How to Coordinate With Suppliers to Revise Multi Cable Transit Documents After Drawing Rejection?

A rejected multi cable transit document package ¹ stalls procurement, installation, and Class sign-off at once. I have watched buyers lose weeks, so our engineering team built a repeatable fix.

To revise multi cable transit documents after drawing rejection, log every reviewer comment, build a comment-response matrix with owners and deadlines, freeze the cable schedule, have the supplier redline all changes, cross-check schedule, layout, and detail sheets, then resubmit the full set through the approved document-control channel.

That is the short version. The rest of this article shows how each step works in practice IP68 class ². I will walk through decoding the rejection, [requesting the right documents](https://dewinmct.com/?p=1013), checking the sealing performance, and getting clean CAD files out the door.

How can I identify exactly why my MCT drawing submission was rejected before contacting the supplier?

A purchasing engineer in Europe once forwarded us a rejection that said only "not accepted". We lost days finding the real cause. That taught us to decode comments first.

Identify the rejection cause by reading the review code and reason letter, sorting every comment into dimensional, material, regulatory, coordination, or formatting categories, checking which comments repeat earlier rounds, and tracing each one to the exact sheet, cable, or penetration it affects before calling the supplier.

Read the review code before anything else

Most document-control systems return a vendor data submittal with a status code. "Revise and resubmit" and "not accepted" are not the same thing. The first usually means the design intent is accepted but details are wrong. The second often means the package failed minimum document requirements or used the wrong transmittal path. Some project standards also require a reason letter with every rejected drawing. Ask for it if it is missing. Do not guess.

Sort every comment into a category

I recommend a simple five-way split. This tells you who owns the fix and how urgent it is.

Check for repeated comments

A reviewer who sees the same comment twice tends to reject harder the second time. So I compare the new comment sheet against the previous round. Any comment that was "closed" but reappears means someone patched the drawing without fixing the root cause. That is usually a cable schedule verification gap, not a drafting error.

Trace each comment to a sheet and a cable

Before I call the supplier, I map every comment to a sheet number, a frame tag, and, where relevant, a cable tag. This matters because many project specs treat a multi-sheet drawing as one document. If one sheet changes, the whole set gets a new revision level. Knowing the exact scope up front stops the supplier from reissuing only the "obvious" page.

Some buyers tell me they would rather just resend the drawing with the geometry fixed. That works for formatting-only comments. It fails when the rejection came from missing coordination, because the reviewer will find the same mismatch on a different sheet. Typical specs give the purchaser about 15 working days to review and the supplier about 10 working days to respond. A second rejection burns that whole cycle again.

What technical documents should I request from my supplier to speed up the drawing revision process?

We weigh one trade-off on every revision: send the buyer a thin package fast, or send a complete package a day later. The complete package wins almost every time.

Request the revised transit schedule, updated MCT layout drawings and penetration details, packing space calculation per frame, sealing module configuration list, updated Bill of Materials and Material Take-Off, fire, IP68, and gas-tight test certificates, material certificates, installation instructions, a comment-response matrix, and a revision control log.

The full document list and what each one proves

I have seen many revision loops stall because the buyer asked for "the updated drawing" and got exactly that, and nothing else. The reviewer then asks for the calculation behind it, and another round starts. The table below is the list I hand to our own document controller when a comment sheet arrives.

How to request the package in one pass

1. Send the complete comment sheet to the supplier, not a summary.
2. Mark which comments are design-critical and which are formatting-only.
3. Raise a Technical Query for any comment that is ambiguous, so the supplier does not guess intent.
4. Confirm the cable schedule is frozen. Say it in writing.
5. Ask the supplier to redline every change with revision clouds or delta marks.
6. Ask for confirmation that the block selection matches current stock. An approved drawing with unavailable modules is still a delay.
7. Set the response deadline against the project spec, often 10 working days.

At our factory, we prepare the comment-response matrix with four columns: comment, action taken, owner, and closure status. Our engineers fill it before the drawings go out. This is also where a formal Engineering Change Request belongs if the revision changes frame size or module type, because that can affect the Material Take-Off and delivery.

One more point. Because our TSC and TSR modules are dimensionally compatible with common 120-frame standards, we also attach a model cross-reference table when a buyer is qualifying us as a second source. It lets the reviewer see the existing model and the DEWIN equivalent side by side, which shortens the material comment cycle.

