Quality control submissions are a critical part of any construction project. Inspection requests, material approvals, method statements, test reports, drawings, checklists, and other QC documents all need to move between contractors, consultants, and clients in a controlled and traceable way.
That is where Aconex can make a major difference. Used properly, it provides a structured environment for managing project correspondence and documentation. But simply uploading documents to Aconex does not guarantee that the QC process will stay organized.
Without a clear workflow, teams can still lose track of submissions, miss responses, duplicate documents, or struggle to determine what was approved and when.
The key is to treat Aconex as part of a defined QC process—not just as a place to store files.
1. Start With a Clear Submission Structure
Before sending the first QC submission, establish how documents will be identified and organized.
Every submission should have consistent information such as:
- Project and package
- Discipline or work category
- Document type
- Submission number
- Revision number
- Contractor or subcontractor
- Date of submission
- Required response date
- Current status
For example, a material approval might follow a naming convention such as:
MAT-STR-00125-Rev.02
The exact format can vary by project, but consistency is essential. A clear numbering system makes it much easier to identify the history of a submission without opening multiple files.
2. Use Aconex Workflows Instead of Relying on Email
One of the biggest advantages of Aconex is the ability to keep project communication within a controlled system.
QC submissions should therefore follow an agreed workflow rather than being managed through a mixture of Aconex, email, messaging apps, and spreadsheets.
A typical process could be:
Prepare → Internal QC Check → Submit → Consultant Review → Comments → Resubmit → Approval → Closeout
Each stage should have a clearly defined responsibility.
For example, the contractor’s QC engineer may prepare the submission, the QA/QC manager may perform the internal review, and the consultant may provide the formal response.
When responsibilities are clear, there is less chance of a submission sitting unnoticed in someone’s inbox.
3. Give Every Submission a Unique Identity
Tracking becomes difficult when several documents have similar names or when revisions are submitted without a clear reference to the previous version.
A unique submission or document number provides an audit trail.
Consider a material submittal that goes through three revisions:
- Rev.00 — Initial submission
- Rev.01 — Revised following consultant comments
- Rev.02 — Final revision
The team should be able to determine immediately:
- What was originally submitted?
- What comments were received?
- What changed?
- Which revision is currently under review?
- Was the final version approved?
Avoid creating completely new identifiers for every revision unless the project procedure specifically requires it. Maintaining the relationship between revisions is what makes the history useful.
4. Separate Submission Status From Document Revision
A common source of confusion is treating revision and status as the same thing.
They are not.
Revision describes the version of the document.
Status describes where that submission currently stands in the approval process.
For example:
Document: Method Statement MS-045
Revision: Rev.02
Status: Under Consultant Review
Later, the same document might become:
Revision: Rev.02
Status: Approved with Comments
Keeping these concepts separate makes reporting much easier.
5. Maintain a QC Tracking Register
Even when Aconex contains the official record, a project-level QC register can provide a useful management view.
A tracking register might include:
| Submission No. | Document | Rev. | Date Submitted | Reviewer | Status | Response Date | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAT-00125 | Waterproofing Material | 00 | 05 Sep | Consultant | Under Review | 12 Sep | Follow Up |
| MS-00045 | Concrete Pour Method | 01 | 06 Sep | Consultant | Comments | 13 Sep | Revise |
| IR-00218 | Level 04 Inspection | 02 | 07 Sep | Consultant | Approved | 09 Sep | Closed |
The register should not replace Aconex as the official document record. Instead, it should provide the team with a quick operational overview.
The most important fields are often status, responsible person, due date, and next action.
6. Track Deadlines, Not Just Submissions
A submission can be perfectly recorded and still become a project problem if nobody follows up on the response.
For every active QC submission, identify the expected response date.
Then create a simple priority system:
- Green: Response received or submission within expected timeline
- Amber: Response approaching deadline
- Red: Response overdue
This allows the QC team to focus attention where it is actually needed.
Instead of asking, “What have we submitted?”, the team can ask:
“Which submissions require action today?”
That is a much more useful management question.
7. Control Resubmissions Carefully
Resubmissions deserve particular attention.
When comments are received, the revised document should clearly address them. The response should also maintain a connection with the previous submission.
A good resubmission process is:
Review comments → Update document → Verify changes → Internal QC approval → Resubmit → Reference previous revision
Before sending the revision, the QC team should confirm that:
- All reviewer comments have been addressed.
- The revision number is correct.
- The document title remains consistent.
- Supporting attachments are included.
- The response references the relevant comments.
- Internal approvals are complete.
This prevents the frustrating situation where a reviewer receives a revised document but cannot easily determine what changed.
