Skip to content
    Free Construction Template

    Construction Submittal Log Template

    Track every required submittal in one register — what specification it belongs to, who owns the next action, where it sits in review, whether a resubmittal is required, and what procurement or schedule activity is waiting behind it.

    No email required. Download the log as a CSV for Excel or Google Sheets, or copy the column headers into your existing project-controls tracker.

    What the submittal log looks like

    A preview of the register in use. The downloadable CSV contains only the blank column headers — no example project data.

    • SUB-030
      Long Lead

      Electrical Switchgear Product Data

      Specification Section
      26 24 13
      Workflow Status
      Design Review
      Review Status
      — (in review)
      Responsible Party
      Electrical / MEP
      Required Return
      Mar 20
      Required On Site
      Jun 15
      Priority
      Critical
      Procurement Status
      Release pending
    • SUB-031

      Roofing System Product Data

      Specification Section
      07 54 19
      Workflow Status
      Resubmittal Required
      Review Status
      Revise and Resubmit
      Responsible Party
      Roofing Subcontractor
      Required Return
      Mar 26
      Required On Site
      May 30
      Priority
      High
      Procurement Status
      Waiting on resubmittal
    • SUB-032
      Long Lead

      Aluminum-Framed Storefront Shop Drawings

      Specification Section
      08 41 13
      Workflow Status
      Returned
      Review Status
      Approved as Noted
      Responsible Party
      Storefront Subcontractor
      Required Return
      Mar 14
      Required On Site
      May 20
      Priority
      High
      Procurement Status
      Comments to incorporate before release
    • SUB-033

      Level 3 Carpet Sample

      Specification Section
      09 68 13
      Workflow Status
      Owner Review
      Review Status
      — (in review)
      Responsible Party
      Owner Representative
      Required Return
      Mar 30
      Required On Site
      Jul 10
      Priority
      Normal
      Procurement Status
      Owner selection pending
    • SUB-034

      Door Hardware Product Data

      Specification Section
      08 71 00
      Workflow Status
      Closed
      Review Status
      Approved
      Responsible Party
      Door / Hardware Subcontractor
      Required Return
      Mar 12
      Required On Site
      Jun 01
      Priority
      Normal
      Procurement Status
      Released

    Example data only. Dates, statuses, and project information shown are illustrative and do not represent benchmark review durations or procurement timelines.

    What should a construction submittal log track?

    A useful register answers seven questions: what is required, who has it, what came back, whether it needs another review, when the decision is needed, when the item is needed on site, and what procurement or schedule activity is waiting behind it.

    A useful submittal log does not stop at document status. It shows what procurement or field decision is waiting behind the review.

    Identification

    Enough detail that anyone on the project can find the package and the specification behind it without asking the submitter.

    • Submittal Number
    • Revision
    • Specification Section
    • Submittal Type
    • Subject
    • Project Area / Location

    Project parties

    Who prepared the package, who owns the next action, and who is currently reviewing it.

    • Subcontractor
    • Supplier / Manufacturer
    • Submitted By
    • Responsible Party
    • Reviewer

    Review timing

    Dates are what turn a list of packages into a control. Without them, aging and exposure cannot be read.

    • Planned Submission Date
    • Actual Submission Date
    • Required Return Date
    • Actual Return Date
    • Days in Review

    Workflow and review

    Where the package sits operationally, and separately, what action the reviewer returned.

    • Workflow Status
    • Review Status
    • Resubmittal Required
    • Resubmittal Count
    • Current Review Cycle

    Procurement

    For procurement-sensitive packages, the review date only matters in relation to when material is actually needed.

    • Procurement Lead Time (Days)
    • Fabrication Duration (Days)
    • Required On Site Date
    • Long Lead Item
    • Procurement Status
    • Release Date

    Schedule and priority

    Priority should reflect the work waiting behind the package, not how long the package has been open.

    • Affected Schedule Activity / Milestone
    • Priority

    Connected records and decisions

    Reviews commonly stall on a question or a decision that lives somewhere else on the project.

