How to Set Up a Shop Drawing Review Process (Step by Step)

Short answer: A shop drawing review process is the repeatable sequence a design team uses to receive a contractor's submittal, log it, review it for conformance with the design intent, record a decision with an approval stamp, and track it until any revise-and-resubmit items are closed. The reviewer confirms general conformance with the design — not the contractor's means, methods, or dimensions. Archi Check gives that process a structure: submittals reviewed on a two-screen workflow, comments tracked with owners and statuses, stamps applied as presets, and open items that stay open until they are verified and closed.

Shop drawings are where the design leaves the architect's hands and meets the people who actually fabricate and install. A steel detailer, a curtain-wall supplier, or a millwork shop takes the contract drawings and produces the detailed, dimensioned drawings they will build from. Before that work proceeds, the design team reviews those submittals — and the quality of that review, more than almost anything else, decides whether the building matches the design.

The trouble is that most review processes are improvised. A submittal arrives by email, someone marks it up, a stamp goes on, and it goes back. There is rarely a log, rarely a clear owner, and rarely any record that the corrections asked for were actually made. This guide sets out how to build a review process that is repeatable, attributable, and closes its own loops — and where a purpose-built tool fits into it.

What a shop drawing review process actually does

It helps to be precise about what this process is for, because the wrong mental model is where most disputes begin. A shop drawing review is not a redesign, and it is not a re-checking of the contractor's arithmetic. The design professional reviews the submittal for general conformance with the information in the contract documents — the design intent — and nothing more.

That boundary is deliberate and it carries legal weight. Under the standard forms of agreement, the architect's review of submittals is for the limited purpose of checking conformance with the design concept. It is not an approval of dimensions, quantities, fabrication processes, or the means and methods of construction, which remain the contractor's responsibility. This is exactly why many design offices have moved away from the word "approved" on a submittal stamp and toward language like "no exceptions taken" — the wording is a piece of risk management, not a stylistic choice.

So the job of the process is narrow but critical: confirm that what the contractor proposes to build is consistent with the design, flag anything that is not, record the decision so it is attributable, and make sure any required corrections come back and are confirmed. A good process does those four things every time, regardless of who is reviewing or how busy the project is.

The seven steps of a repeatable review process

A review process you can rely on is a sequence, not a habit. The steps below are the spine of it. They apply whether you review on paper, in a generic PDF tool, or in dedicated QC software — the difference is how much of the bookkeeping you have to do by hand.

1. Receive the submittal

The submittal arrives, ideally through a single defined channel rather than scattered across inboxes. Before it enters review, confirm it is complete and that the contractor has done their own review first — a submittal the contractor has not checked and stamped is not ready for the design team, and reviewing it wastes a turnaround cycle. Record what was received: the item, the revision, the date, and who sent it.

2. Log it in a register

Every submittal gets an entry in a register the moment it arrives. The register is the spine of the whole process: a submittal number, the spec section it relates to, the date received, the required return date, the assigned reviewer, and a status. Without a register you cannot answer the two questions that matter most on a busy project — what is outstanding, and what is overdue.

3. Assign the reviewer

Route each submittal to the right reviewer. A structural connection detail goes to the engineer; a finishes submittal goes to the architect or interiors lead; a submittal that crosses disciplines may need more than one. Defining who reviews what in advance prevents the common failure where a submittal sits unassigned because nobody is sure it is theirs.

4. Run the review passes

The review itself is best done in defined passes rather than one undifferentiated read. A first pass checks completeness and scope — is this the right submittal, does it cover what it should, is it the correct revision. A second pass checks conformance with the design intent against the contract drawings and specifications. A third pass coordinates the submittal against adjacent work and other disciplines, because a detail that is correct in isolation can still clash with something next to it. Marking up in passes is faster and more reliable than trying to catch everything at once.

