Submittal Review: Still One of the Most Misunderstood Parts of the Job
Submittal review continues to be a consistent source of disputes, largely because the role is widely misunderstood by project participants. While most contracts clearly state that submittal review is performed for general conformance with the design intent, that limitation is often lost over the life of a project.
When issues arise, submittal stamps and approval notations are frequently cited as evidence that the design professional reviewed and accepted not only the design, but also the final product, installation or performance.
In claims, the problem is rarely the existence of a submittal review. It is the gap between what the design professional believed the review covered and what others later argue the review represented.
This issue can become especially difficult when the project record contains shorthand comments, informal email approvals or inconsistent stamp language. Even when the contract properly limits the design professional’s role, later claimants may focus on isolated phrases such as “approved,” “no exceptions taken” or “reviewed” to argue that broader responsibility was assumed.
A strong submittal process should create a clear record of what was reviewed, what was not reviewed and what remained the contractor’s responsibility. The goal is not to eliminate submittal review, but to avoid creating ambiguity about the scope and effect of that review.
Claim Example
In one matter involving an MEP engineer, shop drawings for a mechanical system were reviewed and returned without significant comment. The contractor later installed equipment that did not perform as intended because of a combination of product limitations and installation issues. The owner asserted that the engineer had “approved” the system through the submittal process. Although the engineer’s review was limited to design intent, the documentation did not clearly reflect that limitation.
The claim ultimately centered on what the submittal review did and did not include, resulting in prolonged litigation and defense costs. The owner alleged damages of about $1.2 million, including replacement equipment, corrective work, extended general conditions and claimed loss-of-use impacts. The matter was ultimately resolved through a negotiated settlement, with the engineer contributing a portion of the resolution to avoid continued litigation costs and the uncertainty of how a fact-finder might interpret the submittal record. The outcome reinforced that even when the design professional has strong contractual defenses, unclear submittal documentation can increase defense costs and settlement pressure.
What We Recommend
- Make sure review stamps and transmittal language are consistent with the contract documents.
- Escalate significant substitutions, deviations or performance-related questions rather than treating them as routine submittals.
- Clarify when a resubmittal is required and identify the specific issue that must be corrected.
- Keep communications with contractors and owners aligned so informal direction does not conflict with the formal review record.
- Consistently reinforce that submittal review is limited to design intent, not construction means or installation.
- Use standard review language that clearly disclaims responsibility for methods, sequences or field conditions.
- Document assumptions, incomplete information or deviations from the design.
- Avoid informal approvals that are not captured in the project record
Design professionals should also be careful not to use the submittal process to redesign the project in real time unless the scope, fee and responsibility for that additional service are clearly addressed. When a submittal reveals a design issue, product limitation or coordination gap, the response should be documented as a project issue requiring appropriate follow-up, not buried in a routine review comment.
Bottom line: Submittal review is part of nearly every project, but it becomes a risk issue when its purpose is not clearly documented. Consistency in both language and practice is key.
