Workflow Guides
Where Procore Ends and Part3 Begins: The Architect's Guide to Construction Administration in a Procore World
Learn how architects use Part3 alongside Procore to review RFIs and submittals, coordinate consultants, compare specs, and preserve their own CA record.
Contents
Procore can keep the contractor-led project exchange moving. Part3 gives architects a dedicated place to complete, coordinate, and preserve the construction administration work they own.
Where does Procore end and Part3 begin for architects?
Procore and Part3 serve different but connected roles. On a contractor-led project, Procore can remain the project-wide construction platform and exchange for RFIs and submittals. Part3 gives the architect a dedicated construction administration workspace for design-team review, consultant coordination, spec context, private deliberation, and the firm-owned record behind each issued response.
Is Part3 an alternative to Procore?
Part3 works with Procore rather than as an alternative. For architecture firms working on contractor-led projects, the useful way to think about it is that Part3 alongside Procore, not Part3 versus Procore. Procore can continue connecting owners, contractors, specialty contractors, architects, engineers, and other project participants. It's the tool that the GC primarily uses. Part3 gives the architectural team a purpose-built environment for the architect-side CA work that happens before a final answer returns to that shared exchange.
This boundary is about responsibility, not a missing feature checklist. Procore is strong at organizing project-wide construction activity. Part3 is organized around the prime consultant and design team: what they reviewed, which specification or drawing informed the response, who contributed, what changed, and what the firm ultimately issued.
Why does the architect need a separate CA record?
A contractor platform can preserve the exchanged item and final response. The architect may still need the working context behind that response: internal comments, consultant input, review order, specification references, prior decisions, and the record of how the final language was assembled.
That distinction becomes practical when a submittal crosses several disciplines or an RFI reopens a decision made months earlier. If the basis for the answer is split across email, Bluebeam sessions, shared drives, and personal notes, the team can issue the response and still lose the reasoning that supports it. An architect-owned CA record keeps the issued answer connected to its review history.
The software does not change professional responsibility. A recent article published in AIA.org what AI can and cannot do makes the boundary explicit: technology can organize information and prepare context, but judgment, decisions, and sign-off remain with the architect.
How do architects review Procore submittals in Part3?
A connected submittal workflow has four clear handoffs.
1. The contractor creates and routes the submittal in Procore. Once the projects are connected, the item and its attachments sync into Part3 for the design team.
2. The prime consultant organizes the review in Part3. Reviewers can work in sequence, collaborators can contribute, and the team can keep draft comments and working material inside the design-team workflow.
3. The architect reviews the package in context. The team can open the current files, add markups, coordinate consultant responses, and use Part3's Submittal Assistant to compare the submission with the relevant specification. AI findings include linked citations so the reviewer can verify the evidence rather than accept an unexplained result.
4. The authorized reviewer approves the response language and returns the completed review to Procore via Part3's seamless integration. Procore continues to show the construction-team status and distributed response; Part3 keeps the architect-side review history.
A practical example: one product, two names, one decision
Consider a sealant submittal that lists Sikaflex NP 1 while the project specification names MasterSeal NP 1. A basic text match may treat the products as unrelated. In a real Part3 review shared publicly by an architect, Submittal Assistant recognized that Sikaflex NP 1 is the renamed replacement for the specified product formerly sold as MasterSeal NP 1.
That finding is useful because it changes the reviewer's starting point, not because it makes the decision. The architect still checks the manufacturer documentation, performance requirements, compatibility, warranty, project conditions, and any substitution obligations. The value is that the software surfaces a plausible match and its evidence early enough for the qualified reviewer to investigate it.
How do Procore RFIs work with Part3?
When a connected Procore RFI requires design-team input, it appears as a task in Part3. The architect can review the question and attachments, coordinate with consultants in the Part3 comments, prepare the response, and return it to Procore when the person with the required authority completes the work.
The useful difference is continuity. An RFI answer can stay connected to the architect's project files, related submittals, previous decisions, and internal coordination rather than becoming one more isolated reply. Procore remains the shared delivery path; Part3 preserves the design-team context around the answer.
What can AI do inside a Procore-connected CA workflow?
AI is most useful for repeatable information work: summarizing long packages, locating requirements, comparing submitted evidence with specifications, finding gaps, and retrieving prior project context. These tasks can make the first pass faster and more consistent.