    • Related RFI
    • Related Change
    • Owner Selection Required
    • Design Decision Required

    Recordkeeping

    What the project can point to later when someone asks what was reviewed, when, and on what basis.

    • Attachments / Link
    • Last Updated
    • Notes

    Recommended submittal workflow statuses

    Workflow status answers one question: where does the package sit operationally right now? These are practical example labels only — organizations and projects commonly use different terminology, and project procedures control.

    Planned
    The required submittal has been identified and scheduled but has not yet entered preparation.
    Draft
    The package is being prepared.
    Contractor Review
    The GC or CM is reviewing the package before routing it onward.
    Submitted
    The package has been formally routed to the next required reviewer.
    Design Review
    An architect, engineer, or other design reviewer currently has the package.
    Owner Review
    An owner decision or selection is currently required.
    Returned
    The reviewer has returned the package and a review action is available.
    Resubmittal Required
    The returned package requires revision and another review cycle.
    Resubmitted
    A revised package has been routed for the next review cycle.
    Ready for Release
    The review cycle is complete for the current process and the item is ready for its applicable procurement, fabrication, or downstream action.
    Closed
    The review and the applicable downstream administrative steps are complete.

    Review status should stay separate from workflow status

    Review status answers a different question: what action came back from the reviewer? Review status terminology and contractual effect vary by project. The contract documents and project procedures control.

    Approved
    The reviewer returned the package without required revisions.
    Approved as Noted
    The reviewer returned the package with comments that commonly must be incorporated before downstream action.
    Revise and Resubmit
    The package requires revision and another review cycle before it can proceed.
    Rejected / Not Approved
    The package as submitted does not satisfy the reviewed requirements.
    Reviewed / No Exceptions Taken
    Terminology used on many projects where the reviewer takes no exception to the submitted information.
    Record / Information Only
    The package is retained for the project record rather than carrying a review action.

    For packages still in review, leave the review status as a neutral value such as “—” rather than inventing a returned result. Overdue is a timing condition, not a review or workflow status, and long lead is a procurement condition — both belong in separate fields.

    How to prioritize submittals in the log

    Priority should reflect the procurement or field work the review is protecting, not how long the package has been sitting.

    Critical
    The review is required to protect an imminent procurement release, fabrication start, delivery, or milestone.
    High
    The package affects near-term procurement or an upcoming schedule activity.
    Normal
    Review is required, but procurement and the affected work still have sufficient lead time.
    Low
    Administrative or non-time-sensitive package.

    These labels are an internal prioritization aid. Project-specific contract documents and procedures govern submittal requirements, review responsibility, approval authority, deviations, procurement release, and contractual effect.

    Required return date and required-on-site date answer different questions

    Required return date

    When the project needs the reviewer action back.

    Required on site date

    When the actual material, product, equipment, or fabricated component is needed for downstream work.

    Between those two dates the project may still have to absorb a resubmittal, a release, purchasing, manufacturing, fabrication, shipping, delivery, and staging.

    A submittal can technically be returned on time and still be too late to protect procurement.

    Why “days in review” matters — and why schedule context matters more

    Days in Review is the fastest way to surface aging packages. Age alone does not determine urgency. Read it alongside:

    • Required Return Date
    • Required On Site Date
    • Procurement Lead Time
    • Fabrication Duration
    • Affected Schedule Activity
    • Priority
    • Responsible Party

    A finish sample in review for two weeks may be less urgent than a switchgear package submitted yesterday if the manufacturing release is approaching.

    Connect submittal review to procurement lead time

    For procurement-sensitive packages, the useful way to plan the register is backward from the date the item is needed on site:

    1. 1Required On Site
    2. 2Shipping
    3. 3Manufacturing / Fabrication
    4. 4Procurement Release
    5. 5Final Review
    6. 6Possible Resubmittal
    7. 7Initial Review
    8. 8Preparation

    Lead times, fabrication durations, and release authority vary widely. A returned review does not automatically authorize procurement on every project — project-specific procedures govern release. Use construction scheduling context to tie the release to the activity that depends on it.