How do I verify that a revised MCT drawing still meets fire rating, IP68, and gas-tight sealing requirements?

During a compression check on our test rig, one module set with a mixed cable fill leaked at pressure. The drawing had looked fine. The block selection had not.

Verify compliance by matching each revised frame to its certified configuration: confirm fire rating (A-0 or A-60) and IP68 class on the drawing match the test certificate, check the gas-tight pressure range (0.01–0.4 MPa), recalculate cable fill against certified packing space, and confirm ratings agree with General Arrangement plans.

Certification belongs to a configuration, not a frame

This is the point many buyers miss. A certificate covers a tested arrangement: frame type, module type, compression unit, stay plate spacing, and fill. Change the sealing module configuration during a revision and you may step outside the tested arrangement. So my first check is always the same. Does the revised frame still look like the certified one?

Recalculate fill after every cable change

A revision that adds two cables to a frame changes the packing space calculation. It may push the fill past the certified limit. It may also change the spare capacity the project requires. I ask the supplier to show the calculation per frame, not per project. Reviewers check it that way too.

Add a tolerance buffer for real cable diameters

Catalog cable OD and measured cable OD are rarely identical. Our step-core EPDM modules cover a range of diameters within one module size, which absorbs a lot of that variation. Even so, I advise buyers to record actual field measurements where cables are already on site and note them on the transit schedule. It removes the most common cause of a leak at commissioning.

Who owns what

Buyers sometimes push back with "the vendor owns the drawing, so the vendor owns compliance." Vendors sometimes answer "the buyer owns the cable data and the penetration location." Both are right, and that is the problem. The interface is where rejections happen. My rule is simple. We own the product data, the sealing logic, and the test documents. The project team owns the cable schedule, the coordinates, and the Class approval requirements. Verification means checking that both halves agree on the same sheet.

What's the fastest way to get validated CAD/STEP files after a design change without delaying my project timeline?

We learned a hard lesson exporting to a data center builder: a STEP file ⁵ sent before the packing plan was frozen forced a second model release. Now we sequence it.

The fastest way is to freeze the cable schedule and sealing module configuration first, raise one consolidated Engineering Change Request, have the supplier regenerate models in its native design software, and receive STEP, DXF, and PDF together with a revision number that matches the shop drawing approval set.

Sequence matters more than speed

Requesting the 3D model too early is the single biggest cause of duplicate CAD releases. The model is downstream of the block selection, and the block selection is downstream of the cable schedule. So I follow one order every time.

1. Freeze the cable schedule and get written confirmation.
2. Close all design-critical comments in the comment-response matrix.
3. Lock the sealing module configuration per frame.
4. Raise one Engineering Change Request that lists every frame affected.
5. Regenerate the model from the manufacturer's own design tool so the block library and frame dimensions stay standardized.
6. Issue STEP, DXF, and PDF in one transmittal with the same revision number.
7. Update the revision control log and the title block on every sheet.

Live redline versus email rounds

I use the first for working out clashes and the second for the actual submittal. Email is for questions only. Reviewers increasingly refuse informal exchanges as closure evidence, and I think they are right to.

Keep the digital file tied to the physical part

Our modules carry the same model codes across the STEP file, the nameplate on the frame, and the spare parts list. That makes inspection easier and lets a site team check the installed configuration against the approved revision. QR-coded documentation on the frame nameplate takes this one step further, because a maintenance team can open the approved transit schedule from the wall.

For buyers qualifying us as a drop-in second source, we send the STEP file together with the cross-reference table and a free validation sample. The sample lets your engineer confirm the fit in an existing 120-frame cutout before the CAD model is frozen. Because we cut our own molds in-house, custom sizes follow the same release sequence with the same revision discipline.

Conclusion

A rejected MCT package costs a full review cycle. Rushed patches cost two. Decode comments, request the complete set, verify the certified configuration, then release CAD last.

Footnotes

1. ISO 9001 standards govern the quality management and document control processes required for transit document packages. ↩︎

2. The IEC defines the IP68 class standards for ingress protection mentioned in the technical verification process. ↩︎

3. Bureau Veritas is a primary authority for the Class approval requirements of marine and offshore cable transits. ↩︎

4. The IMO sets international safety standards for fire ratings in marine environments, crucial for MCT compliance. ↩︎

5. NIST provides guidance on technical standards for digital product data exchange, including STEP file formats. ↩︎