Orientation for reviewers: proofs, pitfalls, approval steps
Reviewers need a fast, consistent way to confirm that submittals actually prove performance. This page is your orientation: open the submission index (938), then step through drawings/calcs, spacing/arrays, foundations/drainage, and SAT evidence in a predictable order. You’ll see what “good” looks like for certificates (431), acceptance records (716, 638), and filenames/versions (115, 911). Use it to separate incidental measures from true HVM bollard or crash rating claims and to close approvals without back-and-forth. For broader context, see this section (130) and the chapter hub (100). If your project falls under Dubai authority scope, also review SIRA Bollards (UAE) for local approvals.
Important: This is a general guide. For live projects we develop a tailored
Method Statement & Risk Assessment (MS/RA) and align with authority approvals (e.g., SIRA) where in scope.
132.1 Where to start
A quick orientation for approvers: this page now points you to the live submission guidance at (938). Use it to evaluate HVM bollard and crash rated bollard evidence quickly.
Begin at the hub: open the Submission-Pack Guidance (938) and check that the transmittal includes a contents page, revision table, and a signed index. Confirm that the pack maps every claim to a source: certificates (431), calculations (914), array/spacing evidence (232, 321–326), and commissioning records (631–638). Require a one-page “reader guide” up front that states the tested configuration, foundation class, and any rating-critical dependencies.
| Aspect | What matters | Where to verify |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | As-tested product + footing; comparable site conditions | How to read ratings (413) |
| Operations | Duty cycle, fail-state, safety devices & measures | Commissioning & tests (630) |
| Traceability | Clear filenames, revisions, and cross-refs | File naming (911) · Numbering (115) |
132.2 Evidence map
See where each proof lives: certificates (431), spacing/layout (232, 321–326), foundations (331–334), commissioning/SAT (631–638).
Use the map as your checklist: Certificates & documentation (431) confirm the certificate scope, vehicle class, speed, and penetration class. Layout compliance sits under Spacing rules (232) and Array patterns (321). Foundation comparability draws on Foundations & Loads (330), especially types (332) and drainage (334). Finally, acceptance evidence belongs in SAT / Witness Procedure (638) and Evidence Capture Standards (716).
132.3 Reviewer questions
Common asks: rating validity, tested configuration, arrays and clear gaps, drainage/ingress protection (413, 421, 232, 334).
Start with three yes/no gates: (a) Is the product family and as-tested configuration clearly shown? (b) Does the site layout meet clear-gap rules (322) for the threat vehicle? (c) Are foundation depth/class and rating-critical dependencies (421) met or engineered as equivalent? If any gate is “no,” request a targeted addendum rather than rejecting the whole pack.
132.4 Fast-track pack structure
Open the pack index (917), then drawings (931) and calcs (914). Use checklist 716 to confirm pass/fail.
A rapid-review pack keeps the order predictable: (1) Submission Index & Covers (917); (2) a signed table mapping each claim to its evidence; (3) drawings laid out to the CAD/BIM standards (931); (4) calculations based on the Calculations Pack Template (914); (5) commissioning and SAT photos, forms, and sign-offs aligned with Evidence Capture Standards (716). This structure reduces back-and-forth and makes non-conformance obvious.
132.5 Numbering & codes used
Each H2 mirrors its page code (e.g., 938.1). This keeps drawings, emails, and approvals aligned (115).
Use our reference codes in headings only. Do not place codes in the WordPress title, slug, or Rank Math fields. When you cite another page, include both the descriptive anchor and its code, e.g., “see File Index & Naming Rules (911).” Version control is covered in Versioning & Numbering (115) and the live Change Log (118).
132.6 Typical rejection reasons
Weak equivalence evidence, unclear gaps, missing foundation notes, or drainage omissions (414, 232, 331–334).
- “Paper” equivalence without a site-comparability statement or engineer’s seal (414, 421).
- Arrays that breach clear-gap rules (322) at doors/turns (232, 323, 325).
- Foundations lacking class/depth notes or omitted drainage details (333, 334).
- Commissioning packs missing witness points (638) or photos that do not match the acceptance band (716).
132.7 Communication cadence
Use transmittals and NCR workflow (917, 719). Keep a simple weekly status trail to avoid stalls.
Standardize the rhythm: (a) one consolidated transmittal per week using the submission index (917); (b) a running log of queries and responses; (c) if an issue is blocking, raise an NCR (719) with the specific drawing/calculation reference and requested corrective action. This keeps accountability clear and shortens the path to Issue-for-Use.
132.8 Updates & versions
Track changes via 118; ensure filenames follow 911. Approvals reference specific revisions.
Before sign-off, check that the revision in the approval letter matches the filenames and title blocks. Use the Change Log (118) to note any post-approval edits and update the File Index & Naming Rules (911) accordingly. If a page or drawing is superseded, record the Release ID and add a 301 redirect where URLs change.
132.9 Where to find templates
Forms and indexes in 916–919. Start there to assemble a reviewer-friendly pack (938).
Templates live under Downloads / Templates / Checklists (910): use Evidence Capture Templates (916), Submission Index & Covers (917), and Witness & Inspection Forms (918) to build a tight pack. Refer to Submission-Pack Guidance (938) for structure and reviewer expectations.
Related
External resources
- NPSA — Hostile Vehicle Mitigation overview
- ASTM F2656 crash test standard (overview)
- BSI — Impact test specifications (PAS/IWA)
132 Reviewer Path & Approvals Overview — FAQ
What counts as acceptable evidence for a crash rating claim?
Provide a valid certificate with clear certificate scope (model, options, footing), drawings that match the as-tested configuration, and commissioning/SAT records proving the installed system performs as specified. Cross-reference each claim to its source (431, 630–638).
How do I judge equivalence when the exact foundation isn’t possible?
Ask for a site-comparability statement and sealed calculations demonstrating that the proposed foundation class and conditions meet or exceed the test’s rating-critical dependencies. If uncertain, request a targeted addendum (421, 333–334).
Which sections of the pack do I review first to save time?
Start with the Submission Index (917), then certificates (431), then spacing/layout (232, 321–326), then foundations/drainage (331–334), and finally commissioning/SAT (631–638). This sequence surfaces blocking issues early.
What are the most common reasons for rejection?
Unproven equivalence, clear-gap breaches at doors/turns, missing foundation/drainage notes, or incomplete SAT evidence (414, 232, 333–334, 638). Use Evidence Capture Standards (716) to tighten future submissions.