5. Record the decision with a stamp

Every reviewed submittal gets a decision, and the decision is recorded as a stamp: accepted, accepted with noted corrections, revise and resubmit, or rejected. The stamp is the formal output of the review — it tells the contractor what they may now do. Getting the stamp wording right matters as much as getting the markup right, which is covered in more depth in the stamps guide linked below.

6. Track turnaround

The clock matters. Specifications often allow two to three weeks for review, and the contract typically requires review with "such reasonable promptness as to cause no delay." A submittal that sits too long delays fabrication and gives the contractor a schedule claim; a submittal rushed through too fast invites errors. Tracking the date received against the required return date — and acting on what is overdue — keeps the process honest in both directions.

7. Close the loop on revise-and-resubmit

This is the step almost everyone gets wrong. When a submittal is stamped revise and resubmit, the loop is open: the contractor must make the corrections and return the submittal for another pass. The failure mode is that the revised submittal comes back, gets a quick approval, and nobody confirms that the specific corrections asked for were actually made. An open item that is never verified and closed is, in practice, a review that did not happen. The process is not finished when the stamp goes on — it is finished when the corrected work is confirmed against the original comments and the item is closed.

Who reviews, and what they are confirming

A review process only works if the roles are clear, because an unowned submittal is a stalled submittal. The roles below are typical of a design-team review, though titles vary by office.

• Project lead or architect of record. Owns the submittal log, sets the review priorities, and makes the final call on the decision and stamp for design-critical items.
• Discipline reviewer. The architect, engineer, or specialist who actually marks up the submittal — checking conformance with the design intent for their scope.
• Coordinator. Checks the submittal against adjacent disciplines and previously approved submittals, so a conforming detail does not clash with neighbouring work.
• Document controller. Logs submittals in and out, tracks turnaround against the required dates, and chases overdue items so nothing falls off the register.

Whatever the title, every reviewer is confirming the same narrow thing: that the submittal conforms in general with the design intent. They are not approving dimensions the contractor is responsible for, not signing off fabrication methods, and not taking on the means and methods of construction. Keeping that boundary explicit in your process — and in your stamp wording — is what protects the design team. For a fuller breakdown of who does what across a QC effort, see the roles guide below.

The stamp decision: tying the review to an outcome

The stamp is where the review becomes an instruction. Each decision maps to a clear status and a clear permission for the contractor, and the whole process depends on those being unambiguous.

The two middle rows are where projects get into trouble. "Approved as noted" is efficient because it avoids a full round trip for minor comments, but it only works if someone later confirms the noted corrections were actually incorporated — otherwise the contractor proceeds and whether the notes were honoured is anyone's guess. "Revise and resubmit" keeps the review formally open, which is safer, but it costs a turnaround cycle. Choosing between them honestly, and tracking the open items either creates, is the discipline that makes the stamp meaningful. For what each stamp commits you to, see drawing approval stamps explained.

A worked example: a steel connection submittal

The steps are easier to see on a concrete item. Consider a structural steel connection submittal arriving mid-project.

• Received. The detailer's submittal for a transfer-beam connection arrives, revision A, already stamped by the contractor. The document controller logs it: submittal 042, spec section 05 12 00, received 3 June, return due 17 June.
• Assigned. Routed to the structural engineer as primary reviewer, with the architect flagged to coordinate the connection against a ceiling soffit that runs close to it.
• Pass one. The engineer confirms it is the right connection, the correct revision, and covers the full joint.
• Pass two. Checking against the design, the bolt grade matches but one weld size is below what the contract drawings call for.
• Pass three. The architect's coordination check finds the connection plate would foul the soffit by 40 mm.
• Decision. Two comments, both substantive, so the submittal is stamped revise and resubmit rather than approved as noted. Each comment is recorded with an owner — the detailer — and an open status.
• Closed. Revision B returns on 12 June. The engineer confirms the weld size is corrected; the architect confirms the plate now clears the soffit. Both comments are verified against the originals and closed. Only then is submittal 042 marked approved.

