The Submittal Is Still Waiting. Which Site Decision Is Waiting With It?
Submittal approval is often treated as a document workflow, but its real consequence is physical: procurement cannot release, fabrication cannot start, or a workfront cannot open. Approval status should be tied to site need.
The short answer
A submittal is not important because it is “pending”. It is important because something physical may be waiting behind it.
The most useful approval control connects each critical submittal to the procurement release, fabrication milestone or workfront that depends on the decision.
Without that context, a project can have a tidy submittal register and still discover too late that one approval has quietly become a programme constraint.
“Under review” can hide a very different reality on site
Submittal registers often look administrative.
Submitted. Under review. Returned. Resubmitted. Approved.
Those statuses describe the document process accurately.
They do not describe the consequence.
A material may be sitting with a supplier who cannot start fabrication. A subcontractor may be waiting to release shop drawings. A crew may be preparing for work that depends on an approval still sitting in someone’s inbox.
The register says “under review”.
The site says “not ready”.
That difference is what management needs to see.
Not every submittal deserves the same urgency
Projects can produce hundreds or thousands of submittals.
Treating them all as equally urgent creates noise.
The better approach is to understand dependency.
Which submittals affect long-lead procurement?
Which sit in front of fabrication?
Which are required before installation, inspection or testing?
Which have enough float that normal review time is acceptable?
This is similar to RFI priority. The issue is not simply age.
A decision becomes important when the project is about to depend on it.
That is why submittal control should follow the site need date backward, not the submission date forward.
Approval duration is part of the programme whether the programme shows it or not
Programmes often include procurement and installation activities while treating approval as background administration.
That can create unrealistic dates.
If a package requires shop-drawing review, sample approval and material approval before manufacture can begin, those decisions are part of the critical sequence.
The project should be able to see the relationship.
This does not mean every submittal needs a detailed activity in the master programme.
It means the critical approval chain should be understood for the workfronts that matter next.
The broader design-to-workfront readiness view depends on this connection between information and physical execution.
Resubmission cycles can consume more time than the original review
A project may assume that once a submittal is made, the approval clock has started.
In practice, the first return may generate comments that require design coordination, supplier clarification or new samples.
The second cycle can take longer than the first.
This is why first-pass quality matters.
A rushed submittal that is incomplete or poorly coordinated can create the appearance of early action while actually delaying the final decision.
For critical packages, the contractor should ask whether the submission is genuinely ready for review before sending it.
The objective is not perfection. It is to reduce avoidable loops.
Approval is not the same as release unless the downstream team knows
A material can be approved and still remain commercially or operationally stuck.
Procurement may not know the status changed. The supplier may still be waiting for formal release. The subcontractor may be working from an earlier comment set.
Approval needs to travel.
The relevant people should understand what changed and what action can now proceed.
This is especially important where approval conditions exist.
An “approved as noted” response may permit progress but still require a change in fabrication or installation detail.
The team has to interpret the approval operationally, not just update the register.
The strongest submittal review focuses on consequences, not paperwork
Senior management does not need to see every submission.
It needs visibility of the approvals that can materially affect programme, procurement or quality.
A useful exception view might show:
- critical approvals approaching their latest decision date;
- resubmissions with repeated comments;
- packages where fabrication cannot start;
- workfronts approaching without complete approval;
- approvals received but not yet released downstream.
This keeps management attention on decisions rather than document volume.
It also makes conversations with consultants and clients more productive because the contractor can explain exactly what the outstanding response is affecting.
The project should also watch repeated resubmission themes. If the same package keeps returning for coordination, missing information or non-compliance, the problem may sit upstream in the preparation process rather than with the reviewer.
That insight can improve future submissions and protect programme float more effectively than simply chasing faster approval.
The same principle applies when approval responsibility is shared across several parties.
A specialist subcontractor may prepare the submission. The main contractor checks it. A consultant reviews it. The client may need to approve a finish or sample. Procurement waits at the end of the chain.
Each party can complete its own step within a reasonable period and the total cycle can still become too long for the site.
The project therefore needs to understand the whole approval path, not only the current owner.
This is particularly important when a package contains several linked submissions. A shop drawing may depend on a material selection. Fabrication may depend on both. Installation may depend on inspection or mock-up acceptance.
Looking at each submittal separately can hide the fact that the package as a whole is still blocked.
For critical packages, management should think in terms of approval chains.
What is the final decision the supplier needs before it can commit? Which upstream submission controls that decision? How much review time and rework should the programme realistically allow?
These questions produce better dates than simply assuming one standard turnaround for every submission.
They also help the project identify where acceleration is actually useful. Chasing a reviewer for a document that does not release anything may create noise. Resolving the one approval that unlocks fabrication can protect weeks.
Good submittal control is therefore selective and consequence-driven.
The objective is not to make the document register look green. It is to get the right technical decisions to the right package before the programme begins depending on them.
This also changes how senior management should interpret approval statistics.
A high percentage of approved submittals can look reassuring while the few remaining items sit directly in front of critical work.
Conversely, a large number of open submittals may be harmless if they relate to later phases.
The percentage is therefore less important than the concentration of consequence.
Management should ask which approvals are currently on the path to procurement, fabrication or site release.
That question turns the register from a volume measure into a production-control view.
It also prevents teams from spending disproportionate effort closing easy submissions simply to improve the headline metric while critical decisions remain unresolved.
There is a similar lesson for programme reporting. When a package slips because approval took longer than assumed, the project should update future approval expectations rather than repeatedly planning around an unrealistic standard duration.
Different packages carry different review complexity.
A finish sample, specialist system, structural connection and standard material data sheet should not automatically be given the same planning assumption.
Learning from actual approval cycles makes future lookaheads more credible and reduces the number of “surprise” delays that were actually predictable from earlier experience.
That learning is especially valuable on repeat packages, where realistic approval assumptions can be built into future procurement and programme planning from the outset.
Realistic review timing protects both procurement and site execution.
Where Epicor Saturn fits in approval control
Epicor provides the enterprise-grade ERP foundation for purchasing, approvals, finance and business governance. Epicor Saturn adds the construction and engineering project layer that relates submittal status to packages, procurement, programme and workfront readiness.
The value is the connection between a document decision and the physical or commercial action waiting behind it.
Epicor Saturn provides the project-centric industry structure while Epicor supplies the enterprise-grade transactional backbone underneath it. Explore Epicor Saturn for construction and engineering.
Frequently asked questions
Should all submittals be tracked with the same priority?
No. Priority should reflect the project decision or workfront that depends on the approval.
Why is first-pass quality important?
Incomplete or poorly coordinated submissions create extra review cycles and consume programme float.
Does approval automatically mean procurement can proceed?
Not always. Conditions, commercial release or communication to the supplier may still be required.
What should management see?
The critical approvals that threaten procurement, fabrication, installation or quality—not every document in the register.