Review Workflows | ConstructFlow

Review flow

Route Submittal package reviews and RFI responses through accountable reviewers.

Submittals and RFIs both need clear routing, reviewer accountability, and tools to track key routing, status, comment, and response activity from intake to final response or decision.

Clear routing

Submittals and RFIs both need visible paths from intake to the next responsible reviewer.
Reviewer accountability

Reviewers see the work assigned to them with the comments, files, and status context needed for review.
Status movement

Track key routing, status, comment, and response activity from intake to final response or decision.
Module-specific rules

Shared workflow controls support both modules without treating package decisions and response approval as the same event.

Submittal package routed alongside an RFI response cycle, with reviewer accountability and status movement visible. — Shared review flow view.

Submittals example

Review groups, package status, and final package decisions stay tied to the Submittal cycle.

RFI example

Reviewer routing, draft response work, and outgoing response approval stay attached to the clarification.

Alerts and reminders

Keep active review work visible without separating it from context.

Reminders and notifications help active Submittal reviews and RFI responses move forward by bringing reviewers back to the right record.

Status alerts

Keep active Submittal reviews and RFI responses visible when review state changes or a handoff needs attention.

Reminder cadence

Support review movement by bringing the right reviewer back to the right context at the right point in the workflow.

Mention and comment alerts

Notify responsible participants when a comment, mention, or review handoff needs their response.

Comments and collaboration

Keep comments with the review object they support.

Comments, mentions, review handoffs, and human approval support both workflows while keeping Submittal package status approval distinct from RFI response approval.

Connected threads

Review comments stay connected to the Submittal or RFI they belong to.
Mentions and handoffs

Bring the right reviewer back to the exact package or question context that needs attention.
Review collaboration

Teams can review the comments and context that supported decisions and responses.
Human approval

Final review decisions and outgoing response language remain reviewer-approved.

How approval differs by module

Submittals use comments to support package status, final review decisions, and status integrity.
RFIs use comments to shape reviewer-approved outgoing response language.
Shared controls keep comments, mentions, review handoffs, and participant context connected to the work.

Exports and closeout

Export available workflow records for handoff and closeout.

Both workflows can export available records for project handoff, review history, and closeout support, with module-specific output beneath the shared workflow controls.

Final review documentation

Submittal final documentation can stay tied to review cycles, comments, package decisions, and available closeout context.

Response history & references

RFI exports can preserve final response language, reference context, status history, and related workflow records where available.

Closeout exports

Both workflows can export available records for project handoff, review history, and closeout support.

Project Record Intelligence

Source-linked context for review work.

Related records, references, comments, attachments, and PDF page evidence can support both workflows where available, with AI assistance kept in draft or summary form for human approval.

AI answer with source references

Find the source before the team answers

Draft answer for review

Sources linked Human review required

The current record indicates the door hardware substitution still needs architect review because the latest RFI response references the approved finish schedule, while the submittal comments ask for a revised cut sheet before final approval.

RFI-017 Final Response

Reviewer response references finish schedule and requires confirmation before release.

RFI

Door Hardware Submittal Cycle 2

Open comment requests a revised cut sheet and updated manufacturer data.

Submittal

Finish Schedule page reference

Indexed page evidence points reviewers to the relevant schedule location when available.

PDF page

Linked records & references

Source-linked context can support both Submittals and RFIs by keeping related records, references, comments, and attachments closer to the review work where available.

Source-backed assistance

AI can help draft, summarize, or organize review context, but final review decisions and outgoing responses remain reviewer-approved.

Record-backed AI

Drafting and summary help stays source-backed and human-approved.

Drafts: Not decisions
Sources: References attached
Approval: Reviewer approves

Module fit

Use the same foundation for two different kinds of review work.

Submittals are package review and status workflows. RFIs are design clarification and answer workflows. Both need routing, comments, alerts, exports, source context, and human-approved AI assistance.

Submittals

Package review and status control

View Submittals

Workflow object: Packages or items submitted for review.
Primary purpose: Review submitted materials and track package status.
Review decision model: Package review status, comment/status alignment, and Recommend Codes where applicable.
References/context: Package details, reviewer comments, attachments, prior cycles, and re-submittal history.
AI support: Source-backed review summaries, drafting support, and review context for human approval.
Best fit: Formal review cycles for submitted materials.

RFIs

Design clarification and response approval

View RFIs

Workflow object: Questions or clarification requests needing an answer.
Primary purpose: Manage design, drawing, field, or coordination questions.
Review decision model: Reviewer-approved response language. RFIs are not described as using Recommend Codes.
References/context: Drawing tags, page references, area/design context, required reference fields, attachments, and related Submittal context.
AI support: Draft response language, summaries, and reference context for human approval.
Best fit: Design clarification and answer workflows.

Workflow FAQ

How shared workflow controls fit each module.

Straight answers about shared controls, Submittal-specific behavior, RFI-specific behavior, AI approval, and exports.

Do Submittals and RFIs share workflow controls?

Yes. Both workflows use shared controls for routing, reviewer visibility, comments, reminders, exports, and source-linked context while keeping each module's rules distinct.

What is different about Submittals?

Submittals are package review workflows. They focus on submitted materials, package status, final review documentation, re-submittal cycles, and Recommend Codes where applicable.

What is different about RFIs?

RFIs are design clarification workflows. They focus on questions, drawing or page references, required reference fields, related context, and reviewer-approved response language.

Does AI approve reviews or responses?

No. AI can assist with summaries, draft response language, candidate answer context, and source references. Reviewers approve final Submittal decisions and outgoing RFI responses.

Can records be exported for closeout?

Both workflows can export available records for handoff, review history, and closeout support. The available output depends on the records and context present in the workflow.

Ready for a closer look

See the shared workflow foundation in action.

Walk through how Submittals and RFIs use shared review controls while preserving the right module-specific decisions, references, exports, and approval paths.

Schedule a demo Explore Submittals Explore RFIs

One shared review foundation for Submittals and RFIs.