Construction submittal review process flowchart
Construction submittal review flowchart template: submittal register, contractor check, architect and specialist review, review actions and resubmittals, delay notice and delivery against the approved submittal.
What the construction submittal review process is
A submittal is the contractor's evidence that what it intends to supply and install will meet the contract documents: shop drawings for steel or ductwork, product data for a door or a pump, samples of a finish, mix designs, test reports, calculations stamped by an engineer. The specification lists which sections require them. The chart follows one submittal from that requirement through the register, preparation, the contractor's own check, the architect's review with any specialist input, the review action, the loops that follow a revise-and-resubmit or a rejection, and the release for fabrication and delivery. The reason for drawing it is that most of the schedule risk in procurement sits in the gaps between these handoffs.
This version differs from generic approval flows such as /templates/contract-approval-process and from the quality checks in /templates/quality-inspection-process in a few ways that come from construction practice. The person reviewing is the architect or engineer of record, whose review is for conformance with design intent and typically does not take over the contractor's responsibility for means, methods or coordination; that is why the contractor's own check, "Matches the contract documents and field dimensions?", comes before the transmittal. The review has a defined period that eats into procurement lead time, so the register is built backwards from the site need date. And the review action has a vocabulary (approved, approved as noted, revise and resubmit, rejected) that determines what happens next. Different contracts and countries use different wording and stamps, so adapt the labels to your own form rather than copying these.
The decisions do the work. The contractor's check keeps incomplete submittals from consuming review time. "Needs specialist review?" routes calculations and performance data to a discipline reviewer. "What is the review action?" has four exits: the approved branch goes straight to release, "Approved as noted" goes through the subcontractor incorporating the notes, "Revise and resubmit" loops back into the contractor's check, and "Rejected" is an exception path that requires a compliant product or a formal substitution request. Finally "Review period overran the register date?" turns a slow review into a written notice of delay, which connects to /templates/extension-of-time-claim-process, instead of a silent loss of float. The chart is a starting point, not a replacement for your contract or legal advice.
What this flowchart covers
In this template
- Five swimlanes (Subcontractor / supplier, General contractor, Architect / engineer of record, Specialist consultant and Document controller) across five phases: prepare, contractor check, design review, resolve and release, and procure
- A submittal register step that sets due dates against procurement lead times, so the review period is planned rather than discovered
- A contractor's own check, "Matches the contract documents and field dimensions?", with a return loop to the subcontractor for correction before the submittal is transmitted
- Design review with an optional specialist branch, "Needs specialist review?", for structural, MEP or fire calculations and performance data
- A four-way "What is the review action?" decision: approved, approved as noted, revise and resubmit (back into the check) and rejected (an exception to propose a compliant product or substitution)
- Release and procurement: "Review period overran the register date?" with a delay-notice exit, then fabrication release, and inspection of delivery against the approved submittal
When to use this template
- You are building a submittal procedure for a project and need to agree who checks, who reviews and who logs before the first transmittal goes out
- Submittals are being returned for basic errors, and you want the contractor check drawn as a real gate with a named owner
- Long-lead items are late and you need to show where review time is consumed and who is holding the file
- You are a subcontractor asking how your submittal travels, who stamps it and what each stamp means
- The architect and contractor disagree about what an "approved as noted" stamp authorises and you want the next step to be explicit
How it works
Rename the lanes to the parties on your job
Replace Subcontractor / supplier, General contractor, Architect / engineer of record, Specialist consultant and Document controller with the named firms. If the architect reviews everything directly, remove the specialist lane rather than leaving it blank.
Build the register from the specification
Go through the spec sections and list every submittal, then add the date it must be approved by to protect the order. Work backwards from the site need date through fabrication lead time and the review period.
Write your review action wording
Replace the four review actions with the stamp wording from your contract and say what each one permits. In particular, state whether work may proceed on an "approved as noted" action and who confirms there is no cost or time impact.
Set the contractor check standard
Write what the general contractor verifies before transmitting: conformance with the contract documents, field dimensions, coordination with other trades and completeness. Name who stamps it.
Set the review period and the escalation
Enter the review period your contract specifies and who monitors it. Decide how a late review is recorded and when the "Review period overran the register date?" branch triggers a written notice. Adapt to your contract rather than assuming a fixed period.
Define substitutions and resubmittals
Decide how many resubmittals are allowed before escalation, whether the design team may charge for excess reviews, and what a substitution request must include (comparison data, price, lead time).
Test it against a real package
Trace one submittal that went smoothly and one that was rejected or resubmitted twice. Steps people took that are not on the chart are the ones to add.
Frequently asked questions
What is the construction submittal review process?
It is the sequence by which the contractor shows the design team what it proposes to supply and install, and the design team confirms it conforms to the contract documents. The subcontractor prepares the submittal, the general contractor checks and transmits it, the architect or engineer of record reviews it with specialist help where needed, and a review action is issued. Depending on that action the product is released, revised, or replaced, and then fabricated and delivered.
What do approved, approved as noted and revise and resubmit mean?
The exact wording and effect depend on your contract and the stamp used. In common practice, approved means no exceptions taken, approved as noted means the work may proceed once the noted corrections are incorporated, revise and resubmit means the submittal must be corrected and sent again before work proceeds, and rejected means it does not meet the requirements. The chart routes each differently; align the labels with your own form.
Does architect approval transfer responsibility from the contractor?
Generally no: many standard contract forms say review is for general conformance with design intent and does not relieve the contractor of its obligations for dimensions, coordination or construction methods. That is why this chart puts a contractor check before the design review. Read your own contract, and take legal advice where it matters.
How is a submittal different from an RFI?
A submittal is the contractor proposing something for approval, while an RFI, covered in /templates/rfi-request-for-information-process, is the contractor asking a question. A submittal review can raise RFIs, and an RFI response may require a new submittal. Keeping them as separate logs with separate clocks avoids confusion about which one is holding a delivery.
What happens when the review takes longer than planned?
The chart asks "Review period overran the register date?" at the release stage. An overrun leads to a written notice of delay, which is the starting point for /templates/extension-of-time-claim-process, because a late review can push fabrication and delivery. The register dates and the transmittal date make that notice factual.
What should the submittal register show?
The spec section, description, responsible subcontractor, date required, date sent, date returned, review action, resubmittal number and delivery date. Comments on individual steps and a version history help show who sent and who stamped each version.
Where this process fits
In most operations this process hands off to Construction inspection and hold point process flowchart (ITP).
It is one step in Approvals, inspection & closeout.
Step 1: Construction submittal review process flowchart You are here
Construction submittal review flowchart template: submittal register, contractor check, architect and specialist review, review actions and resubmittals, delay notice and delivery against the approved submittal.
Step 2: Construction inspection and hold point process flowchart (ITP)
Construction inspection and hold point flowchart template: notice, witnessed inspection, nonconformance and disposition, engineer countersign, release of the hold point and record in the handover file.
Step 3: Construction punch list process flowchart (completion to close-out)