    Do not overwrite the review history when a submittal is resubmitted

    When a package comes back for revision, track each of these separately rather than replacing the prior record:

    • Original submittal
    • Revision
    • Review cycle
    • Prior returned date
    • Prior review status
    • Required corrections
    • Resubmitted date
    • New required return date
    • Current workflow status
    • Final review result

    The current package matters operationally. The full review history matters when the team needs to understand how the decision evolved.

    How to use this submittal log on an active project

    1. 1

      Build the register early

      Identify required submittals from the project requirements before the work reaches the field.

    2. 2

      Work backward from required on site

      Use procurement, fabrication, shipping, review, and potential resubmittal time to plan the submission date.

    3. 3

      Assign responsibility

      Each open package needs one clear next-action owner.

    4. 4

      Track workflow and review separately

      Where the item sits and what action came back are different fields and should stay that way.

    5. 5

      Connect the specification

      Maintain the specification section and the relevant drawing or record context.

    6. 6

      Track each review cycle

      Preserve revisions and resubmittals rather than overwriting the prior review result.

    7. 7

      Connect procurement

      Record long-lead conditions, procurement status, and release timing where relevant.

    8. 8

      Connect the schedule

      Record the affected activity or milestone and the required-on-site date.

    9. 9

      Review open exposure

      Focus meetings on packages where review, procurement, decisions, or field work are at risk.

    10. 10

      Close the item deliberately

      Close the register item only when the review and the applicable downstream administrative steps are complete.

    Example of a construction submittal log

    The same five fictional packages, expanded to show how workflow status, review status, resubmittals, procurement, and required-on-site dates work together.

    SUB-030Design Review— (in review)Long LeadPriority: Critical

    Electrical Switchgear Product Data

    Switchgear product data is with the design reviewer. The package sits ahead of a long manufacturing and delivery window, so the release date — not the return date alone — governs how hard the team chases it.

    Revision
    0
    Specification section
    26 24 13
    Submittal type
    Product Data
    Responsible party
    Electrical / MEP
    Reviewer
    MEP Engineer
    Planned / actual submission
    Mar 04 / Mar 06
    Required / actual return
    Mar 20 / —
    Days in review
    14
    Workflow status
    Design Review
    Review status
    — (in review)
    Resubmittal count
    0
    Procurement lead time (days)
    70
    Fabrication duration (days)
    45
    Required on site
    Jun 15
    Long lead item
    Yes
    Procurement status
    Release pending
    Affected schedule activity
    Electrical room energization
    Related record
    Related RFI: RFI-041
    Decision required
    Design decision required: pending engineer review
    Notes
    Manufacturing release cannot be scheduled until the review action is returned.
    SUB-031Resubmittal RequiredRevise and ResubmitPriority: High

    Roofing System Product Data

    Returned as Revise and Resubmit. The prior review result is preserved and the revised package is tracked as a new review cycle rather than overwriting the original record.

    Revision
    1
    Specification section
    07 54 19
    Submittal type
    Product Data
    Responsible party
    Roofing Subcontractor
    Reviewer
    Architect
    Planned / actual submission
    Feb 20 / Feb 24
    Required / actual return
    Mar 26 / Mar 06
    Days in review
    11
    Workflow status
    Resubmittal Required
    Review status
    Revise and Resubmit
    Resubmittal count
    1
    Procurement lead time (days)
    35
    Fabrication duration (days)
    —
    Required on site
    May 30
    Long lead item
    No
    Procurement status
    Waiting on resubmittal
    Affected schedule activity
    Roof assembly installation
    Related record
    Related change: none identified
    Decision required
    Design decision required: no
    Notes
    Revision 1 in preparation by the roofing subcontractor.
    SUB-032ReturnedApproved as NotedLong LeadPriority: High

    Aluminum-Framed Storefront Shop Drawings

    Review status is Approved as Noted, but the workflow status is Returned because contractor action remains: comments have to be incorporated before the fabrication release.

