‹ Back

On a federal job, weak safety submittals do more than slow paperwork. They can hold up mobilization, trigger resubmissions, put payment timing at risk, and expose your team before work even starts. This guide to EM 385 submittals is built for contractors who need approval-ready documentation that matches the contract, satisfies the reviewer, and supports safe execution in the field.

 

What EM 385 submittals really do

 

EM 385 submittals are not a formality. They are the government’s proof that your project team has identified hazards, assigned qualified oversight, and built workable controls before crews start high-risk activity. On USACE, NAVFAC, DoD, and other federal projects, the review process is often as important as the content itself.

 

That is where many contractors lose time. They submit a generic package, assume OSHA language alone is enough, or rely on templates that were accepted on a different project. Reviewers usually reject those packages for one reason - they do not show project-specific control of the work.

 

An approvable package has to align with the contract, the scope, the site conditions, and the sequence of operations. It also has to reflect EM 385-1-1 requirements in plain operational terms, not copied boilerplate. If your SSHO, superintendent, QC team, and project manager are not aligned before submittal, reviewers can see it immediately.

 

A practical guide to EM 385 submittals

 

The exact list depends on the contract, but most federal construction projects require a core set of safety documents before notice to proceed or before specific phases begin. In practice, the review package often centers on the Accident Prevention Plan, Activity Hazard Analyses, SSHO credentials, emergency planning details, and supporting plans tied to environmental controls, quality control, and competent person designations.

 

The Accident Prevention Plan is usually the anchor document. It should explain how your team will manage site-specific safety, supervision, inspections, training, medical support, incident response, subcontractor oversight, and hazard control. The APP is not just a policy statement. It is the government’s baseline for how your company will run safety on that job.

 

Activity Hazard Analyses are where many submittals break down. AHA documents need to match the actual work sequence, equipment, personnel, and hazards for each definable feature of work. Reviewers look for realistic steps, meaningful controls, and clear links between the hazard and the preventive measure. If the AHA reads like it could apply to any project in any state, it will likely come back marked up.

 

SSHO documentation also receives close scrutiny. Certifications, training records, experience, resume details, and project-specific authority all need to be complete and consistent. If the contract requires a Board Certified EM 385 SSHO or specific documented experience, your package must prove it cleanly. Missing credentials or vague resumes can stall the entire approval process.

 

Emergency planning, first-aid capability, rescue procedures, and local medical support information are also common review points. These sections cannot be treated as administrative filler. They must match the project location, work conditions, and foreseeable exposures.

 

What reviewers usually reject

 

Most rejected submittals fail in predictable ways. The first problem is boilerplate language. A reviewer can spot recycled text quickly, especially when the plan references equipment you do not use, hazards that are not present, or procedures that conflict with the scope.

 

The second problem is poor coordination between documents. Your APP may say one thing about site access, your AHA may assume something else, and the QC plan may assign responsibilities differently. Those inconsistencies raise a simple question for the government - if the paperwork does not agree, how will the field team execute the work safely?

 

A third issue is weak hazard identification. Contractors often list broad categories like falls, struck-by, or electrical exposure without explaining where those hazards occur, what triggers them, and what controls are in place before work starts. EM 385 review is about credible planning, not hazard vocabulary.

 

Qualification gaps are another common cause of rejection. If competent person designations, training records, or SSHO experience do not meet contract language exactly, approval gets delayed. It does not matter that the individual is generally experienced if the submitted evidence does not support the contract requirement.

 

Finally, many packages fail because they are written in isolation from field operations. Good submittals are built around the actual project. If the superintendent and SSHO would not use the document during execution, it probably will not survive a disciplined government review.

 

How to build submittals that move faster

 

Start with the contract, not a template. Federal reviewers measure your package against the specification sections, statement of work, and project-specific safety requirements. Before drafting anything, identify every required plan, credential, designation, and submittal sequence item. That sounds basic, but it is where approval speed starts.

 

Next, map the project scope into definable work activities and major risk categories. This creates the framework for your AHAs and keeps them tied to actual operations. Earthwork, utility work, confined space entry, crane activity, demolition, concrete placement, roofing, energized systems, and excavation all require different levels of detail and competent person involvement. One oversized AHA covering half the job is usually a mistake.

 

Then assign ownership. The SSHO should lead compliance content, but project management, field supervision, and quality control should all review the package before submission. Safety submittals are stronger when they reflect how the job will really be staffed, inspected, and supervised.

 

It also helps to build the APP and AHA together instead of separately. The APP establishes the system. The AHA proves how that system applies to the work. When those two documents are developed in parallel, inconsistencies drop and field usability improves.

 

Where contractors should slow down

 

Speed matters, but rushing the wrong sections creates longer delays later. The areas worth slowing down on are personnel qualifications, rescue planning, and high-hazard activities.

 

Personnel sections need precision. Titles, certifications, years of experience, project roles, and authority to stop work should all line up. If the SSHO, competent person, or alternate personnel are not documented clearly, the reviewer may hold the package even if the technical content is strong.

 

Rescue and emergency procedures also deserve careful attention. Federal reviewers want more than a generic statement that emergency services will be contacted. For fall rescue, confined space, remote work, heat stress exposure, and medical response, they expect practical details tied to the site.

 

High-hazard activity planning should be written by people who understand the work, not just the standard. Crane lifts, excavation, lockout procedures, energized work, and fall protection systems need controls that fit actual equipment, crew capability, and site constraints. Generic language looks safe on paper and fails in the field.

 

The role of your SSHO in submittal success

 

A qualified SSHO does more than stand on site with a hard hat and a checklist. On federal projects, the SSHO often determines whether your submittal package is credible. Reviewers expect the SSHO to understand EM 385-1-1, support project-specific hazard planning, coordinate with field leadership, and maintain compliance after approval.

 

That last part matters. An approved submittal is not the finish line. As scopes change, new hazards emerge, subcontractors shift, and schedules compress, your documents need to stay current. If your SSHO is not strong enough to manage revisions, inspections, training, and enforcement, the project can slide out of compliance even after a clean start.

 

This is why experienced federal contractors treat safety documentation and SSHO staffing as one operational function. When the person responsible for site safety also understands what reviewers expect, approvals are stronger and field execution is more consistent. That is also why firms such as SSHOSafety© position compliance documentation and credentialed SSHO support together rather than as separate services.

 

Approval is not the goal - performance is

 

The best guide to EM 385 submittals is not a checklist alone. It is a discipline: read the contract carefully, write to the project, prove qualifications clearly, and build documents your field team can actually use. Approval matters, but what protects your project is the connection between the submittal and the way work is performed.

 

If your package is specific, coordinated, and backed by a qualified SSHO who can enforce it, you are far less likely to lose time to rejected plans, stop-work pressure, or preventable incidents. On federal work, that is not a paperwork advantage. It is a project delivery advantage.