Revise and Resubmit: 5 Checks Before Your Submittal Goes Out

Most Revise and Resubmit stamps aren't about the equipment. They're about a missing cert, a rating that doesn't match the drawings, a cut sheet that argues with itself, a deviation the engineer found before you mentioned it, or a comment from last round that nobody answered. Run these five checks before the package leaves and you take away the easy reasons to send it back.

The stamp comes back Revise and Resubmit. The PLC is fine. The drives are fine. The enclosure is fine. Comment 1 reads "Provide SCCR." That's the whole problem: one number that was on your nameplate drawing and never made it into the package. Now the review clock starts over, the enclosure order waits on the stamp, the build slot at the panel shop goes to someone else, and the pay app line for that equipment sits at zero for another month.

The engineer isn't out to wreck your schedule. They're checking the package against the spec, and a small miss bounces it just as well as a big one. These five checks catch the small ones. None takes long, and all of them are cheaper than a second review cycle.

1. Every cert the spec section asks for

Open this job's spec section, not your memory of the last one. Read Part 1's submittals article, then search Part 2 for "listed," "labeled," "rated," and "comply with." Write down every certification the section names, and find the page in your package that proves each one.

On a controls job, the usual three:

• UL 508A. When the spec says the panel shall bear the label, a note on the drawing that says "UL 508A" isn't proof. The reviewer wants the shop's file number and a nameplate drawing that matches what's being built. The difference between listed and "built to" is in UL 508A in the submittal.
• NEMA enclosure type. The spec can ask for 4X outdoors and 12 indoors in the same section. Match each panel to the room it's going in, and show the type on both the enclosure cut sheet and the nameplate.
• SCCR. The panel's short-circuit current rating has to be at least the fault current available where it lands. Put the rating on the nameplate drawing and show how you got it.

Then check the parts inside the panel. When the spec wants listed components, every datasheet should show the listing for the variant you're supplying, not just for the product family.

2. Ratings and dimensions against the drawings, not the BOM

Your BOM is your list. The contract drawings are what the reviewer checks it against, and when the two disagree, the BOM loses.

Put the drawings next to the package and check the numbers the engineer will check:

• Voltage and phase on the one-line against every power supply, transformer, and drive.
• Horsepower and full-load amps on the equipment schedule against each drive or starter you're supplying.
• Enclosure size on the elevation or room layout against the enclosure cut sheet. A panel six inches wider than the wall it's drawn on is a comment.
• I/O counts and spare capacity against the I/O list and the spare percentage the spec asks for.

A BOM row can be right about the part and still wrong for the job. The 24 VDC supply that carried the last lift station can come up short on this one if this one has twice the field instruments. If the spreadsheet needs a pass of its own first, BOM preflight covers incomplete catalog numbers and duplicate rows.

3. Contradictions inside the manufacturer's own cut sheets

Manufacturer literature disagrees with itself more often than you'd think. The cover shows a listing mark, but the certifications page lists only the 120 VAC models. The ratings table says 60 °C, and a footnote drops it to 50 °C above a certain load. The dimension drawing is for a different frame size than the catalog number you highlighted. The ordering page offers an option code the selection table never mentions.

The reviewer reads the same PDF you do. If one page proves your rating and another page undercuts it, plan on them finding the second page.

So read every page you're sending, not just the one with the highlight. When two pages disagree, ask the rep for a current datasheet or a letter that settles it, and include it. When nobody can settle it, treat it as a deviation and take it to check 4. Trimming the catalog to the pages that apply, covered in how to mark up cut sheets, also cuts down the pages that can contradict you.

4. Spec deviations on the cover sheet, before the engineer finds them

A deviation you call out gets a decision. A deviation the engineer finds on their own gets a kickback, and a little less trust on your next package.

List each one on the transmittal: the tag, the spec article, what the spec asks for, what you're providing instead, and why. Cloud the same value on the cut sheet so the evidence is one flip away. When there are none, say that in writing too. Many submittal procedures say a deviation you didn't identify isn't approved, even when the package comes back stamped. What else belongs on that sheet is in what a transmittal has to say. When the deviation is really a different product, the project's or-equal process may apply first: see substitution requests and the or-equal clause.

5. Every comment from the last review, line by line

On a resubmittal, this is the one that matters most. The second Revise and Resubmit rarely comes from a new problem. It comes from a comment nobody answered.

Count the comments on the last return, every page of it. Give each one its own row: the reviewer's words, your response, and where the fix is. Every response is complied, clarified, or disputed, each with a reference the reviewer can check. Then list anything you changed that no comment asked for, with the reason, because the engineer reviews Rev 2 against their comments and won't go hunting for your other edits. The full method is in answering review comments on a resubmittal.

Hand it to someone else

You built the package, so you're the person least likely to see what's missing from it. Give someone on your team the spec section, the drawings, and these five checks, and let them go through it before the engineer does. An hour of their time is a lot cheaper than another trip through the review queue.

How Submittal Kit handles this

You'd rather spend that hour fixing problems than hunting for them. In Submittal Kit, the Checks tab on every submittal lists what a reviewer usually bounces while you can still fix it: an item with no datasheet, a part whose catalog number appears nowhere in its datasheet, and a Spec demand row when the linked spec section asks for something no section of the package carries, quoting the spec and naming the article.

Under that table, Spec check reads every datasheet against the submittal's spec section and answers one row per requirement for each part: Meets with the value and the page it was found on, Does not meet, Look at this, or Not stated. The certs and ratings from check 1 come back with the page that proves them, or a row that says nothing does. Add a Spec Check Results section and the package prints the results.

The transmittal carries the deviations boxes and a notes block for your deviation statement. On a resubmittal, the Comment Response Log lists every comment raised against the submittal's equipment and marks each one No response yet until it has words, and Next unanswered takes you to the next one. The log compiles into the package as its own section. Checking against the drawings is still yours. See Checks before you submit, Spec Check, and Comment Response Log.

Disclosure: I build Submittal Kit, and every check above works with a spec, a set of drawings, and a highlighter.