Best Practice for Design and Submittal Reviews

Alex Mathers, P.E., CxA, NEBB CP 

Alex@GMCCx.com

Design and submittal reviews should not be optional on most commercial projects. Having an independent third party check the design and the equipment submittals for operability and testability is best practice. The best opportunity to get it right is while the mistakes are on paper instead of in the field. 

California's energy code makes the design and submittal review a requirement. Under Title 24, Part 6, Section 120.8, new nonresidential buildings of 10,000 square feet and up must be commissioned and reviews are part of that process. At 50,000 square feet and above, the review has to come from an independent reviewer rather than the design engineer. CalGreen carries a parallel commissioning requirement for new nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet. 

LEED sets the bar for both reviews. Fundamental Commissioning is a prerequisite and you can’t get a certification without it. The credit requires a review of the owner's project requirements, the basis of design, and the project design. Enhanced Commissioning, the optional credit tier, adds a review of contractor submittals. Either way, the commissioning authority must be independent of the design and construction team. 

On a large share of the work we see, these reviews are requirements rather than nice-to-haves, whether they come from the energy code or a LEED rating system or from the owner as best practice. 

Meeting the requirement and getting value out of it are two different things though. A review only helps the project if the process around it works. A good time and money saving comment does nothing if it sits buried in an email chain or gets reviewed but the design is not revised. 

Running Design and Submittal Reviews That Change the Outcome 

Most advice on design and submittal reviews tells you what to review including equipment sizing, sequences of operation, sensor placement, equipment clearances and product selections. All of which matters, but the technical content is only half the job. The other half is the process that ensures a comment from a markup makes it through to a corrected drawing. 

This post is about the process: how to run a review so the good catches actually land in the drawings, the specs, and the approved submittals. 

Decide who owns what before the first review 

Early in design, the plan for review may not exist yet so the structure must come from somewhere. The owner, or the CM or PM acting for the owner, needs to appoint one person to lead the design review. On most projects that's the owner or the architect. 

Whoever takes the role must stay close to the design. They need a finger on the pulse of the design schedule, have the latest drawings in hand, and have a clear read on where the design process stands. Design reviews should occur during every phase, starting with the basis of design and moving through schematic design, design development, construction documents, and the issued-for-construction set. Each phase needs a formal and scheduled review. 

The design review lead's main job is making sure every party gets a formal opportunity to comment. This takes more coordination than it sounds like. The design review lead needs contacts for the whole project team in order to inform everyone the same four things up front. 

• When the set will be available 

• Where and how it will be reviewed 

• How long reviewers have to comment

• When the review closes 

Most teams run these reviews as live Bluebeam sessions, which is the ideal setup. Everyone sees the comments live in one place as they are made so duplicate comments can be avoided. Reviewers can also build on each other’s comments instead of working blind. 

Track every comment in one place 

Bluebeam is a great tool for the review itself. A reviewer can add an arrow right on the spot in question instead of writing out a document reference so there is no guessing about which detail a comment points to. You can draw, highlight, and add notes until the point is unmistakable. 

However, there are two weaknesses that are worth planning around. 

First, Bluebeam won't produce a design review log on its own. You can export the comments to a CSV file but that file is just the raw list. The visual reference made in the session that made the markup clear doesn't come along. There's no place for responses either. You also lose the line-item format that pairs each comment with a response and tracks it as open or closed. That tracking is what makes a review defensible. Therefore, someone has to build and maintain a design review log outside of Bluebeam. 

Second, the comment record can be temporary. If a session closes before the markups are saved all of the stored comments can disappear. Best practice is to save the file with the markups and responses before closing a session or deleting a document from a session.  

Ideally each comment also gets tagged by impact so the design team can triage them. High can mean the system can't be tested or maintained as designed. Medium means an efficiency or maintenance risk. Low means administrative, clarity, or labeling. Tagging comments by impact keeps the dealbreakers from getting lost under a pile of minor notes. It does add work and that work usually lands on whoever maintains the log.  

