Architect submittal and approval packages Permission to build, in fewer rounds.

Cover sheet and index

Project, section, submittal number and revision, with a drawing index the reviewer can navigate rather than search.

Specification cross-references

Placed at the points the reviewer will check, so compliance can be verified rather than assumed.

Product data

Cut sheets for specified hardware, materials and finishes.

Schedules that close out

Finish and material schedules reconciled against the specification, with nothing left as "as selected".

Declared deviations

Each with a stated reason and an equivalence argument.

Revision history

A clear record of what changed and when.

Architects and consultants reject submittals for a narrow set of reasons, and most of them are decided at assembly rather than at drawing.

• The package does not demonstrate compliance with a clause, so approval is impossible even where the intent is correct.
• A substitution appears without a request, so it reads as a unilateral change rather than a proposal.
• A schedule does not resolve, leaving a finish or hardware item unaccounted for.
• Fabrication detail is mixed into review content, generating comments on decisions the architect never owned.
• Revisions are not clouded or logged, so the whole set has to be re-read.

A package that just reproduces the architect's own drawings with dimensions added is the most common first-submittal failure. The reviewer already knows what they drew. What they need to see is the proposal for building it.

Where a specified product is unavailable, uneconomic or unsuitable for the drawn condition, the correct move is to declare it with a reason and an equivalence argument. Drawing something else and hoping is how a package comes back.

Substitution requests are prepared as part of the package where you instruct it, with the comparison a reviewer needs in order to decide. Whether to request a substitution at all stays a commercial decision, and it stays yours.

A meaningful share of reviewer comments are questions, design-team decisions, or scope changes with a commercial consequence.

Those are separated and flagged back rather than absorbed silently. A comment that changes scope is a commercial event and should reach you looking like one.

Shops working to an approval date they cannot move. GCs whose millwork submittals are holding up procurement on an interiors package. Contract administrators who would rather receive a package that arrives reviewable.

Related: RFI handling and specification analysis.

Get a free drawing review →