Guide · Construction
Material approval (MAF / submittals): what the packet contains, the technical office → supervisor → designer → client circuit and where time is lost.
In short
Updated September 2026 · 9 min
The material approval form (MAF, the “submittal”) leaves the technical office dozens of times a month and sits in email, with nobody knowing whose turn it is. The circuit described here runs in production at an MEP (mechanical, electrical and plumbing) contractor with over 100 employees, in the platform's construction flow. This guide covers what the packet contains, who signs it in which order, where time is lost and how a packet looks when followed from generation to approval.
A MAF packet is the proof that the proposed material matches the design and the law; without it, nothing is procured or paid for. Before a material enters the site, the general contractor or the client asks for proof that it conforms to the design and the regulations. That proof is the data sheet, the declaration of performance and, where required, the technical agreement; without it, procurement waits and so does the progress statement.
The underlying obligation comes from Law 10/1995 on quality in construction. The works are executed with products whose characteristics are those set out in the design, and the evidence of conformity is kept and handed over at completion.
The form itself is not required by law. The MAF is the practice by which the contract and the specification translate that obligation into a process step: one packet per item, with signatures and a date.
A complete packet has five pieces:
The declaration of performance and the CE marking come from Regulation (EU) 305/2011, which requires the manufacturer to declare the product's performance against the applicable harmonised standard. For products without a harmonised standard, the conditions for placing them on the Romanian market are set by Government Decision 668/2017, which is where the technical agreement comes in.
The distinction matters in the packet. Ask for a technical agreement on a product that already has a DoP and you block the delivery for nothing. Accept only the data sheet for a product without a harmonised standard and the packet comes back from the designer.
The materials schedule is the piece offices skip most often. Without it, the approver has to guess which estimate line the proposed product covers, and at payment the link is rebuilt from memory.
Four roles sign, each for something different: the internal review, conformity with the design, technical equivalence and the commercial side cannot be delegated between them. A packet goes, in order, through the technical office, the project manager, the site supervisor, the designer and the client. Each approver can return it with comments, and each return means a new version, with the circuit restarting from whoever rejected it.
The roles are not interchangeable, and the law gives them their footing. The diriginte de șantier (the site supervisor acting for the client) checks conformity with the design under Law 10/1995, not as a favour to anyone. When one role signs in place of another, the signature exists, but the check does not.
The real statuses are few: generated, sent, in approval, approved, rejected. The problem is not that they are missing, but that rarely does anyone know them for all items at the same time.
Each role also needs a deadline. Without one, “in approval with the designer” can mean a day or three weeks, and nobody has a reason to ask. The deadline does not speed up the checking; it only says from when the packet became a delay.
Write down in the procedure who approves what and in which order. Otherwise the packet wanders until it finds someone willing to sign, and that signature does not cover what should have been checked.
Who approves what, in order
Prepares the packet from the product library and sends it out on the circuit.
Reviews it internally, before it leaves the company.
Confirms the product matches the design and carries its conformity documents.
Rules on technical equivalence when you propose a product other than the one specified.
Decides the commercial side and signs last.
Checking a packet takes minutes; waiting between approvers takes days, because nobody can see who has it and since when. In our experience of technical offices, one approval round by email takes from a few days to two or three weeks, and every return with comments adds a round. It is not a measured figure: it can only be measured once the packet has a status.
The same four problems show up in almost every office:
None of these is a competence problem. They are record-keeping problems: the information about the packet exists, but it is scattered across personal mailboxes, folders on a server and the head of one person. When someone asks “where are we with the waterproofing?”, the answer takes a search, not a glance.
The cost is paid a second time at handover. Approved packets go into the cartea tehnică (the as-built file), which Government Decision 273/1994 requires at acceptance and which Law 10/1995 places in the owner's keeping. If the approved version sits in an email thread, at the end you look for it among three variants that were sent.
| By email | In the system | |
|---|---|---|
| Declaration of performance | Hunted down from scratch on every project | Attached to the product, reused across all projects |
| Whose turn it is | Nobody knows; the packet sits on a desk for two weeks | Status per item and per approver, visible at any time |
| Versions | Parallel, in email threads | The history stays attached to the packet |
| The process | In the head of one person in the office | In the record, whoever leaves |
With a status per item and per approver, the project manager sees on day three where the packet sits, without asking anyone. The circuit in the mockup is the one running at an MEP contractor with over 100 employees; the figures are fictitious, the circuit is the real one.
The product library is filled once: every product carries its data sheet and its declaration of performance or technical agreement, reused across all projects. The packet is generated from the bill of quantities, not rewritten. The office no longer searches for documents; it picks them.
The approval circuit has a status per item and per approver. The project manager sees which items the approval is sitting on and with whom. The version history stays attached to the packet, not to the email thread of whoever sent it last.
On rejection, the designer's comments stay attached to the packet, and the new version goes back on the circuit from the designer, not from the start. The old version does not disappear: at handover you can see which one was approved, and when. See the material approval flow on the Construction page or how the platform is built, if the technical side interests you.
A formal MAF circuit makes sense when there are several approvers and several equivalent products; in three situations it is more than you need.
Write into the company procedure who approves what, in which order and by when; it takes an afternoon and changes the most. Approved packets are the pieces of chapter B of the as-built file: the guide to the as-built file shows how it is built as you go, not at handover.
Before sending a MAF packet
The packet is prepared by the contractor (the technical office of the contractor or of the subcontractor). It is reviewed internally by the project manager, then approved, in order, by the site supervisor, the designer and the client or general contractor, as agreed in the contract. Each signature is a distinct stage, with a date.
Without a system, from a few days to two or three weeks per round. Every return with comments adds a round. What takes time is not the checking itself, but the waiting: the packet sits with an approver without anyone knowing it is their turn.
The declaration of performance is issued by the manufacturer for products covered by a harmonised standard, under Regulation (EU) 305/2011, and comes with the CE marking. The agrement tehnic is issued for products without such a standard, under the national rules in Government Decision 668/2017. A product usually has one or the other – not both.
The comments are addressed point by point, a new version is issued and the circuit restarts from the approver who rejected it. The version history has to be kept: at handover, the as-built file requires the approved version, not the last one sent.
The contractor, for the whole duration of the project, handing them over at completion as part of the building's as-built file. That is why it is worth having the packets accumulate in one place, rather than in the mailboxes of the people who sent them.
The first conversation is about your process: who does what, on which documents, where time is lost.
One email a month, only when we publish. Nothing else.
The four chapters (A–D) of the Romanian as-built file, who is responsible for each, what is usually missing at handover and how to build it as you go.
Read →Where quote calculations live today, what gets reused (product list, prices, norms), what is recalculated each time, and how 5 days become one.
Read →Eight automations that take reporting out of Excel at companies with 30–150 employees: where to start, how long each takes and how they link up in six months.
Read →