Comment Language 

I am of the mind that comments should not be questions. Questions are usually left open ended and are not easily responded to. Comments should be specific statements or requests for clarification. Comments should also not be definitive declarations.  They should say things like, I believe…, it seems… it appears…or please confirm...  

A good comment is descriptive and offers a specific path to resolution. To ensure a quick design review process, specific corrections and alternative suggestions are recommended.  

Make responses formal and specific 

A comment isn't resolved until the designer, architect, or engineer of record picks one of three responses in writing. 

• Incorporated. The change is made and the document is updated. 

• Exception taken. They propose a different solution with a technical reason. 

• Rejected. They give a reason, like budget or owner direction. 

• Deferred.  The change can be made at a later date. 

Written dispositions force a real decision. They also give you a record if the same issue resurfaces during testing and commissioning. 

To help clarify and close the loop on comments, a design review meeting at the end of each design milestone is recommended where high and medium comments are reviewed with the engineer and owner with documentation on what was decided. 

Close comments only when the document proves it 

Here's an important rule that holds the whole process together. A comment can only be closed when the actual contract document reflects the change, not when someone promises to fix it. When the next drawing issue or the approved shop drawing shows the fix, the reviewer verifies it and closes the comment. 

That final backcheck is the step teams skip most. It's also the one that protects the owner. 

Design review plan summary 

1. Ensure there is a design review leader 

2. Notify team when a set will be available for review and the deadline for review 

3. Track and save all comments, responses, and questions 

4. Hold a meeting to clarify and confirm decisions 

5. Backcheck to ensure all comments have been resolved in documentation and closed 

Submittal Reviews 

Best practice for submittal reviews is similar to design reviews, however, the process (but not necessarily the procedure) for submittal reviews is usually spelled out in the Division 1 specification.  

Submittal reviews are typically managed in Procore, ACC, or other cloud based construction tools, but tracking review and comments are not as easy as design reviews.  Instead of one document at a time, submittal reviews can include hundreds of documents at the same time all with different teams submitting and reviewing. There will also be multiple revisions of submittals and each one has to pass through either consecutive or concurrent reviews, each collecting a stamp in addition to comments.  

Because of this, effective submittal review requires a centralized tracking log, and a strict review schedule. I have seen good tracking logs using Excel and Smartsheet. 

While the designers of record and owners review most if not all submittals, the CxA typically reviews submittals for systems within the commissioning scope concurrently with or following the design team’s technical review. My preference is a concurrent review to keep the review schedule on track. Also the CxA reviews without assuming approval authority, which remains with the designer of record. Best practices include defining the review focus and procedures early in the Cx Plan based on the OPR, performing a quick completeness check first, and stopping if major items are missing. 

Prioritizing high-impact items such as HVAC equipment, long lead electrical and BAS submittals is key for submittal review effectiveness. This early, targeted involvement catches issues before installation, reduces costly rework during testing, supports thorough functional verification, and helps ensure systems can be properly commissioned and operated as intended. 

Submittal review plan summary 

1. Ensure there is a review leader 

2. Create and maintain a centralized tracking log 

3. Notify team when submittals will be available for review and the deadline for review 

4. Track and save all comments, responses, and questions 

5. Hold a meeting to clarify and confirm decisions 

6. Backcheck to ensure all comments have been resolved in documentation and closed 

Summary 

Independent design and submittal reviews deliver the greatest return when they are treated as an integrated part of the project delivery process rather than a checkbox. Catching issues while they are still on paper avoids the far higher cost of field corrections, schedule delays, and compromised system performance. 

Best practice centers on clear scope, timely concurrent review, focused comments that address operability and maintainability, and a reliable path for those comments to reach the design and construction teams for resolution. When the commissioning authority’s observations are logged, tracked, and closed out alongside design revisions and approved submittals, the reviews fulfill both the letter of Title 24, CalGreen, and LEED requirements and the practical purpose of producing systems that can be commissioned, operated, and maintained as intended. 

In short, the value of design and submittal reviews is realized only when the process around them works. Independent eyes, early involvement, actionable feedback, and disciplined follow-through turn a code or certification obligation into a meaningful quality-control step that protects the owner’s investment and sets the project up for successful handover.