Guide · Construction
Material approval (MAF / submittals): what the packet contains, the technical office → supervisor → designer → client circuit and where time is lost.
Updated September 2026 · 7 min
The material approval form - MAF, "submittal" - is the document through which the contractor asks the site supervisor, designer and client to approve every material put into the works. Material approval in construction is not an office formality: without an approved MAF packet, the material is neither procured nor paid for. A short guide for technical offices producing dozens of packets a month.
Before a material enters the site, the general contractor or client asks for proof that it conforms to the design and the regulations: technical data sheet, declaration of performance, agrement tehnic (the national technical approval issued for products without a harmonised standard) where required. Without an approved packet, the material is neither procured nor paid in the progress statement. That is why the packet sits between the office and procurement - and why its delay is felt directly on site.
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 as such - 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 dates.
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 not covered by a harmonised standard, the conditions for placing them on the Romanian market are set by Government Decision 668/2017 - that is where the agrement tehnic 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.
A packet goes, in order, through technical office → internal review → site supervisor → designer → client. Each approver can return it with comments, and each return means a new version sent by email. The real statuses are few: generated, sent, in approval, approved, rejected - but rarely does anyone know them for all items at the same time.
The roles are not interchangeable. The diriginte de șantier (the site supervisor acting for the client) checks, under Law 10/1995, that the products put into the works match the design and carry their conformity documents. The designer rules on technical equivalence when you propose a product other than the one in the specification. The client or the general contractor decides the commercial side. Write down in the procedure who approves what and in which order, otherwise the packet wanders until it finds someone willing to sign.
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 in the office. When someone asks "where are we with the waterproofing?", the answer takes a search, not a glance.
Approved packets do not end with the delivery of the material. They go into the cartea tehnică (the as-built file), the document handed to the client at completion, which follows the building for its whole life. The handover rules and the contents of the as-built file are set by Government Decision 273/1994, and Law 10/1995 places the duty to keep it on the owner. In practice, the certificates, declarations of performance and technical approvals gathered by the office during execution are exactly the pieces required at the end. Gather them as you approve and handover is a compilation. Do not, and it is a reconstruction, with phone calls to suppliers for documents issued two years ago.
The product library is filled once: every product has its documents attached and reused across all projects. The packet is generated from the bill of quantities, not rewritten. The approval circuit has a status per item and per approver, visible at any time. And the as-built file is written as you go, from approved packets - not rebuilt at handover.
What changes in practice: the office no longer searches for documents, it picks them; the project manager sees which items the approval is sitting on and with whom; and the version history stays attached to the packet, not to the email thread of whoever sent it last. If digitising the process is part of a grant-funded project, see the guide on SME digitisation grants in 2026.
This flow runs in production at an MEP contractor with over 100 employees. See the Construction page for how it looks in the system, or how the platform is built if the technical side interests you.
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 →How construction, manufacturing and logistics companies with 30-150 employees replace manual Excel reporting with automated systems that save hours weekly.
Read →