Keep a stable comment ID. Read the original requirement, the contractor’s response and the changed source together, then record closed, partially addressed, open or awaiting a decision using the project’s agreed status terms.
Assemble the three records
Collect the returned package, the response log and the resubmitted files. Keep the drawings and specifications that governed the original review available. If the design changed between reviews, establish that new baseline before deciding whether the contractor corrected the original problem.
Retain the submitted revision and page reference for each comment. A replacement cover sheet can make an unchanged attachment look new. Compare the technical page rather than relying on the transmittal date.
A response is not the closure evidence
For a hypothetical pump submission, a reviewer asks for the selected motor voltage to agree with the electrical schedule. The response says “revised to match,” but the revised catalog still shows several voltage options. The item remains open until the proposed option is identified and compared with the governing schedule.
If the voltage changes, backcheck the starter, circuit, controls and power assumptions. A correction can solve the first comment while leaving a dependent document inconsistent. Record the exact proposed selection and the reviewer’s decision.
Record partial answers clearly
Use one row for one decision. A response may resolve the equipment rating but leave mounting dimensions unanswered. Preserve both parts of the original question and state what remains to be supplied. Avoid closing a compound comment because one attachment was added.
Where a comment requires a design decision, route it to the person authorized to make that decision. The backchecker should be able to read the answer, the accepted change and the verified revision without reconstructing an email chain.
Use the closure worksheet
| Check | Sources | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Review baseline | Original submission, returned comments, governing design | Can you identify the exact package and design issue reviewed last time? |
| Comment identity | Original log and new response table | Does every prior comment retain its ID and an answerable response? |
| Claimed change | Response wording and revised page | Is the described correction visible at the stated location? |
| Selected option | Revised product data and equipment schedule | Is the corrected model or option actually selected? |
| Related comments | Other comments on the same item | Does one correction resolve the whole condition or leave another question open? |
| Trade interfaces | Revised dimensions, connections and receiving design | Did the correction reach the disciplines that depend on it? |
| New departures | Revision list, prior package and current package | Did the resubmission introduce an unreviewed substitution or requirement? |
| Closure decision | Verified source, reviewer and disposition | Who confirmed closure, on which revision, with which remaining conditions? |
Keep the review history useful
Preserve the prior package and the current one with the log. Record the reviewer, verification date and closure evidence. Use the submittal log for package dates and dispositions, and this worksheet for the technical comments within that package.
The reinforcing shop-drawing case shows why the local bar groups and governing design must be compared. It supplies a real review example; it does not establish that the contractor later completed a correction.
Project procedure and document review
UFGS 01 33 00 is a federal example of submittal procedures. Follow the issued project procedure for your review actions. Source checked October 13, 2026.
Include prior comments as references when defining a shop-drawing review. Groundbook can help compare supplied documents; your reviewer verifies the response and records the final disposition.