Submittals, shop drawings and long-lead items

Between award and delivery lies the stage that most often makes procurement late: submittals. Before anything is fabricated, the subcontractor or supplier must show the design team exactly what it intends to supply and how it will be built, and the design team must review it. On a mid-size building there may be several hundred submittals, many of them depending on each other, and each one passes through at least three desks. Long-lead equipment adds a second chain of milestones after approval: release, fabrication, testing and shipping. This lesson covers how to plan, track and speed up both chains. The software used to log submittals is covered in CON-260; here the focus is on the procurement logic behind it.

Types of submittals

The specifications list what each section requires, usually in a 'Submittals' article within each technical section and in the general requirements (Division 01). The first procurement task after award is to extract every requirement into a submittal register, assign it to the responsible package, and give it a required-by date from the procurement schedule.

The review chain

A typical submittal passes from the subcontractor to the general contractor, who checks it against the contract documents and coordinates it with other trades, then to the architect or engineer for review, and back down the chain with a review action. Each hand-off takes time, and the review period allowed to the design team is usually fixed in the prime contract.

The general contractor's review is not a formality. Under the standard prime contract forms, the contractor must review submittals for compliance and coordination before passing them on, and the consultant's review does not relieve the contractor of responsibility for errors or deviations it did not clearly flag. A contractor that stamps and forwards everything unread loses time when the consultant rejects obvious errors, and may carry the cost when a deviation slips through.

Planning submittal durations

The procurement schedule in Lesson 2 assumed a fixed number of review cycles. In reality, some submittals are approved first time and some need two or three rounds. Using the expected number of cycles, based on experience with the trade and consultant, gives a more realistic plan.

# Expected submittal duration with resubmittals (weeks)
prep, gc_review, consultant_review, revise = 3, 1, 2, 1.5
p_resubmit = 0.40          # chance a submission comes back "revise and resubmit"
# expected number of consultant reviews with independent resubmittal chance per round
expected_rounds = 1 / (1 - p_resubmit)
first = prep + gc_review + consultant_review
each_extra = revise + gc_review + consultant_review
expected = first + (expected_rounds - 1) * each_extra
print(f"Expected review rounds: {expected_rounds:.2f}")
print(f"First submission cycle: {first} weeks")
print(f"Expected total duration: {expected:.1f} weeks")
for p in (0.2, 0.4, 0.6):
    r = 1 / (1 - p)
    print(f"  resubmittal chance {p:.0%}: {first + (r - 1) * each_extra:4.1f} weeks")

Expected review rounds: 1.67
First submission cycle: 6 weeks
Expected total duration: 9.0 weeks
  resubmittal chance 20%:  7.1 weeks
  resubmittal chance 40%:  9.0 weeks
  resubmittal chance 60%: 12.8 weeks

With a 40 % chance of resubmittal on each round, the expected duration is about 9 weeks instead of the 6 weeks a single cycle would suggest. For a complex delegated-design submittal such as curtain wall anchors, where first-time approval is less likely, the expected duration grows quickly. The planner should use these expected durations for long-lead packages, and the project team should work to make first-time approval more likely.

The submittal register and its metrics

The submittal register lists every required submittal with its specification section, responsible package, required date, submitted date, review status and returned date. Its value lies in the reports it produces.

# Submittal register summary for Larch Street at week 14 (illustrative)
import statistics
register = [  # (id, package, required_wk, submitted_wk or None, returned_wk or None, action)
    ("03 20 00-01", "Rebar",       4,  3,    5,    "reviewed"),
    ("08 44 13-01", "Windows",     9,  10,   13,   "revise"),
    ("08 44 13-02", "Windows",     14, None, None, None),
    ("14 21 00-01", "Elevators",   8,  8,    11,   "noted"),
    ("23 74 13-01", "Mechanical",  10, 12,   None, None),
    ("26 24 13-01", "Electrical",  6,  6,    9,    "noted"),
    ("07 54 00-01", "Roofing",     12, 11,   13,   "reviewed"),
    ("09 21 16-01", "Drywall",     16, None, None, None),
]
now = 14
overdue_to_submit = [r[0] for r in register if r[3] is None and r[2] < now]
in_review = [r[0] for r in register if r[3] is not None and r[4] is None]
returned = [r for r in register if r[4] is not None]
cycle = [r[4] - r[3] for r in returned]
first_time = sum(1 for r in returned if r[5] in ("reviewed", "noted")) / len(returned)
late = sum(1 for r in register if r[3] is not None and r[3] > r[2])
print("Overdue to submit:", overdue_to_submit or "none")
print("In review:", in_review)
print(f"Average review turnaround: {statistics.mean(cycle):.1f} weeks")
print(f"First-time approval rate: {first_time:.0%}")
print(f"Submitted late: {late} of {sum(1 for r in register if r[3] is not None)}")

