You have a product-data package back from the engineer, a revision due from the subcontractor, and a delivery date that has not moved. Submittal software needs to show which response belongs to which revision and who must act next. Procore, Autodesk Forma Build, and Fieldwire Business Plus all document workflows for that job; the better fit depends on the project environment you already have.
Choose Procore when your project team already works there and wants configurable submittal routing. Choose Forma Build when review records need to sit with the project’s Autodesk documents. Consider Fieldwire Business Plus when you already use Fieldwire and want its submittal workflow. Keep your current tool if reviewers can find the right revision, respond on time, and export the record: a new interface alone may not justify moving a live register.
Decide how a rejected submission should move
Agree on review stages, response wording, and responsibility before comparing products. A response such as “revise and resubmit” must lead to a named owner and another due date. Keep the reviewer’s disposition separate from permission to purchase, fabricate, or install; use the project’s contract and authorization process to determine what work may proceed.
Prepared by Kartik Deshpande from official documentation checked October 16, 2026, this comparison describes documented workflows and proposed acceptance tests. It does not report hands-on results. Autodesk now uses Forma Build branding, although some help pages still say Build. The broader Procore vs Autodesk comparison covers the surrounding project and financial workflows.
Run the same resubmission through each product
Use a hypothetical air-handling-unit submittal, AHU-01. Attach product data and a shop drawing, identify the specification section, and assign the subcontractor as submitter. The project engineer checks completeness before the mechanical engineer reviews it. Set a submission deadline and a review deadline, then record a response requesting a corrected electrical requirement.
Create a revised submission with the corrected attachment and send it through review again. The expected output is a record that preserves the first response, identifies the current attachment, names the next responsible person, and shows whether the revised review is overdue. These are test requirements, not results obtained in these products. Have the eventual users perform the test with their intended permissions.
Configure the review in each product
Procore: configure the response and workflow together
Procore’s submittal best practices cover workflow templates, responses, reject workflows, and revision handling. For AHU-01, configure the submitter and review steps, attach the package, and decide which response should interrupt the workflow. After the correction arrives, create the revision and inspect the earlier response before distributing the completed review.
This is a sensible shortlist choice for an existing Procore project. Ask the administrator to demonstrate the rejection path with your configuration; the presence of a response label does not establish what the next workflow action will be. If the current contract lacks the required product scope, obtain a revised quote before treating this as an included feature.
Forma Build: keep planning dates beside the review
Autodesk’s processing documentation describes review templates, attachment handling, planning dates, activity history, and new revisions. Configure AHU-01’s review sequence and required-on-site date, record the engineer’s response, then create a revision assigned to the responsible contractor. The documented close-and-distribute action concludes the review and distributes its information.
Evaluate this option when the team already uses Autodesk project documents. Check that the recipients can access both the review record and its referenced files under their assigned roles. For purchasing scope beyond this workflow, use the Autodesk construction pricing breakdown.
Fieldwire: test company roles before inviting reviewers
Fieldwire’s workflow documentation describes company setup, submission and response due dates, review stages, and revision actions. Set up the companies, create AHU-01, request the submission, and route the returned package for review and approval. Exercise the revision action with the intended assignee rather than an administrator account.
Existing Fieldwire teams can evaluate this without starting a separate project register. Verify visibility across companies, including any lead-company configuration. The documented CSV and PDF exports provide a starting point for an archive test; inspect a downloaded example to confirm it contains the history and attachments your project requires.
Price five internal users for one year
Use one US project, five internal users, a twelve-month commitment, and USD for the same buying scenario. Give each vendor the same external reviewer roster, attachment volume, and required archive. Ask which outside participants need paid access. A five-seat subtotal alone does not price every participant in a project review.
Fieldwire lists Business Plus at $89 per user per month billed annually, giving a five-user subscription subtotal of 5 × $89 × 12 = $5,340 before tax. This calculation excludes extra paid participants, migration labor, and separately quoted services. Its free Basic tier and lower paid tiers do not include the same submittal-management scope.
Autodesk lists full Forma Build at $1,400 per user annually in the US, giving a five-user subtotal of $7,000 before tax and extras. Essentials excludes the project-management scope needed for submittals. Outside reviewer licensing and any account arrangement still need confirmation. Procore prices by product and annual construction volume, with a stated Field Productivity exception to unlimited users. Its total remains unknown until quoted. Request implementation charges, renewal terms, and export access before comparing the full costs.
Where Permute fits across project records
Permute sells connected business data and custom applications. For a team that keeps submittals in its construction tool but combines approved exports with procurement or cost records, we can scope a separate reporting application. The work starts by identifying project and package IDs and retaining links to the source evidence.
Define what “awaiting review” and “released for purchase” mean before combining records. A project engineer should be able to inspect the source response behind a reported status. Any connection, refresh schedule, and permission model needs verification for the proposed implementation; construction cost management covers the adjacent financial decision.
Explore a project reporting application
Start with a permitted sample export and identify the source records each status needs.
Keep technical approval with the project team
Permute is not presented here as a packaged submittal-review replacement. We do not make the engineer’s technical decision or infer installation authorization from a status field. Keep formal review in the designated system, and verify any proposed integration rather than assuming a named product has a ready-made connection.
Move the register without losing open reviews
Export IDs, specification references, revisions, due dates, responses, attachments, and participants. Preserve a readable archive before importing anything. Compare one completed package and one open resubmission against the originals, checking response authors and timestamps as well as the file count. A register import may not recreate workflow history or previous permissions.
Rebuild templates and company roles, reconnect document references, and tell reviewers which system now owns each open item. Test a reassigned reviewer and a corrected attachment before the cutover. If those checks fail, keep the affected review in the old system until the project team agrees how to preserve its record.
Choose the product in which your team can follow a returned submission through its next review without losing the earlier evidence. Compare the configured workflow and annual purchasing scope before changing systems. Keep review disposition and work authorization separate. A successful evaluation ends with a usable revised record and a clear owner for the next action.
Review the reporting around your submittals
Bring a sample register and the procurement or cost report it needs to support.
Questions about choosing submittal software
Can a spreadsheet remain the submittal register?
Yes, if your team can maintain revision references, due dates, ownership, and a retrievable review archive. Check an open resubmission before buying software. If its current attachment and earlier response are hard to reconcile, include that failure in the evaluation.
Does a closed submittal mean work can proceed?
Do not infer permission from “closed” alone. Read the recorded response and apply the project’s contract and authorization process. Configure reports to preserve that distinction instead of translating every closed item into approved work.
Should we migrate during an active review?
Keep an active review in its existing system if the new one cannot preserve its evidence and responsibilities. A staged cutover can move new submissions first while older items finish in place. Tell each participant where to respond so the same review does not advance in two systems.
What should an outside reviewer test before rollout?
Have the reviewer sign in with the intended role and open the assigned package, respond, and locate the next revision. Check access to referenced files and confirm the cost of that access. An administrator demonstration does not establish the reviewer’s experience.