The point of the example is the last line. The submittal is not closed when revision B arrives — it is closed when the two specific corrections are confirmed against the comments that triggered them. A process that skips that confirmation is the most common way a reviewed submittal still ends up wrong on site.

Where Archi Check fits

Everything above is doable with a spreadsheet register and a PDF markup tool, but the bookkeeping is manual and the loops leak. Archi Check is purpose-built QC software for architectural drawing sets, and it gives a shop drawing review the structure the process needs without adding overhead.

Submittals are reviewed on a two-screen workflow: the register and comment list live on one monitor while the full-size drawing is marked up on the other, so the reviewer never loses the thread between what they are flagging and where it sits on the log. Every markup becomes a tracked comment with an owner and a status, so the revise-and-resubmit items from your review are real open items, not notes in a margin. The stamp decision is applied from built-in presets — APPROVED, REVISE, REJECTED, FOR REVIEW, AS BUILT — and each stamp carries the reviewer's name, the date, and the revision it was placed on.

The part that matters most for shop drawings is the loop. Archi Check runs every comment through Check → Correct → Verify → Close: a comment is raised on review, assigned to whoever owns the fix, corrected on the resubmittal, verified by someone other than the author, and only then closed. A revise-and-resubmit item cannot quietly disappear, because it stays open until it is verified and closed, and the whole sequence is captured in an audit trail you can replay later. Because Archi Check keeps your QC data in your own project folders rather than a vendor cloud, that audit trail belongs to you. It runs on Windows today, with macOS coming soon, and there is a 14-day free trial.

FAQ

What is a shop drawing review process?

It is the repeatable sequence a design team uses to handle a contractor's submittal: receive it, log it in a register, assign a reviewer, review it for conformance with the design intent, record a decision with an approval stamp, track turnaround, and close out any revise-and-resubmit items. The aim is to make every review attributable, consistent, and complete rather than improvised case by case.

What is the reviewer actually checking on a shop drawing?

The reviewer checks the submittal for general conformance with the design intent in the contract documents. They are not approving the contractor's dimensions, quantities, fabrication processes, or the means and methods of construction, which remain the contractor's responsibility. This limited purpose is why many offices stamp submittals "no exceptions taken" rather than "approved."

How long should shop drawing review take?

Specifications commonly allow two to three weeks, but most contracts simply require review with reasonable promptness so as to cause no delay to the work, because submittals vary widely in complexity. The practical discipline is to track each submittal's received date against a required return date and to act on overdue items, so review is neither so slow that it delays fabrication nor so rushed that it misses errors.

What does "revise and resubmit" mean and how do you close it?

"Revise and resubmit" means the submittal does not conform as submitted; the contractor must make the marked corrections and return it for another review. You close the loop by confirming, when the revised submittal arrives, that each specific correction asked for was actually made — verifying it against the original comments — and only then marking the item closed. An open item that is never verified is effectively a review that did not happen.

What is the difference between "approved as noted" and "revise and resubmit"?

"Approved as noted" lets the contractor proceed provided the marked corrections are incorporated, without a formal resubmission, which is efficient but relies on someone later confirming the corrections were made. "Revise and resubmit" does not let the work proceed — the submittal must come back for another pass — which keeps the review formally open at the cost of a turnaround cycle. Choosing honestly between them is part of a sound process.

Give your review process a structure

A shop drawing review only protects a project if every decision is logged, owned, and followed through to a verified close. If your submittals still move on email and live as ink on a printout, see how Archi Check turns the whole process into a tracked, auditable workflow: Try Archi Check free for 14 days.

Related guides

Keep building out your drawing QC process with Archi Check and these related guides:

• The cross-discipline coordination checklist
• Who does what in drawing QC
• Drawing approval stamps explained
• How to check construction drawings

Archi Check is an independent product by Archi for architectural drawing QA/QC. Product names and trademarks referenced belong to their respective owners and are used for identification only.