Submittal review remains one of the most common sources of professional liability disputes in design and construction. The reason isn’t that the process itself is flawed—it’s that its purpose is often misunderstood by project participants.
Most owner-architect and owner-engineer agreements clearly state that submittal review is performed solely to determine whether a contractor’s submission is in general conformance with the design intent. It is not an approval of the contractor’s means and methods, fabrication, installation, sequencing, or final product performance.
Yet as projects progress, that important distinction is frequently lost.
When problems emerge months—or even years—later, submittal stamps, review notations, and approval language are often cited as evidence that the design professional accepted responsibility for much more than the contract intended. Terms such as “approved,” “reviewed,” or “no exceptions taken” can become focal points in litigation, with claimants arguing that these notations represent acceptance of the final product, installation, or system performance.
The Documentation Gap
In many claims, the issue is not that a submittal review occurred. The real problem is the gap between what the design professional believed the review covered and what others later argue that review represented.
This gap becomes even more problematic when the project record contains:
- Inconsistent review stamp language
- Informal email approvals
- Shorthand review comments
- Verbal direction that is never documented
- Communications that conflict with the formal contract language
Even when the contract clearly limits the scope of review, isolated phrases pulled from project correspondence can create the appearance that broader responsibilities were assumed.
A Strong Submittal Process Reduces Risk
An effective submittal process should create a clear record of three things:
- What was reviewed
- What was not reviewed
- What remained the contractor’s responsibility
The objective is not to avoid submittal review. Rather, it is to eliminate ambiguity about the scope and effect of that review.
Clear documentation helps protect everyone involved by aligning the project record with the contractual allocation of responsibilities.
Claim Example
In one matter involving an MEP engineer, shop drawings for a mechanical system were reviewed and returned without significant comment. The contractor subsequently installed equipment that failed to perform as intended because of a combination of product limitations and installation deficiencies.
The owner alleged that the engineer had effectively “approved” the system through the submittal review process. Although the engineer’s contractual review was limited to confirming general conformance with the design intent, the project documentation did not clearly reinforce that limitation.
The dispute ultimately focused less on the mechanical failure itself and more on what the engineer’s review did—and did not—include.
The owner sought approximately $1.2 million in damages, including replacement equipment, corrective construction, extended general conditions, and alleged loss-of-use costs. Although the engineer maintained strong contractual defenses, the ambiguity in the submittal documentation contributed to lengthy litigation and significant defense expenses.
The matter was ultimately resolved through a negotiated settlement, with the engineer contributing a portion of the settlement to avoid the continuing costs of litigation and the uncertainty of how a fact-finder might interpret the project record.
The case illustrates an important lesson: even when the contract is favorable, unclear documentation can substantially increase defense costs, prolong disputes, and create settlement pressure.
Risk Management Recommendations
Design professionals can significantly reduce exposure by implementing consistent submittal review practices.
Consider the following best practices:
- Ensure review stamps and transmittal language are consistent with the contract documents.
- Escalate significant substitutions, deviations, or performance concerns rather than treating them as routine submittals.
- Clearly identify when resubmittals are required and specify what must be corrected.
- Keep communications with contractors and owners consistent so informal discussions do not conflict with the formal project record.
- Continually reinforce that submittal review is limited to confirming general conformance with the design intent—not construction means, methods, installation, or field performance.
- Use standardized review language that expressly disclaims responsibility for construction methods, sequencing, safety, and field conditions.
- Document assumptions, incomplete information, and any deviations from the design documents.
- Avoid informal approvals that are not incorporated into the official project record.
Don’t Let Submittals Become Design Services
Design professionals should also resist the temptation to use the submittal process to redesign a project in real time.
When a submittal exposes a design issue, product limitation, or coordination conflict, the appropriate response is to document it as a project issue requiring formal evaluation and resolution. If additional design services are needed, the scope, compensation, and responsibilities for those services should be clearly defined.
Attempting to solve design problems through routine submittal comments can blur professional responsibilities and create unnecessary liability.
The Bottom Line
Submittal review is an essential part of virtually every construction project. However, it becomes a significant risk management issue when the purpose and limitations of that review are not clearly documented.
The strongest defense is not simply having the right contract language—it is ensuring that every review stamp, comment, email, and project communication consistently reflects that language.
When documentation and practice remain aligned, submittal review fulfills its intended purpose while minimizing the potential for costly misunderstandings and professional liability claims.
Find out more HERE.