Datum Beta
Start free

← Practice Management

Sheet G-112
PjMCE PcM

Construction Administrationconcept

Submittals, shop drawings, and RFIs: scope and limits of architect's review

One-line orientation

Contractors use submittals and shop drawings to show how they plan to build the work. They use a Request for Information (RFI) to ask for clarification. The architect’s review is limited.

Key points

  • Submittals and shop drawings: Documents, product data, and samples prepared by the contractor or subcontractors showing how the work will be constructed. They illustrate the contractor’s plan for executing the design.
    • The contractor must review and approve submittals before forwarding them to the architect (A201, Article 3 responsibility).
    • The architect checks whether the submittal generally matches the contract documents and design intent. This is a limited review, not a check of every dimension, quantity, field condition, or construction method. The architect may identify a discrepancy, but the review does NOT verify the accuracy or completeness of dimensions and quantities, field measurements, fabrication processes, coordination, or construction means and methods — those remain the contractor’s responsibility.
    • Common review responses: “no exceptions taken” (approved to proceed), “make corrections noted” (minor corrections, proceed with noted changes), “revise and resubmit” (not acceptable, must redo), “rejected” (does not conform).
  • RFI (Request for Information): A formal written inquiry from the contractor seeking clarification or interpretation of the contract documents. Each RFI is documented on the AIA standard RFI form (AIA Document G716); the RFIs themselves are numbered and tracked in a separate log. Response is the architect’s interpretation — it does not change the contract (a change in scope still requires a CO or CCD).
  • Substitution request: Separate from a submittal — the contractor proposes a product not originally specified. Requires justification and architect/owner approval. CSI Form 13.1A is commonly referenced.

Submittal, RFI, substitution: parallel paths, different purposes

Three construction-phase exchanges use the same actor columns.

View diagram Hide diagram

Scroll horizontally to explore

Submittal, RFI, and substitution workflows aligned to shared contractor, architect, and response columns Three left-to-right workflow lanes share Contractor, Architect, and Written response columns. Each lane is introduced by a line glyph of the artifact it moves: a stamped drawing sheet for the submittal, a sheet carrying a question mark for the RFI, and one product box swapped for another for the substitution. The submittal lane begins with the contractor reviewing, approving, and verifying the submittal before sending it to the architect; that cell also notes that a submittal documents the specified product. The architect then performs a limited review for conformance with information in the Contract Documents and the expressed design concept, and returns a written response. The RFI lane begins with the contractor requesting clarification of the documents; the architect interprets and logs the response on G716; the written response does not itself change the contract, and added work requires a Change Order or Construction Change Directive. The substitution lane, labeled CSI Form 13.1A, begins with the contractor proposing a product not originally specified; the architect evaluates the request, which requires justification plus architect and owner approval; the written response accepts or rejects it, and an accepted substitution requires a Change Order. The architect column is the only blue column. A compact amber note under the contractor column lists materials, field measurements, field criteria, coordination, and means and methods as contractor verification responsibilities. CONTRACTORARCHITECTRESPONSESUBMITTALshop drawingReviews + approvesverifies before sendingdocuments the specified productReviews submittalconformance + design conceptWritten responseno exceptions / reviseRFIclarification requestRequests clarificationquestion about documentsInterprets documentsarchitect responselogged on G716Written responsedoes not change contractadded work → CO / CCDSUBSTITUTIONCSI Form 13.1AProposes a substitutionproduct not originally specifiedEvaluates the requestarchitect + owner approvaljustification requiredWritten responseaccepted or rejectedif accepted → COCONTRACTOR VERIFIESmaterials · field measurementsfield criteria · coordinationmeans and methods

Architect review may identify a dimensional conflict, but it does not verify dimensional accuracy, quantities, field measurements, or coordination—or transfer that responsibility from the contractor.

Confusions / comparison

Submittal / Shop DrawingRFISubstitution Request
PurposeShow HOW contractor will build specified elementsRequest clarification/interpretation of documentsPropose an alternate product not in specs
Who initiatesContractorContractor (or sub)Contractor
Architect’s roleLimited conformance/design-concept reviewInterpret contract documents; respond in writingEvaluate and approve or reject
What architect does NOT verifyDimensional accuracy, quantities, field measurements, coordination, fabrication, means & methodsN/AN/A
Changes contract?NoNo (unless response triggers a CO/CCD)Requires CO if accepted

→ pp-change-order-vs-ccd (this module): when an architect’s clarification requires a formal contract modification · pp-architect-site-observation-duties (this module): the architect’s site visit role, including rejecting nonconforming work · pp-payment-certification-g702 (this module): pay application review, another architect CA responsibility.

Spotted an issue with this card? Tell us →

Related units

Observe vs inspectChange Order vs CCD vs Minor ChangeLiquidated vs consequential damagesPayment Certification & G702