    Revision
    0
    Specification section
    08 41 13
    Submittal type
    Shop Drawings
    Responsible party
    Storefront Subcontractor
    Reviewer
    Architect
    Planned / actual submission
    Feb 18 / Feb 21
    Required / actual return
    Mar 14 / Mar 12
    Days in review
    19
    Workflow status
    Returned
    Review status
    Approved as Noted
    Resubmittal count
    0
    Procurement lead time (days)
    60
    Fabrication duration (days)
    30
    Required on site
    May 20
    Long lead item
    Yes
    Procurement status
    Comments to incorporate before release
    Affected schedule activity
    Storefront installation
    Related record
    Related RFI: RFI-044
    Decision required
    Owner selection required: no
    Notes
    Next action — incorporate review notes before storefront fabrication release.
    SUB-033Owner Review— (in review)Priority: Normal

    Level 3 Carpet Sample

    The package is waiting on an owner selection, not a design review. Recording the decision requirement separately keeps the item from reading like a stalled design review.

    Revision
    0
    Specification section
    09 68 13
    Submittal type
    Sample
    Responsible party
    Owner Representative
    Reviewer
    Owner Representative
    Planned / actual submission
    Mar 10 / Mar 12
    Required / actual return
    Mar 30 / —
    Days in review
    8
    Workflow status
    Owner Review
    Review status
    — (in review)
    Resubmittal count
    0
    Procurement lead time (days)
    25
    Fabrication duration (days)
    —
    Required on site
    Jul 10
    Long lead item
    No
    Procurement status
    Owner selection pending
    Affected schedule activity
    Level 3 finishes
    Related record
    Related change: none identified
    Decision required
    Owner selection required: yes
    Notes
    Selection expected at the next owner meeting.
    SUB-034ClosedApprovedPriority: Normal

    Door Hardware Product Data

    Reviewed, released, and closed. The register item was closed only after the release was recorded and the current information reached the responsible subcontractor.

    Revision
    0
    Specification section
    08 71 00
    Submittal type
    Product Data
    Responsible party
    Door / Hardware Subcontractor
    Reviewer
    Architect
    Planned / actual submission
    Feb 26 / Feb 27
    Required / actual return
    Mar 12 / Mar 10
    Days in review
    11
    Workflow status
    Closed
    Review status
    Approved
    Resubmittal count
    0
    Procurement lead time (days)
    40
    Fabrication duration (days)
    —
    Required on site
    Jun 01
    Long lead item
    No
    Procurement status
    Released
    Affected schedule activity
    Door and hardware installation
    Related record
    Related RFI: none
    Decision required
    Design decision required: no
    Notes
    Release date recorded; package distributed to the field team.

    Example data only. Dates, statuses, and project information shown are illustrative and do not represent benchmark review durations or procurement timelines.

    Submittal package vs. submittal log — what is the difference?

    Submittal package

    Contains the actual information being reviewed. Depending on the requirement, it may include:

    • Shop drawings
    • Product data
    • Samples
    • Calculations
    • Certifications
    • Supporting documentation
    construction submittal process

    Submittal log

    Tracks every required package across the project, including:

    • Responsibility
    • Workflow
    • Review result
    • Dates
    • Revisions
    • Procurement
    • Schedule connection
    • Overall exposure

    Why one “Status” column is usually not enough

    Submittal
    SUB-032
    Review status
    Approved as Noted
    Workflow status
    Returned
    Next action
    Incorporate review notes before storefront fabrication release.

    If the register only stores “Approved as Noted,” leadership cannot tell whether the package still needs contractor action, has been released, is waiting on procurement, or has reached the affected field team.

    Review status describes the decision. Workflow status describes the work still moving around that decision.

    Why keep a formal submittal log if the team already uses email and meetings?

    Email and meetings remain useful for communication, comments, coordination, and decisions. What they do not automatically create is one controlled register of:

    • Every required package
    • Specification section
    • Current responsibility
    • Review cycle
    • Returned action
    • Required return date
    • Required-on-site date
    • Resubmittal history
    • Procurement status
    • Schedule exposure
    • Final closeout

    Communication and project control are different jobs.

