Submittal Review

Overview

Review contractor submittals (shop drawings, product data, samples, mockups, schedules) against the contract documents in the construction administration phase, and produce a written review that lives in docs/submittals/. The output mirrors the AIA G712 submittal log and assigns one of the standard CA-phase action stamps.

Aligned with NA practice: AIA A201-2017 §3.12 (Submittals), AIA G712 (Shop Drawing & Sample Record), CSI MasterFormat 2020 / SectionFormat / PageFormat, and the typical owner-architect agreement (B101 §3.6.4) defining the architect's review responsibility.

This skill is for the architect / EOR / owner's rep position. The review documents what changed between the contract documents and the contractor-proposed product or fabrication, flags deviations, and recommends an action stamp.

When to use

Trigger on:

• Pasted submittal cover sheet, product data, or shop drawing details with a request to review.
• Project file paths to a submittal package.
• Explicit asks: "review this submittal", "shop drawing review", "check this product data", "is this approved", "what's the status code on this".
• A submittal log entry needing analysis before stamp.

Do NOT trigger for:

• Original contract drawing review (use drawing-checklist).
• Original spec section review (use spec-review).
• Bid-stage product evaluation (use bid-review).
• Generic product research (this skill reviews against an existing contract — it does not pick products from scratch).

Workflow

Step 1 — Bootstrap if needed

Check that docs/submittals/index.md exists. If not:

python scripts/init_submittals_workspace.py

Step 2 — Anchor the contract basis

A submittal is meaningless without the contract document it is being reviewed against. Pin these before applying axes.

• Read docs/project.md if it exists for project number, current spec edition, and CA-phase status.
• Identify the spec section number (CSI MasterFormat, e.g., 08 41 13 — Aluminum-Framed Entrances and Storefronts) and the relevant drawing details.
• Note the basis-of-design product named in the spec, the "or equal" language, and any owner-prior-approval list.
• Note prior submittals on the same section: is this the original (Rev 0), a resubmittal after C-stamp (Rev 1+), or an as-built record submittal post-installation?
• For shop drawings, confirm the field-verified dimensions are noted as such — the contractor is responsible for them per A201 §3.12.7.

Step 3 — Apply eight-axis review

Load references/submittal_axes.md for the full framework with sub-criteria. Quick reference:

1. Contract-document conformance — Does the submitted product/fabrication match what is shown and specified? Flag every deviation, even apparently minor ones.
2. Completeness against spec submittal article — Most spec sections (Part 1.04 or 1.05) list required submittals: shop drawings, product data, samples, certifications, warranties, mock-up requirements. Confirm each item is present or note what is missing.
3. Dimensions & coordination — Field-verified dimensions stated? Clearances to adjacent work (structural, MEP, FF&E) shown? Connections to backing / blocking / structure detailed?
4. Performance & product data — Stated performance (U-factor, STC, fire rating, slip resistance, color fastness) matches the spec basis-of-design or exceeds it? Test reports referenced (ASTM, ANSI, NFPA, UL) with current dates?
5. Fabrication feasibility & lead time — Lead time stated and compatible with construction schedule? Fabrication tolerance vs. the contract document tolerance? Long-lead components called out?
6. Code & certification compliance — UL listings, ICC-ES evaluation reports, NFPA test reports, IECC envelope criteria, ADA / ANSI A117.1 dimensions, AHJ-required certifications attached and in-date?
7. Deviations, substitutions & "or equal" claims — Substitutions explicitly flagged with side-by-side comparison vs. basis-of-design? Per A201 §3.4.2, the contractor warrants equivalent products only when so represented. Hidden substitutions are a frequent source of disputes.
8. Owner-furnished, contractor-installed (OFCI) coordination — Items the owner is furnishing (FF&E, AV, signage, art, lab/medical equipment) coordinated with this submittal? Power/data/structural backing accommodated?

