Elevating the Submittal Review Process
In construction management, the submittal phase is often viewed through two very different lenses. On one end of the spectrum, you have the "Rubber Stamp" approach: pass the documents from the subcontractor to the design team with minimal interference to keep the ball moving. On the other end is the "Deep Dive" approach: a forensic analysis of every detail, treating the General Contractor (GC) review as a final firewall.
While the "Rubber Stamp" method risks missed scope gaps and the "Deep Dive" risks burying project managers in liability and lost time, the most effective approach lies in the middle. The GC’s role isn't to redesign the building, but to act as a sophisticated gatekeeper.
Here is how to improve the submittal review process by balancing efficiency with rigid quality control.
Be the Gatekeeper, Not the Mailman
The single biggest error a project engineer or PM can make is simply forwarding documents. If a subcontractor submits a messy, incomplete, or clearly incorrect data package, it should never reach the design team.
The "2-Second" Check: Before logging the submittal, ensure it has the proper formatting, cover sheet, and includes all specific items requested in the spec section.
The "Kick-Back" Rule: If the submittal is generic marketing material rather than specific product data, reject it immediately with a "Revise and Resubmit" status. Sending garbage to the architect burns goodwill and slows down the review of critical items.
Review for Constructability and Scope, Not Design
There is a fine line between reviewing a submittal and assuming design liability. The GC's job is to verify that the product meets the contractual requirements, not necessarily the aesthetic ones.
Verify Dimensions and Clearances: Will the equipment actually fit through the door? Does the ductwork clash with the steel shown in the shop drawings? This is where the GC adds value that the architect (who isn't on-site) cannot.
Check the Interfaces: Does the window detail match the waterproofing detail? The architect draws them separately; the submittal review is where the GC ensures they talk to each other.
Confirm Quantities and Lead Times: Ensure the subcontractor has ordered enough material (including waste) and that the lead times align with the current schedule.
The "Golden Platter" Method
Design teams are often overworked. If you want your submittals returned quickly (and approved), make the reviewer's job easy.
Highlight Deviations: If the product varies slightly from the spec but is functionally equivalent (or better), cloud it and explicitly note it. Don't hide it and hope they don't notice. Transparency builds trust.
Pre-scrub the Data: Use tools like Bluebeam or submittal.app to highlight the specific model numbers and options being selected. Don't make the architect hunt through a 50-page catalog to find the one widget intended for the job.
Avoid the Liability Trap
While you want to be thorough, you must avoid "creeping" into the designer's lane.
Watch Your Stamp Language: Your approval stamp should clearly state that you are reviewing for "general conformance with the contract documents." Never use language that implies you have verified engineering calculations (unless it is a deferred submittal/design-build scope).
RFI vs. Submittal: If you discover a design error during your review, do not try to fix it via the submittal redlines. Pause the submittal and issue an RFI. Using a submittal to solve a design problem is a recipe for confusion and unapproved change orders later.
Standardize the Internal Workflow
Inconsistency kills efficiency. If one Project Manager reviews every screw and another approves blindly, the field team won't know what to expect.
Create a Checklist: Develop a standard "Submittal Review Checklist" for your PE/PM team. It should ask simple questions: Is the voltage correct? Is the finish specified? Is the warranty included?
The "Red Pen" Approach: Encourage your team to mark up the submittals before sending them out. When an architect sees that the GC has already crossed out irrelevant info and circled key specs, they feel confident that the team is paying attention.
Example Checklist:
Phase 1: Administrative Check
[ ] Correct Spec Section: Is the submittal labeled with the accurate Specification Section and numbering?
[ ] Legibility: Is the PDF clean, legible, and oriented correctly? (No upside-down scans).
[ ] Completeness: Does it include all items listed in the "Submittals" paragraph of the spec section?
[ ] Clean Data: If it is a product catalog, are the specific models, finishes, and options clearly highlighted or arrowed? (Reject generic "entire catalog" dumps).
Phase 2: Scope & Contract Compliance
[ ] Manufacturer Verification: Is the manufacturer listed as an approved vendor in the specs?
[ ] Deviation Transparency: If the product differs from the spec, is the deviation clearly clouded and explained on the cover sheet?
[ ] Quantity Check: Do the quantities align with the take-offs and the Contract Schedule of Values?
[ ] Finish/Color: Are color charts or physical samples included if required by the spec?
Phase 3: Constructability & Field Coordination
[ ] Dimensional Fit: Do the dimensions provided fit within the actual field conditions (including ceiling heights and door widths)?
[ ] Maintenance Access: Is there required clearance for future maintenance (e.g., filter changes, access panels) that isn't shown on the architectural drawings?
[ ] Utility Match: Do the electrical (voltage/phase), plumbing (pipe size), or mechanical requirements match the site utilities and rough-in drawings?
[ ] Trade Overlap: Have interface details been coordinated? (e.g., Does the window submittal match the waterproofing submittal details?)
Phase 4: Schedule & Risk
[ ] Lead Time: Does the stated lead time fit the current construction schedule?
[ ] Long Lead Items: If this is a long-lead item, has the "Release for Fabrication" date been flagged?
[ ] Design Liability: Ensure the submittal does not attempt to change the design intent. If a design change is needed, has an RFI been generated separately?
Summary
The goal of the submittal review is not to do the architect's job, nor is it to simply push paper. It is to ensure compliance. By acting as a strict filter for quality and a check for constructability, you protect the project schedule, minimize change orders, and maintain a professional reputation with the design team.
