Submittal delays on Aconex: where the days are lost

Before it is sent

A submittal that goes out incomplete comes back incomplete. The usual gaps are the same on every project: the specification is not marked up, the datasheet shows a different model from the one proposed, or the type test report is for another rating.

On Aconex, a wrong document number, revision or discipline in the metadata sends the package to the wrong workflow or the wrong reviewer. Nobody notices until someone asks where it is.

The review clock

The specification or the Particular Conditions usually set a review period for the Engineer. Aconex records the date the transmittal was issued and received; that record is your evidence of when the clock started.

Check that the due dates in the Aconex workflow match the contract period, not a default value someone set at the start. Whether silence counts as approval depends on your contract wording; read it before relying on it.

After it comes back

A returned submittal with comments should go back as the next revision with a response table: each comment, the answer, and where in the package the answer is. Reviewers approve faster when they do not have to search.

Keep the register honest

• Export the submittal register every week and sort by days with the Engineer.
• Write to the Engineer when a review period has passed, citing the clause.
• Link each overdue submittal to the programme activity it holds up.

This note is general information, not legal advice for a specific contract.