Revise and resubmit submittal stamps, why packages come back and how to cut review cycles

What the revise and resubmit stamp means

Review stamps vary by design office, but most use the same family of actions, defined in Section 01 33 00 Submittal Procedures and printed on the reviewer's stamp. Reading the definitions in your own project manual matters, because the contractual effect of each action is set there, not by habit.

Revise and resubmit sits between the two outcomes everyone wants and the one everyone fears. The reviewer is saying the approach may be acceptable, but the package as sent cannot be approved. Something is missing, wrong or unclear, and the reviewer has listed what must change. The difference from Approved as noted is that the corrections are big enough, or uncertain enough, that the reviewer wants to see them before work proceeds.

Once the stamp is applied, the ball is back in the contractor's court. The general contractor distributes the comments to the responsible subcontractor, the sub revises, the GC reviews the revision against the comments and the spec, and only then does it go back to the architect. Every handoff is a place where days disappear, which is why tracking ball in court on every revision is as important as tracking the stamp itself.

Why packages come back

Reviewers do not stamp Revise and resubmit for fun. It costs them another review. In practice the reasons repeat across trades and projects, and almost all of them are visible before the package is sent.

• Incomplete package: one product of five is missing, the hardware schedule came without keying, or the roofing package has no fastening pattern.
• Wrong type: product data sent where the spec asked for shop drawings, or no samples where the paragraph called for them.
• Nothing marked: cut sheets with every model and option still visible, so the reviewer cannot tell what is being proposed.
• Unlisted deviation: the product or detail differs from the spec, but the package does not say so, and the reviewer finds it.
• Missing qualifications or certificates that the section lists in the same article, such as installer certification or a manufacturer approval letter.
• No contractor review stamp, or a stamp applied without any visible review.
• Coordination not resolved: shop drawings that leave clashes with structure or other trades as notes to be worked out in the field.
• Old reviewer comments not addressed, on packages that are already a resubmittal.

The last reason deserves attention. A second Revise and resubmit on the same item often means the first set of comments was answered selectively. Reviewers notice, and the third cycle tends to be slower than the second.

Build complete packages from the spec paragraph

The single most effective habit is to assemble each package against the spec paragraph that requires it, not against what the sub sent last time on another job. Open the section, read the Submittals article and the Part 2 products and performance requirements, and check that every listed item is in the package. If 08 71 00 asks for product data, the hardware schedule, keying schedule and templates, the package has four parts, and the reviewer will look for all four.

Add a compliance statement

A short compliance statement on the cover page or transmittal answers the reviewer's first question before it is asked. It lists the spec paragraphs the package responds to and, for each one, says whether the submittal complies, complies with a stated clarification or deviates. It is not a sales letter. It is a table that saves the reviewer from reconstructing your reasoning from a stack of data sheets.

List every deviation in one place

If anything differs from the contract documents, say so on a deviation list and cloud it on the drawings. A visible, explained deviation can be accepted as noted. A hidden one, once found, turns the whole package into a Revise and resubmit and makes the reviewer read the next revision with more suspicion. A good deviation list gives the paragraph, what the spec requires, what is proposed and why, for example a different anchor type because of an embedded condition in the existing structure.

Run a pre-submittal check at the GC

Before forwarding, the GC's project engineer should run the same short checklist the reviewer will run.

• Every item in the Submittals article for this section is present or explicitly marked as following later.
• The proposed model, size and options are marked on every data sheet.
• The compliance statement and deviation list are complete.
• Field dimensions are verified where the spec requires them.
• The GC review stamp is applied and initialed.
• On a resubmittal, each prior comment is answered in writing, item by item.

It takes minutes per package and it is the cheapest review cycle on the project. The construction submittal process page shows how this check fits between the sub's preparation and the architect's review.

How to number and track resubmittals

A resubmittal is the same submittal at a new revision, not a new item. Give it the original number with a revision suffix, so 087100-002 becomes 087100-002-R1, then 087100-002-R2. That keeps the history in one line of the log and makes it obvious that the hardware schedule is on its third trip. Starting a new number for every resubmittal hides the pattern and breaks the link between the comments and the response.

• Keep the original number and add a revision suffix that matches Division 01 (some projects use .1, .2 or Rev A, Rev B).
• Carry the previous stamp and comments forward, and answer them on a response sheet.
• Cloud or highlight what changed since the last revision.
• Record dates for every step: returned to contractor, sent to sub, received back, forwarded to reviewer, stamped.
• Mark superseded revisions clearly, so the field never builds from them.

In a submittal log this shows up as one row per item with a revision count, the current stamp and the date each revision moved. In Submittal, a resubmittal creates the next revision automatically from the returned package, keeps the full history of files, stamps and comments, and shows who holds the ball today. Nothing is overwritten, so anyone can open R0 and see exactly why it came back.

How resubmittals affect the schedule

Every review cycle adds the reviewer's turnaround from Division 01 plus the contractor's own time to revise and recheck. On items with long fabrication or manufacturing lead times, such as switchgear, curtain wall, elevators, rooftop equipment or structural steel, the order cannot be released until the stamp allows it, so each cycle pushes the delivery by roughly its own length. On short lead items the same cycle may cost nothing at all. The point is not to fear every resubmittal, but to know which ones sit on the critical path.

A practical way to see this is to back-calculate from the date the material must be on site: subtract the lead time, subtract the expected review time, subtract the time the sub needs to prepare the package, and you get the date the first submission must leave. If an item gets a Revise and resubmit, the same calculation tells you immediately whether the next revision still makes the required date. Submittal does this calculation on every row, using the review time and lead time you set, and lists the items that are now late or about to be. The submittal tracking software page shows the overdue list and reminders in detail.

What architects can do to reduce cycles

Reviewers have a part in this too. Comments that say what must change, with the spec paragraph, get answered faster than comments that say "does not comply". A clear distinction between Approved as noted and Revise and resubmit, applied consistently, tells the contractor whether to proceed or wait. Many design teams also agree with the GC at the start of construction on which items get a pre-submittal meeting, typically curtain wall, roofing and major MEP equipment, because one meeting is shorter than two review cycles. The architectural submittal page covers how reviewers stamp and comment in Submittal.

Frequently asked questions