Overdue to submit: none
In review: ['23 74 13-01']
Average review turnaround: 2.6 weeks
First-time approval rate: 80%
Submitted late: 2 of 6

The summary shows one window submittal returned for revision, one mechanical submittal still in review two weeks after submission, and two submittals that went in late. The average turnaround of about 2.6 weeks exceeds the two weeks the prime contract allows the consultant, a point the project manager should raise at the next owner meeting. The first-time approval rate of 80 % is reasonable, but the one failure is on a long-lead package, which is exactly where it hurts.

Substitutions

Subcontractors and suppliers often propose products other than those specified, to save cost, shorten lead time or use a product they know. The prime contract usually sets a formal substitution procedure: a written request, before a stated deadline, showing that the proposed product is equal in performance and quality, with any cost or time effect, and with the design team's acceptance. A substitution slipped into a submittal without a formal request is a common source of disputes, rejected submittals and lost time. When a lead-time crisis makes a substitution attractive (for example, a different switchgear manufacturer with a 20-week shorter lead time), the contractor should raise it with the owner and design team early, as a formal request, with the schedule benefit quantified.

Long-lead items: from approval to delivery

For long-lead equipment, approval is only the middle of the story. After approval, the supplier must receive a release for fabrication, schedule production, manufacture, test and ship. Each step is a milestone the contractor should track, because a slip anywhere moves the delivery date.

# Switchgear milestone tracker: planned versus forecast (weeks after award)
milestones = [
    ("PO issued",                 1,  1),
    ("Submittal approved",        8, 10),
    ("Released for fabrication",  9, 11),
    ("Production slot confirmed",10, 13),
    ("Fabrication complete",     49, 52),
    ("Factory test",             51, 54),
    ("Delivered to site",        54, 57),
]
need_by = 56
for name, plan, fc in milestones:
    print(f"{name:26} plan wk {plan:2}  forecast wk {fc:2}  slip {fc - plan:+d}")
slip = milestones[-1][2] - need_by
print(f"Delivery vs need-by (wk {need_by}): {'late by' if slip > 0 else 'early by'} {abs(slip)} week(s)")

PO issued                  plan wk  1  forecast wk  1  slip +0
Submittal approved         plan wk  8  forecast wk 10  slip +2
Released for fabrication   plan wk  9  forecast wk 11  slip +2
Production slot confirmed  plan wk 10  forecast wk 13  slip +3
Fabrication complete       plan wk 49  forecast wk 52  slip +3
Factory test               plan wk 51  forecast wk 54  slip +3
Delivered to site          plan wk 54  forecast wk 57  slip +3
Delivery vs need-by (wk 56): late by 1 week(s)

The tracker shows a two-week slip at submittal approval growing to three weeks because the production slot was not confirmed promptly. The forecast delivery is now a week after the need-by date. Without action, energization and everything after it moves. The project manager has three types of response: recover time in the supply chain (expediting), protect the site schedule (resequencing, temporary power), or both.

Expediting: when is it worth paying?

Expediting means actively working to protect or recover delivery dates: regular calls and site visits to the manufacturer, insisting on written production schedules, paying for overtime or priority production, or switching to faster freight. Some of these cost money, and the decision should compare the cost of expediting with the cost of the delay it avoids.

Good expediting is mostly unglamorous: confirming production slots in writing, asking for weekly status reports, visiting the factory for critical items, and keeping the site ready so that equipment can be received when it arrives. The single most effective expediting step is often internal: making sure the contractor itself releases for fabrication promptly once approval is received.