where the time actually goes

Take a façade package with 200 submissions, a 14-day review period, and a third returning for resubmission. That is not two weeks of review time. Depending on sequencing, it is somewhere between four and nine months of elapsed calendar during which work cannot start.

The programme shows the installation activity. It does not show the approval queue feeding it, which is why the slippage is invisible until it has already happened.

Three measurements that change behaviour

• Median turnaround by reviewer, measured against the contractual period rather than the date an item was picked up.
• Ageing profile of the open queue — how many items have been out for more than 7, 14 and 21 days.
• First-time approval rate by subcontractor, which tells you where submission quality is costing cycles.

Publishing these to both parties is uncomfortable, which is exactly why it works. In our experience it removes between a third and a half of accumulated delay without anyone working longer hours.

If you want to see how this looks when the register, the drawings and the programme reference each other, our submittals module is the place to start, or book a walkthrough and bring a real backlog.