    Submittal metrics worth reviewing

    • Open submittals
    • Submittals in contractor review
    • Submittals in design review
    • Submittals awaiting owner decision
    • Packages due this week
    • Packages past project-defined required return dates
    • Returned packages
    • Revise-and-resubmit items
    • Resubmittal count
    • Average review duration
    • Median review duration
    • Long-lead submittals
    • Submittals awaiting procurement release
    • Submittals affecting upcoming activities
    • Submittals by responsible party
    • Submittals by reviewer
    • Submittals by subcontractor
    • Submittals by specification section
    • Submittals by workflow status
    • Submittals by review status
    • Required-on-site exposure

    Total submittal count does not tell the team which packages are putting procurement or field execution at risk.

    Common submittal log mistakes

    • Collapsing everything into one generic Status column.
    • No required-on-site date, so procurement exposure is invisible.
    • No required return date, which makes overdue meaningless.
    • No responsible party, so the package belongs to everyone and nobody.
    • No specification section, so the package cannot be traced back to the requirement.
    • Resubmittals overwriting the prior review history.
    • No procurement status alongside the review status.
    • No long-lead indicator, so critical packages read like routine ones.
    • No affected schedule activity, so priority becomes a guess.
    • Owner decisions tracked only in email.
    • Design decisions tracked only in email.
    • Marking a returned package closed before comments or release actions are complete.
    • The field team cannot find the current returned information.

    When is a submittal spreadsheet enough?

    A spreadsheet can work well when:

    • Submittal volume is manageable
    • One person clearly owns the register
    • Routing is straightforward
    • Review parties are consistent
    • Project dates are maintained
    • Revisions are manageable
    • Procurement connections are limited
    • Schedule links are easy to track
    • The team reviews the register consistently
    • Portfolio rollups are not required

    If that describes the project, use the CSV. The discipline of maintaining the register matters more than the software holding it.

    When the log stops scaling

    The spreadsheet tracks the package. The workflow still has to move it.

    As projects and portfolios grow, teams commonly start needing:

    • Multiple submitters
    • Multiple reviewers
    • Automatic routing
    • Notifications
    • Role-based access
    • Revision history
    • Document attachments
    • Linked RFIs
    • Linked changes
    • Procurement status
    • Required-on-site dates
    • Schedule connections
    • Owner decisions
    • Design decisions
    • Project-wide visibility
    • Cross-project reporting
    • A complete audit trail

    The spreadsheet usually does not fail because it cannot hold another row. It fails when every review, handoff, release, and reminder around the row must be managed manually.

    Submittal management in Jet.Build

    Move from a submittal log to a connected project workflow.

    Jet.Build keeps submittals connected to the project information behind them — including documents, RFIs, approvals, schedules, changes, responsibilities, and reporting — so teams can see both the review status and the work waiting behind it. That covers a centralized submittal register, review workflows, status and responsibility, revision history, document attachments, related RFIs and project changes, schedule context, and project and portfolio reporting.

    Teams can use Jenny to surface underlying project records and summarize project information, while review decisions and project responsibility remain with the project team. Where dates drive procurement, submittal records can be read alongside construction scheduling.

    Explore Project Management Explore Document Management

    Related submittal and project-control resources

    What Is a Submittal in Construction?Understand submittal types, responsibilities, review workflow, resubmittals, procurement, and schedule implications.What Is an RFI in Construction?Understand how construction teams document questions and clarifications that may affect a submittal or downstream work.What Is a Change Order in Construction?Understand how issues move from clarification into pricing, schedule review, approval, and formal change control.Construction Project ManagementKeep RFIs, submittals, documents, approvals, and project responsibilities connected.Construction Document ManagementKeep current shop drawings, product data, specifications, and supporting project documents organized.Construction Scheduling SoftwareConnect submittal, procurement, and review decisions to activities, milestones, and required-on-site dates.Workflow AutomationRoute project reviews and approvals with clearer responsibility and preserved history.

    See how Jet.Build keeps submittals connected to procurement and schedule.

    Take about 30 minutes with our team to see how Jet.Build connects submittals, documents, review workflows, RFIs, schedules, changes, and reporting across active projects.

    Schedule a Demo