AI should not approve a submittal, accept a substitution, resolve a conflict between trades, interpret the contract, or issue the final response on the architect's behalf. Those decisions depend on project context and professional judgment. A strong workflow makes the distinction visible by showing both the machine-assisted finding and the reviewer who verified and acted on it.
What changes when the architect owns the workflow?
Using software that is purpose-built for architects gives firms much more than fewer clicks. The design team can reduce duplicate entry, keep consultant work private until it is ready, see who owns the next action, and preserve the record in a system the firm controls.
Part3 publishes examples of that impact in our customer case studies. KONTEXT Architects reports a four-times improvement in submittal processing time, while Falcon Engineering reports a 75% reduction in clerical time on CA tasks. IDEA Inc. describes its AI submittal tool as finding missing items in seconds. These are customer-reported outcomes, not guarantees; a firm's results will depend on project volume, workflow design, adoption, and existing process maturity.
When should an architecture firm use Part3 alongside Procore?
Use Procore as the shared exchange when the general contractor already runs project communication, routing, and construction status there.
Use Procore with a light internal record when CA volume is low, consultant coordination is simple, and the firm can preserve review context without duplicate logs.
Use Part3 alongside Procore when the architecture team needs repeatable submittal and RFI review, private consultant collaboration, specification context, AI-assisted checks, and a searchable firm-owned CA record.
How should a firm pilot the Procore and Part3 workflow?
Start with one active project and one workflow that already creates friction. A multi-consultant submittal is usually a better test than a simple item because it exposes routing, review windows, draft visibility, response assembly, and record retention.
Before the pilot, agree on the operating rules with the contractor and design team: who establishes the connection, who is authorized in both systems, where RFIs and submittals originate, who controls internal review order, what remains private, who approves the final response, and what the firm expects to retain.
After the first ten items, review turnaround time, duplicate entry, late handoffs, missing context, consultant participation, and the completeness of the final record. Expand only when the team can explain the workflow without relying on one person's memory.
What is the next step?
Map one recent submittal from Procore intake through consultant review, architect decision, return, and archive.
Name which information belongs in the contractor exchange and which context the architect must preserve independently.
Pilot the connected workflow on one active project, then verify permissions, reviewer order, due dates, response language, and record retention before firm-wide rollout.
Procore and Part3: which system handles which part of CA?
Workflow area | Procore | Part3 |
|---|---|---|
Primary role | Project-wide construction platform and shared collaboration hub. | Architect-focused construction administration workspace. |
RFI and submittal origin | Contractor creates and routes connected RFIs and submittals. | Design team receives synced items and manages its review. |
Architect review | Supports approver workflows, markup, status, and item history. | Adds architect-side review order, consultant coordination, spec context, and internal history. |
Draft collaboration | Shared project permissions and workflow configured in the Procore project. | Design-team drafts and comments can remain private until the response is ready. |
AI-assisted spec review | Submittal Builder can scan specifications to create a submittal log. | Submittal Assistant compares submitted evidence with project specifications and cites findings for reviewer verification. |
Final response | Receives and distributes the completed response to the construction team. | Authorized architect prepares, verifies, and returns the design-team response. |
Record emphasis | Shared construction exchange, status, attachments, and response history. | Firm-owned CA context across reviews, consultants, project files, decisions, and issued responses. |
Best fit | Owners, contractors, specialty contractors, and project collaborators coordinating construction. | Prime architects and A/E firms responsible for consultant-heavy construction administration. |
Procore plus Part3 pilot checklist
Choose one active Procore project with meaningful RFI or submittal volume.
Confirm the Procore administrator and the Part3 prime-consultant owner.
Authorize participating users with the correct accounts and permissions.
Define where RFIs and submittals originate and how completed responses return.
Set the design-team review order, internal due dates, and final response owner.
Confirm which comments and drafts stay private to the design team.
Test one submittal with consultant input and one RFI with supporting files.
Verify specification links, markups, response language, timestamps, and final record.
Measure duplicate entry, turnaround time, late handoffs, and missing context after ten items.
FAQs
What is Procore for architects?
