Submittal Review Process
Why Incomplete Notes Trigger Rejection
Reviewers Can't Approve What Isn't Defined
Approval reviewers work within strict liability and compliance requirements. When critical specification notes are omitted, they cannot assume design intent. The safest path is to reject the submittal and request clarification.
How Missing Information Creates Delays
Drawing Submitted
↓
Compliance Review
↓
Missing Notes Discovered
↓
Returned For Revision
↓
Schedule Delay
The Reviewer's Responsibility
Plan reviewers are not interpreting drawings—they are verifying compliance. Every item shown on a drawing must be traceable to a code requirement, engineering decision, specification section, or approved project standard. Anything ambiguous becomes a review comment rather than an approval.
Common Reviewer Pain Points
Bearing conditions not stated
Missing deck gauge or profile
Weld pattern not detailed
Camber requirements absent
No design load reference
End conditions undocumented
Composite vs. non-composite deck status unclear
Every Revision Cycle Has a Cost
A returned submittal can easily add 3–7 business days of re-review time before fabrication even starts. Eliminating missing notes and specification gaps before submission is one of the fastest ways to improve approval rates and protect project schedules.
Submittal Approval Checklist
The Most Commonly Missing Deck Notes
NOTES
Five Missing Notes Behind Most Review Comments
Most rejected steel deck and joist submittals are not returned because of complex engineering issues. They are returned because essential information is missing, incomplete, or insufficiently defined for code and specification verification.
01
Deck Profile & Gauge Identification
Every zone must clearly identify deck profile, gauge, span condition, and composite/non-composite status. Generic references without complete designation prevent reviewers from verifying load capacity and specification compliance.
02
Weld Pattern & Fastening Schedule
Weld type, spacing, side-lap fasteners, and diaphragm attachment requirements must be visibly scheduled or referenced to approved details. General statements such as “per manufacturer” are rarely sufficient.
03
Bearing Length at Supports
Minimum bearing requirements must be documented at beams, joists, openings, and special conditions. Reviewers frequently reject drawings that rely on vague language instead of measurable bearing criteria.
04
Camber Callouts on Long-Span Joists
Long-span joists require explicit camber information. Approved camber values must appear on the drawing package rather than existing only in calculations or engineering background documents.
05
Bridging Type, Spacing & Termination
Permanent and erection bridging requirements should be differentiated clearly. Row quantity, spacing, member sizes, termination details, and anchorage requirements all need explicit documentation.
QA
Add These Notes Before You Submit
Reviewing these five areas before issuance can eliminate a significant percentage of avoidable reviewer comments. Complete notes reduce ambiguity, improve first-pass approval rates, and keep fabrication schedules moving forward.
Approval Documentation
Specification Cross-References That Are Often Dropped
SPEC
Drawings Show Intent. Specifications Prove Compliance.
One of the most preventable causes of approval delays is the absence of specification cross-references. A drawing may accurately represent the design, but reviewers cannot verify compliance unless the governing codes, standards, and specification sections are clearly identified on the submittal.
01
SJI Standard References
Every steel joist drawing should reference the applicable Steel Joist Institute standard, including the series designation (K-Series, LH-Series, or DLH-Series) and edition year. A generic note stating “per SJI” leaves reviewers uncertain which load tables and design provisions govern the project.
02
SDI Deck Specifications
Drawings should identify the applicable Steel Deck Institute standard for the deck type being detailed. Whether the project uses composite, non-composite, or roof deck systems, reviewers need clear SDI references to validate diaphragm performance, span limitations, and fire-rating requirements.
03
AWS Welding References
Weld symbols alone are not enough. Deck drawings should reference the governing AWS standard and associated weld procedures. Without documented welding criteria, inspectors lack a defined acceptance standard and reviewers often return the package for clarification.
04
IBC & Local Code Citations
Fire-resistance, occupancy, and code-driven deck requirements should be linked to the applicable IBC sections and approved assembly references. When fire ratings depend on deck profile, slab thickness, or UL assemblies, those requirements should appear directly within the drawing notes.
CODE
Reviewers Need a Clear Compliance Trail
Strong submittals connect every drawing requirement to a governing standard, specification section, or code reference. When those links are visible, reviewers spend less time requesting clarification and more time approving the package.
Schedule & Approval Impact
How These Gaps Cascade Through the Schedule
DELAY
One Missing Note Can Affect the Entire Project Timeline
Missing notes do not create a single review comment—they trigger a chain reaction that impacts engineering review, detailing, procurement, fabrication, erection, and field coordination. What begins as a small documentation gap can ultimately influence the project's critical path.
The Delay Cascade
STEP 01
Incomplete Submittal
Missing notes, specifications, or detailing requirements.
↓
STEP 02
Reviewer Returns Package
EOR, plan reviewer, or inspector requests clarification.
↓
STEP 03
Detailer Revises Drawings
Drawings are updated, reissued, and resubmitted.
↓
STEP 04
Fabrication Release Delayed
Production scheduling, procurement, and site activities are postponed.
The Hidden Cost of Re-Review
Every return cycle creates additional coordination effort. The Engineer of Record must re-review the package, the detailer must revise and reissue documents, and the fabricator must re-queue the order. On fast-track projects tied to concrete pour schedules, a single rejected submittal can affect sequencing far beyond the original drawing package.
Direct Schedule Impacts
✓ Re-review adds 3–7 business days
✓ Fabrication release remains blocked
✓ Multiple packages compound delays
✓ Shop drawing logs become harder to manage
Indirect Cost Impacts
✓ Steel price escalation exposure
✓ Erection crew rescheduling costs
✓ Potential delay claims
✓ BIM coordination model rework
TIME
Complete Drawings Protect the Project Schedule
The fastest project is rarely the one with the fastest detailing team—it is the one with the fewest resubmissions. Investing additional effort in note quality, specification references, and coordination before submission can eliminate weeks of downstream delays and dramatically improve first-pass approval rates.
Submittal Quality Control
A Practical Checklist for First-Pass Approval
QA
Your Final Gate Before Submission
The most reliable way to reduce approval delays is to standardize a pre-submittal review process. Before any deck or joist package leaves your office, verify that every critical note, specification reference, and design requirement has been documented. This checklist represents the information reviewers consistently expect to see.
D
Deck Drawing Essentials
✓ Profile, gauge & span condition
✓ Composite/non-composite zones
✓ AWS weld & fastening schedule
✓ Bearing lengths shown
✓ SDI standard cited
✓ Diaphragm shear reference
✓ Opening reinforcement
J
Joist Drawing Essentials
✓ SJI standard & edition
✓ Camber values identified
✓ Bridging spacing detailed
✓ Bearing at joist seats
✓ Design load schedule
✓ End conditions shown
✓ Uplift requirements noted
CODE
N
General Notes Minimum Set
✓ IBC & ASCE editions
✓ Design load criteria
✓ Material specifications
✓ Inspection requirements
✓ Erection sequence notes
✓ Contractor coordination items
Establish a Submittal Gatekeeper
✓
Consider assigning a senior detailer or BIM coordinator as the final reviewer before package release. Their responsibility is to run through the checklist, verify note completeness, confirm specification references, and flag omissions before the package reaches the reviewer.
PASS
One Review Hour Can Save Weeks of Delay
The cost of a thorough pre-submittal review is almost always lower than the cost of a returned package. Consistent use of a first-pass approval checklist improves drawing quality, reduces reviewer comments, accelerates fabrication release, and keeps the project schedule moving forward.
