How To Manage Equipment Submittals
The 6-step submittal workflow, typical review timelines (2–4 weeks), and the cost of 'revise and resubmit' responses: 3–6 week delays on critical-path equipment.
Short answer: Create a centralized submittal log tied to equipment tags and spec sections.
Request shop drawings and data sheets from vendors with clear spec references. Review against the project specifications before forwarding to the engineer.
Track status through approval (approved, approved as noted, revise and resubmit, rejected) and release for procurement once approved.
Typical review cycles take 2-4 weeks per round; resubmittals add 3-6 weeks to the timeline.
What submittals are and why they exist
An equipment submittal is the formal process for getting the engineer of record's approval on specific equipment before it's ordered. It exists because specifications describe performance requirements ("provide a 200-ton centrifugal chiller with a minimum IPLV of 0.56 kW/ton"), but they don't tell the vendor exactly which product to ship.
The submittal is where a vendor's specific product is evaluated against those requirements.
Submittals protect everyone. The engineer confirms the equipment meets the design intent. The contractor confirms the equipment fits the space, connects to the building systems, and meets the budget.
The owner gets documentation that what's being installed matches what was specified. Without this step, you're ordering equipment based on assumptions, and assumptions generate change orders.
The submittal workflow
The typical equipment submittal process has six stages. Each one can introduce delays if not managed proactively.
1. Contractor requests submittal package from vendor
After the purchase order is issued (or sometimes before, during the quoting phase), the contractor requests shop drawings, product data sheets, wiring diagrams, and performance curves from the equipment vendor.
The request should reference the specific spec section, equipment tag, and any addenda so the vendor provides documentation for the right product configuration.
2. Contractor reviews against specifications
Before sending the submittal to the engineer, the contractor's team reviews it against the project specifications.
This contractor review catches problems early (wrong voltage, missing accessories, incorrect capacity) that would otherwise result in a rejection from the engineer and add weeks to the cycle.
Check these items at minimum:
- Does the submitted equipment match the specified capacity, efficiency, and electrical requirements?
- Are all required accessories included (VFDs, disconnects, vibration isolation)?
- Does the submittal reference the correct spec revision and addenda?
- Are all required data sheets, wiring diagrams, and performance curves included?
- Is the equipment physically compatible with the available space (dimensions, weight, clearances)?
3. Contractor forwards to engineer of record
The contractor sends the submittal package to the engineer with a cover sheet noting the equipment tag, spec section, vendor, and any contractor comments or concerns. Many firms use a standard submittal transmittal form. Some projects require submittals through a project management platform; others still use email.
4. Engineer reviews and responds
The engineer reviews the submittal against their design intent and responds with one of four standard dispositions:
| Disposition | What It Means | What Happens Next |
|---|---|---|
| Approved | Equipment meets all spec requirements. Proceed with ordering. | Release for procurement. No further action needed. |
| Approved as noted | Equipment is acceptable with modifications. The engineer's notes are binding. | Review notes with vendor. Confirm compliance, price impact, and lead time impact before ordering. |
| Revise and resubmit | Equipment doesn't meet spec requirements. Changes required. | Work with vendor to address engineer's comments. Prepare and resubmit revised package. |
| Rejected | Equipment is fundamentally non-compliant. Start over with a different product or vendor. | Identify cause of rejection. Re-quote with compliant equipment if possible. |
5. Process the response
For "approved as noted" responses: review the engineer's notes carefully. Notes like "provide additional vibration isolation" or "confirm refrigerant type is R-514A" become contractual requirements.
Confirm with the vendor that they can comply, and get any cost or lead time impacts in writing before releasing the order.
For "revise and resubmit" responses: coordinate with the vendor to address each comment. This is where time disappears. The vendor needs 1-2 weeks to revise, then the engineer needs another 2-4 weeks to review.
One resubmittal cycle adds 3-6 weeks to the equipment delivery timeline.
6. Release for procurement
Once approved, release the equipment for ordering. Update the submittal log with the approval date and begin tracking the lead time against the construction schedule.
The clock for delivery starts at approval, not at the original order date.
Submittal log structure
A well-structured submittal log is the backbone of the process. At minimum, track these fields:
- Equipment tag: AHU-1, CH-2, SWG-1, etc.
- Spec section: The specification section the equipment is specified under (e.g., 236416 for centrifugal chillers).
- Vendor: Who is providing the submittal.
- Submittal number: Unique identifier for tracking (e.g., M-023).
- Date submitted to engineer: When the submittal was forwarded.
- Date returned by engineer: When the response was received.
- Status: Approved, approved as noted, revise and resubmit, rejected, or pending.
- Resubmittal count: How many times this submittal has been through the review cycle.
- Required delivery date: When the equipment needs to arrive on site based on the construction schedule.
- Notes: Engineer comments, contractor concerns, lead time updates.
Keep this log updated weekly. On active projects, submittal status changes faster than people expect.
A stale log is worse than no log: it creates a false sense of confidence.