Part3 is often referred to as Procore for architects but it is more like an architect-focused companion to Procore. Architects are commonly added to Procore by the GC as project collaborators but Procore is a broad construction platform built with the GC in mind. Architecture firms may add Part3 when they need a dedicated design-team CA workflow for submittals, RFIs and field reports, and their own review record alongside the shared project exchange.
Does Part3 replace Procore?
No. Part3 integrates with Procore. The contractor can continue creating and managing RFIs and submittals in Procore while the architect and consultants review them in Part3. Completed responses return to Procore, so neither party needs to abandon the system built around its work.
How do architects review Procore submittals in Part3?
Connected submittals sync from Procore into Part3. The prime consultant can organize reviewers and collaborators, review attachments, add markups, compare the package with specifications, prepare the response, and return the completed review to Procore. The architect still verifies the evidence and owns the final response.
Can consultants work in Part3 when the contractor uses Procore?
Yes. Part3 lets the design team coordinate consultant reviews in its own workflow while the contractor remains in Procore. Reviewers can be assigned in order, collaborate on the item, and send their work to the prime consultant before one completed response returns to the contractor exchange.
Who owns the final submittal or RFI decision?
The qualified project reviewer owns the professional judgment and final response required by the project agreement. Software can organize the package, compare evidence, route input, and preserve history, but it should not obscure who verified the information, reconciled consultant comments, and authorized the issued answer.
Can Part3 use AI on submittals that arrive through Procore?
Yes. Part3 can import a Procore submittal and use Submittal Assistant to summarize the package, compare it with the project specification, and flag missing or inconsistent evidence with citations. The architect reviews those findings and decides what, if anything, belongs in the final response.
What should architects keep in their own construction administration record?
The firm should preserve the issued item and response plus the context needed to understand it: relevant specifications and drawings, reviewer assignments, consultant input, markups, prior decisions, dates, response language, and the identity of the person who authorized the final answer. Exact requirements depend on the project agreement and firm policy.
What are the trade-offs of using Part3 alongside Procore?
There are minimal tradeoffs in using Part3 alongside Procore. The architectural firm adds another licensed system. In return, the design team can reduce manual transfers, keep working material private, coordinate consultants in an architect-focused environment, and retain its own CA record. The value is strongest on higher-volume or consultant-heavy projects.
What does Part3 cost?
You can see Part3 pricing on our pricing page. Remember to evaluate the cost of Part3 against the current time spent downloading, re-entering, routing, chasing, reconstructing decisions, and maintaining parallel logs with the cost of a connected architect-side CA workflow.
What is the next step?
Book a demo call with Part3 to see how it works alongside Procore.
Related Part3 resources
Part3 Procore integration - Primary product proof for automatic RFI and submittal sync.
Submittal Assistant - Explains spec comparison, cited findings, and reviewer verification.
Construction administration software - Defines Part3 as the architect-focused CA platform.
ProjectFiles - Connects the architect-owned record to drawings, specifications, and CA history.
RFI and submittal workflow guide - Adds workflow context and related practical guidance.
Part3 customer stories - Supports customer-reported CA outcomes.
Part3 pricing - Answers active evaluation intent without hiding pricing context.
Book a Part3 demo - Primary conversion path for firms evaluating a connected pilot.
References
Procore: What is Procore? - First-party description of Procore as a construction collaboration hub for multiple project stakeholders.
Procore Submittals - First-party details on Procore submittal logs, workflows, markup, status, and history.
Part3 Procore integration - First-party source for automatic sync, step-based reviews, private drafts, response return, and data control.
Part3 Help Center: What is the Procore integration? - Workflow boundary: construction team stays in Procore and design team works in Part3.
Part3 Help Center: Procore submittals in Part3 - Step-by-step review, collaboration, response, and return workflow.
Part3 Help Center: Procore RFIs - RFI task, collaboration, and return workflow.
Part3 Submittal Assistant - AI summaries, spec comparisons, evidence gaps, and linked citations.
AIA: The future of construction administration - Professional boundary between task support and architect judgment, accountability, and sign-off.
Part3 customer stories - Customer-reported CA and submittal processing outcomes.
Sikaflex and MasterSeal model-matching example - Public practitioner example of model matching in an AI-assisted submittal review.
Map your Procore workflow
Bring one active RFI or submittal workflow. We will map what stays in Procore, what the design team handles in Part3, and how the completed response moves between them. /get-demo