8. Don’t Let Attachments Become the Weak Link
A submission can be correctly registered while its attachments are poorly controlled.
Typical QC submissions may contain:
- Inspection checklists
- Material certificates
- Test reports
- Calibration certificates
- Manufacturer documentation
- Product data sheets
- Drawings
- Photographs
- Method statements
- Risk assessments
Before submission, check that every attachment is relevant, readable, correctly revised, and properly identified.
Avoid attaching obsolete documents simply because they were included in an earlier package. Uncontrolled attachments can create uncertainty about which information was actually reviewed.
9. Make the Status Visible to the Whole Team
A QC tracking process works best when project personnel can quickly understand what is happening.
At any point, the team should be able to identify:
- Submissions awaiting internal review
- Submissions awaiting consultant response
- Submissions returned with comments
- Overdue submissions
- Approved submissions
- Rejected submissions
- Items requiring resubmission
- Items ready for closeout
A weekly QC dashboard can make this information much easier to communicate to project management.
Useful indicators include:
Total submissions: 250
Under review: 32
Returned with comments: 18
Approved: 185
Overdue: 7
Awaiting resubmission: 8
The exact metrics should reflect the project’s needs, but the principle is simple: turn document data into actionable information.
10. Keep the Audit Trail Intact
One of Aconex’s biggest strengths is traceability.
That traceability becomes valuable when there is a disagreement about what was submitted, when it was submitted, who reviewed it, or which revision was approved.
For that reason, avoid informal workarounds that bypass the established document-control process.
If an important QC decision happens through email or a meeting, make sure the appropriate formal record is maintained according to the project’s document-control procedure.
The goal is to ensure that months later, someone can reconstruct the story:
Submission → Review → Comments → Response → Resubmission → Approval
A strong audit trail protects both the project and the people working on it.
11. Define Clear Responsibilities
Technology cannot compensate for unclear ownership.
A simple responsibility matrix can help:
| Activity | Contractor QC | QA/QC Manager | Document Controller | Consultant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prepare submission | ✓ | |||
| Internal review | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Register/transmit | ✓ | |||
| Technical review | ✓ | |||
| Respond to comments | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Resubmit | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Final closeout | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
The exact responsibilities will depend on the project, but every stage should have an owner.
12. Review the Register Regularly
A QC register should not become a static spreadsheet that is updated only when someone remembers.
Set a routine.
For example:
Daily: Check overdue and urgent submissions.
Weekly: Review all open QC items with the project team.
Monthly: Analyze trends, recurring comments, approval delays, and outstanding submissions.
This regular review can reveal larger problems.
If the same type of material submission is repeatedly rejected, perhaps the technical requirements are not being communicated clearly. If consultant responses are consistently late, the project may need a different follow-up process.
Tracking is therefore not just about administration—it can help improve project performance.
13. Avoid These Common QC Tracking Mistakes
Several habits can quickly undermine an otherwise good Aconex workflow.
Using inconsistent document names
Different naming conventions make searching and reporting unnecessarily difficult.
Sending submissions without internal review
This increases the chance of incomplete or incorrect information reaching the consultant.
Treating email as the primary tracking system
Important decisions can become fragmented across individual inboxes.
Creating duplicate records
Duplicate submissions make it difficult to determine which document is current.
Failing to track response deadlines
A submission that is “sent” is not necessarily a submission that is “under control.”
Closing items without verifying approval
Do not mark an item complete simply because a response was received. Confirm that the response actually satisfies the required approval condition.
Ignoring old revisions
Old revisions are part of the history and may be important for audit purposes. They should remain properly controlled rather than being confused with the current version.
14. Build a Simple “No Submission Gets Lost” Rule
A practical QC management rule is:
Every submission must have an owner, a status, a due date, and a next action.
If any one of these is missing, the submission is at risk of being forgotten.
For example:
Owner: QC Engineer
Status: Consultant Review
Due Date: 18 September
Next Action: Follow up if no response by 19 September
This takes only a few seconds to understand, but it provides powerful visibility.
Conclusion
Running QC submissions through Aconex successfully is less about uploading documents and more about creating a disciplined workflow around them.
A well-controlled process combines:
- Consistent document numbering
- Controlled revisions
- Defined workflows
- Clear responsibilities
- Response-date tracking
- A reliable QC register
- Proper resubmission procedures
- Controlled attachments
- Regular follow-up
- A complete audit trail
The objective is simple: at any moment, the project team should know what has been submitted, what is being reviewed, what requires action, and what has been approved.
When Aconex is supported by clear QC procedures and active tracking, submissions stop becoming isolated documents and become part of a visible, traceable quality-management process.