Turnaround benchmarks
Know what "normal" looks like so you can flag delays early:
- Vendor submittal preparation: 1-3 weeks from request to receiving the submittal package.
- Contractor review: 2-5 days for internal review before forwarding to the engineer.
- Engineer initial review: 2-4 weeks. Many contracts specify a maximum review period (often 14 business days), but actual turnaround varies.
- Resubmittal cycle: 1-2 weeks for vendor revision + 2-4 weeks for engineer re-review = 3-6 weeks added per resubmittal.
On a 14-month project schedule, submittal delays directly compress the procurement and delivery timeline.
If your chiller submittal takes 8 weeks (one resubmittal) and the chiller lead time is 20 weeks, you've used 28 weeks before the equipment arrives. That's more than half your project schedule consumed before the chiller shows up on the truck.
BOD vs. alternate submittals
The spec names a basis-of-design (BOD) manufacturer and may list approved alternates. The submittal process is different for each.
BOD submittals are typically faster. The engineer designed around the BOD product, so they know the dimensions, performance characteristics, and interface requirements.
As long as the vendor submits the correct model in the correct configuration, approval is straightforward.
Alternate submittals require equivalence documentation. The engineer needs to verify that the alternate product matches or exceeds the BOD in every specified parameter: capacity, efficiency, dimensions, connections, sound levels, weight.
This takes more time and has a higher rejection rate. Common reasons alternates get rejected:
- Physical dimensions exceed available space.
- Connection locations don't match the coordinated design.
- Efficiency doesn't meet the specified minimum.
- Sound ratings exceed the specified limits.
- The submittal package is incomplete: missing performance data, wiring diagrams, or dimensional drawings that the engineer needs to evaluate equivalence.
If you're considering an alternate to save cost or lead time, start the submittal conversation early. Don't wait until the BOD is approved and then try to switch. That wastes the review time you already invested.
Coordination with the design team
"Approved as noted" is the most common submittal response, and it's the one that requires the most attention. The engineer's notes aren't suggestions — they're binding modifications.
If the engineer writes "verify clearance for tube pull on east side" or "provide factory-installed isolation valves," those become requirements that the vendor must incorporate.
Failing to communicate "approved as noted" items to the vendor is a reliable source of problems at startup. The equipment arrives without the modifications, and you're negotiating a field fix or a return.
Common submittal problems
- Wrong spec revision: The vendor submits data based on an outdated spec. The addendum changed the efficiency requirement, and now the submittal doesn't comply.
- Incomplete packages: Submittals sent without required data sheets, wiring diagrams, or performance curves. Engineers return these without reviewing, adding 2-4 weeks of delay.
- Lost in email: Submittals sent via email with no tracking. Three weeks later, nobody knows if the engineer received it, is reviewing it, or lost it. A submittal log and transmittal receipts prevent this.
- No contractor review: Submittals forwarded to the engineer without the contractor checking them first. Obvious errors (wrong voltage, wrong capacity) get flagged by the engineer and returned, a delay that internal review would have prevented.
- Resubmittals that don't address comments: The vendor revises the submittal but doesn't address all of the engineer's comments. The engineer returns it again. Now you've burned two review cycles and addressed nothing.
- Delayed follow-up on "approved as noted": The submittal is approved with notes, but nobody confirms the notes with the vendor. The equipment is ordered without the modifications. This surfaces at commissioning, which is the most expensive time to fix it.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long does the submittal review process take?
Initial engineer review: 2–4 weeks. 'Revise and resubmit' response: add 1–2 weeks vendor revision time + 2–4 weeks second engineer review = 5–8 weeks total delay for one resubmittal. On critical-path equipment (chillers, switchgear), that delay cascades to the entire construction schedule.
What does "approved as noted" mean?
It means the engineer accepted the submittal with modifications. The engineer's notes (redlines, comments, or written conditions) become binding requirements. The vendor must incorporate them into the final equipment. Always review "approved as noted" items with the vendor to confirm compliance and identify any impact on price or lead time before releasing the order.
What is the difference between a BOD submittal and an alternate submittal?
A basis-of-design (BOD) submittal is for the specific manufacturer and product the engineer designed around. BOD submittals have faster approval because the engineer is already familiar with the product. An alternate submittal proposes a different manufacturer and must demonstrate equivalence: same or better performance, compatible dimensions and connections, and meeting all specified requirements. Alternates require more documentation and have a higher rejection rate.
Who is responsible for reviewing submittals: the contractor or the engineer?
Both. The contractor reviews the submittal first to verify it meets the spec requirements, catches obvious errors, and ensures the package is complete. The engineer then reviews for design compliance and conformance with the design intent. Skipping the contractor review is a common shortcut that backfires: it sends incomplete or non-compliant submittals to the engineer, resulting in rejections that add weeks to the timeline.
BuildVision connects equipment data from extraction through submittals, linking spec requirements, vendor quotes, and submittal status in one place so nothing falls through the cracks. See how it works →