Start with package identity and the governing design issue, then check required contents, selected product data, performance, dimensions and trade interfaces. Record each discrepancy with its sources and route the decision to the reviewer assigned by the project procedure.
Identify what was submitted and what governs
Write down the item, location, specification section and submitted revision before comparing any values. Collect the governing drawings, addenda and accepted changes. If a submission relies on a later design detail that the reviewer does not have, request it before concluding that the package agrees with the design.
A product-data submission and a shop drawing answer different questions. Product data identifies the selected item and its stated properties. A shop drawing describes a fabricated or installed condition. The review may need both, plus the receiving architectural, structural and building-services documents.
Ten checks for an answerable package
Use the worksheet to identify the source pair, reviewer and response for each question. Adapt its prompts to the project’s actual submission procedure.
| Check | Sources to compare | Question |
|---|---|---|
| Package identity | Transmittal, specification section, equipment or assembly tag | Does the package identify the precise item and location being reviewed? |
| Governing revision | Issued drawings, addenda, approved changes | Which design issue governs this submission, and are later changes included? |
| Required contents | Project submittal requirements, submitted files | Are required drawings, selected product data, tests and supporting calculations present? |
| Selected product | Marked product data, schedule, specification | Is the proposed model and option identified instead of leaving a whole catalog unselected? |
| Stated requirements | Specification criteria, submitted material and performance data | Do the stated properties agree, and is the basis of each value comparable? |
| Receiving interface | Shop details, architectural and structural details | Do the proposed connections and dimensions fit the documented receiving condition? |
| Utility interface | Equipment data, electrical and mechanical schedules | Are power, controls and service requirements coordinated with the supplied design? |
| Variations | Deviation list, proposed package, governing requirements | Are proposed departures identified and routed to the responsible decision maker? |
| Reviewer response | Comment record, response, revised submission | Does each comment have a response that identifies what changed and where? |
| Release record | Review disposition, conditions, procurement instructions | Has the authorized reviewer established the disposition and any outstanding conditions? |
A blank value needs a question, not a presumed default. Distinguish a missing document from a submitted value that conflicts with the design.
Compare the selected option and its interfaces
Ask the submitting party to mark the model, size, material, finish and accessories proposed for the project. An unmarked catalog can contain several compliant and noncompliant options, leaving the reviewer unable to identify what will actually be supplied.
Compare values on the same basis. An overall dimension and a clear opening are different measurements. Electrical input and thermal output are different equipment properties. Name the property and condition before writing a mismatch comment, then trace the selected item into its support, services and access requirements.
Make each comment easy to resolve
Use four parts: the submitted statement, the governing statement, the difference and the decision needed. Include the page or detail reference for both documents. Separate a request for missing evidence from a proposed design change.
For example, a submitted heater rating could differ from its electrical schedule. The question is which selected rating governs and which dependent documents need updating. The dental clinic review shows this interface in a real drawing set; it does not document an approved equipment submittal.
Backcheck the returned revision
Keep the original comment and the submitting party’s response together. Open the new revision and verify the referenced change, including the other sheets affected by it. A response that says “corrected” without identifying the change is difficult to close reliably.
Use the submittal log template to record the revision, dates, disposition and remaining conditions. The project’s authorized reviewer decides the disposition and any release for procurement or fabrication.
References and a document comparison workflow
UFGS 01 33 00, Submittal Procedures distinguishes submittal types, package preparation, variations and the project register. It is a federal guide specification to be edited for a project; use your issued contract procedure to establish the actual obligations. Source checked October 13, 2026.
For a document comparison in Groundbook, provide the submission, governing drawings and relevant specifications, with clear review instructions. Verify every potential finding against the sources. Explore shop drawing review and the reinforcing shop drawing checklist for a more specific scope.