Focus on the 3-5 axes with real signal for this submittal. A storefront submittal triggers axes 1, 3, 4, 6 hard; a paint product data sheet triggers 2, 4, 6 lightly. Do not pretend to find issues that aren't there.

Step 4 — Recommend an action stamp

AIA G712-style action stamps (terminology may vary by office; document the office convention if different):

• A — No exceptions taken / Approved — Submittal conforms; work may proceed.
• B — Make corrections noted / Approved as noted — Conforms with minor markups; work may proceed if corrections are incorporated. No resubmittal required.
• C — Revise & resubmit — Substantial nonconformance; resubmit before fabrication.
• D — Rejected — Does not comply or is fundamentally wrong scope; resubmit a different product / fabrication.
• E — Reviewed for record only — Information-only submittal (e.g., maintenance manual at closeout). No action stamp drives fabrication.

The recommended stamp is informed by axes 1 (conformance), 7 (deviations), and any axis where a "below code" finding appears.

Step 5 — Write the review

Read assets/submittal-review-template.md, fill placeholders. Filename:

docs/submittals/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<spec-section>-<slug>.md

Slug rule: lowercase, [^a-z0-9-] removed, max 40 chars, derived from product type + revision (storefront-rev0, roof-membrane-rev1). Spec section uses dot-stripped MasterFormat (08-41-13). If a review with the same date+section+slug already exists, suffix -<n>.

Step 6 — Update the submittal log

python scripts/append_to_index.py \
  --date 2026-05-09 \
  --spec-section "08 41 13" \
  --slug storefront-rev0 \
  --revision 0 \
  --action-stamp B \
  --primary-axes "conformance,performance,deviations"

The script appends a row to docs/submittals/index.md. Do NOT edit the index manually with the Edit tool.

Step 7 — Report

Tell the user:

• Path to the review file.
• The recommended action stamp and the 1-2 most-load-bearing reasons.
• Any follow-up RFI questions the submittal raises.
• If the submittal hides a substitution, flag it explicitly and recommend the contractor refile per A201 §3.4.2.

Rules

• Every deviation cites WHERE the contract requires X and WHY the submittal is showing Y. "This doesn't match the drawings" without a sheet/detail reference is not a finding.
• Distinguish minor markup (B-stamp) from substantive nonconformance (C-stamp). The threshold is whether fabrication can proceed safely with the markup.
• Substitutions: if the submittal lists a product different from the basis-of-design without a substitution form, this is a hidden substitution. Flag it and route through the formal substitution process — never quietly approve.
• For samples and mockups, the review is qualitative (color, finish, joinery) — but the standard for approval is what the spec set as the standard, not personal taste.
• "Or equal" claims are the contractor's warranty, not the architect's. Per A201 §3.4.2, the contractor warrants equivalence; the architect reviews for general conformance.
• Field-verified dimensions: never accept "TBD" or "to be field verified at fab" for dimensions critical to adjacent work. Push back via RFI.

Anti-patterns

• Stamping A on a submittal that contains a substitution. Substitutions need their own process — A on the wrong document signs away the spec.
• Letting B-stamp markup quietly accumulate substantive changes ("approved as noted" on 47 redlined items is a C-stamp masquerading as a B-stamp).
• Assuming the contractor's lead-time claim. Verify against the construction schedule baseline.
• Reviewing a resubmittal without referencing the prior review's comments — if Rev 1 ignored Rev 0 comments, the C-stamp persists.
• "Reviewed for general conformance" without naming the conformance axis. The phrase covers the architect's contract risk only when the review actually documents what was checked.
• Editing index.md manually instead of using append_to_index.py.

Resources

• scripts/init_submittals_workspace.py — bootstrap docs/submittals/ and the submittal log
• scripts/append_to_index.py — append a row to docs/submittals/index.md
• references/submittal_axes.md — eight-axis framework with sub-criteria, common failure modes, example findings tied to typical NA spec sections (storefronts, roofing, MEP, finishes)
• assets/submittal-review-template.md — review markdown template with action-stamp block