A single rejected sample can hold up an order, which holds up delivery, which holds up the trade waiting to install it. Because approval delays rarely look dramatic on any single day, they tend to be discovered only when a critical path activity is suddenly starved of materials. Most of the delay is avoidable, and it comes from process rather than from the consultants who review the submissions.
Why approvals take so long
Late submission. Submittals are raised when the material is needed rather than when the lead time requires. A product with a long lead time and a weeks-long approval cycle needs to be submitted months before installation.
Incomplete packages. Missing datasheets, test reports, samples or compliance certificates trigger a rejection or a request for information, and every round trip adds days.
Unclear requirements. If the submission does not reference the specification clause or the drawing it relates to, reviewers must work out what is being compared against what.
No visibility of status. Submittals sit in someone's inbox with no clear owner, no ageing and no escalation.
Multiple reviewers in sequence. Consultant, project manager and client each review in turn, and a delay at any stage stalls the rest.
Revisions lost in email. Comments, resubmissions and approvals spread across threads and attachments, so nobody is sure which version is current.
Building a faster cycle
Plan the submittal schedule early. Work backwards from the installation date, adding procurement lead time and a realistic review period, to decide when each submittal must go out. Track it as part of the programme, not as an afterthought.
Standardise the package. A checklist for each material type, covering datasheet, specification compliance statement, samples, test certificates and manufacturer details, reduces incomplete submissions.
Reference the specification. Each submittal should cite the relevant specification section and drawing and state any deviations clearly, so the reviewer can respond quickly.
Assign named reviewers with due dates. As with RFIs, accountability to a person with a deadline moves things along faster than a general request.
Review in parallel where possible. Where contracts allow, let different reviewers look at the same package at the same time rather than in sequence.
Show ageing and status to everyone. A register that shows submitted, under review, approved with comments, rejected and overdue allows the project team to chase the right items rather than all of them.
Keep one version of the truth. Store submissions, comments and approvals in one place, with a clear revision history, so there is never any doubt which version was approved.
Link approvals to procurement
Approval is the gate that releases the purchase order. Connecting approved materials to procurement means orders can be placed the moment approval arrives, and it prevents the reverse problem of ordering materials that were later rejected. It also lets the commercial team see which deliveries are at risk before the programme does.
Learn from each project
Track average approval times by material type, reviewer and project, and note the recurring causes of rejection. Over time, these patterns improve both the submissions your team prepares and the lead times you plan for.
Why choose BuildFlow
BuildFlow's submittal register assigns every package to a named reviewer with a due date, tracks status and ageing across the project, and keeps all comments and revisions with the record. Approved materials link to procurement, so orders go out as soon as approval lands, and overdue submittals are visible on dashboards before they hit the critical path.
BuildFlow is a construction management system built to keep material approvals moving so the programmer does not wait on them.
