The Submittal Review Process, Explained (With a Checklist)

Submittals are how everyone confirms that what gets installed matches what was specified — before it's permanently in the building. It's one of the most delay-prone workflows in construction, largely because the paperwork outpaces the process. Here's how it's supposed to work, and where it usually breaks.

What a submittal is

A submittal is documentation the contractor provides for the design team to review before fabrication or installation: product data, shop drawings, samples, material certifications, and similar. The point is verification — catching a mismatch on paper is cheap; catching it after installation is not.

The workflow, step by step

1. Identify required submittals from the specifications (the submittal register).
2. Prepare and submit — the subcontractor sends to the general contractor, who reviews and forwards.
3. Review — the architect or engineer checks against the specs and returns a status: approved, approved as noted, revise and resubmit, or rejected.
4. Resubmit if needed, and repeat until approved.
5. Release for fabrication/installation once approved.
6. File the approved submittal with the project record.

The roles

• Subcontractor — produces the submittal.
• General contractor — reviews for completeness and coordination, then routes.
• Architect/Engineer — reviews for design and spec compliance.
• Owner — sometimes reviews specific items.

Clear hand-offs between these roles are where time is won or lost.

The submittal log is the backbone

Every submittal needs a log tracking its number, spec section, current status, who has it, and key dates. Without a live log, nobody can answer the two questions that matter most: what's outstanding, and what's holding up the schedule.

Most submittal delays aren't review delays — they're tracking delays. Items sit because no one realized they were waiting.

Spec compliance is the whole point

A submittal review isn't a rubber stamp. The reviewer is confirming the proposed product or assembly actually meets the specification. This is exactly where AI-assisted review is starting to help — flagging where a submittal's stated values diverge from the spec so a human reviewer focuses on real discrepancies instead of hunting for them.

Common pitfalls

• No submittal register built from the specs, so requirements are missed
• Status tracked in scattered spreadsheets and emails
• Approved submittals that never make it into the permanent record
• Slow routing between GC and design team with no visibility

A submittal checklist

• Submittal register built from the specifications
• One live log with number, spec section, status, and owner
• Clear review statuses everyone understands
• Fast, visible routing between parties
• Approved submittals filed with the project record

ArchiveView includes submittal tracking alongside your drawings and specs — with AI submittal review that flags spec discrepancies — so nothing sits in limbo and approved items land in the record automatically. Start a free trial or see it in action.