Construction plan and scope review

What a review produces

A page by page index

Every sheet in the set, with its discipline and what it actually contains. Not the drawing list, the file.

Sheet reconciliation

The file checked against its own drawing list, both ways. Sheets listed and missing, and sheets present but not on the list.

Missing sheet identification

Named, by sheet number and discipline, so you can request them specifically rather than asking for a complete set again.

Conflict flagging

Where the set contradicts itself, with both sides of the contradiction cited and a note on what it changes.

Scope extraction

What the documents actually ask for, separated from what they cannot yet tell you.

Bid or no bid input

An honest statement of how complete the documents are, so you can decide whether the job is worth your bid effort.

What has actually been found on real sets

These are real findings from real reviewed sets, with the projects and clients removed. Nothing in this list is illustrative.

• Mechanical, sprinkler and power sheets named on the drawing list and absent from the issued file.
• The same sheet number used twice, on two different drawings, in one set.
• Two conflicting occupancy classifications stated in the same package, which changes egress, rating and sprinkler scope.
• Two different code cycles cited in one set, so which edition governs was genuinely unclear.
• An elevator count on the drawings that contradicted what the client believed was in the building.
• A wall assembly sheet referenced by keynote and not present in the set, so the rated assemblies could not be priced from the documents supplied.
• A graphic scale bar printed at double the sheet’s actual scale, which would have doubled every quantity taken from it.
• A 592 sheet package spanning two companion contracts, where the scope in question sat across both and neither set was complete on its own.

Questions contractors actually ask