Case study
Ninety seven pages, read one at a time, before anything was priced
A new four storey multiple dwelling in Brooklyn. The client wanted a price. What he got first was a list of the reasons the set was not ready to price, and it changed what he did next.
- Project type
- New four storey multiple dwelling
- Region
- Brooklyn, New York
- Year
- 2026
- Set size
- 97 pages
- Services provided
- Plan and scope review, scope extraction
The situation
A contractor sent a 97 page set for a new four storey multiple dwelling in Brooklyn and asked for a fee to price it.
Before quoting the estimating work, the set was read page by page and reconciled against its own drawing list. That review is the cheapest step in the whole process and it is the one that decides whether the rest of it is worth doing.
What arrived
One PDF of 97 pages covering architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and sprinkler, with a drawing list on the cover sheet and a code analysis sheet in the front matter.
What was found
Every one of the following was in the set as issued. None of it required specialist knowledge to find. It required somebody to actually read all 97 pages against the drawing list.
- Sheets listed on the drawing list that were not in the set. Mechanical, sprinkler and power sheets were named on the index and absent from the file.
- The same sheet number used twice on two different drawings, which means any reference to that number in a specification or an RFI is ambiguous.
- Two different occupancy classifications stated in the same set, on the code analysis sheet and in the general notes, which changes egress, rating and sprinkler requirements.
- Two different code cycles cited in one package, so it was not clear which edition the design was actually being held to.
- An elevator count on the drawings that contradicted what the client believed was in the building. He had been told one thing and the set showed another.
- A wall assembly sheet referenced by keynote and not present in the set, which means the rated assemblies could not be priced from the documents supplied.
- A graphic scale bar printed at double the sheet’s actual scale, which will produce quantities that are wrong by a factor of two for anyone who trusts it.
How the review was done
- 01
Index the set against itself
Every sheet in the file is listed and matched against the drawing list on the cover. What is on the list and not in the file is a missing sheet. What is in the file and not on the list is an uncontrolled sheet. Both matter.
- 02
Read the front matter properly
Code analysis sheets, general notes and legends are where occupancy, code cycle and rated assembly information lives, and where it contradicts itself.
- 03
Verify the scale before trusting any dimension
Printed scale bars are checked against known printed dimensions in both axes on each sheet series. That is how the doubled scale bar was caught.
- 04
Cross reference every keynote and detail callout
A callout that points at a sheet not in the set is a gap, not a detail. Each one is listed with the sheet it references.
- 05
Extract the scope, then list what cannot be extracted
The scope that is priceable from the documents is written out. The scope that is not priceable, and the reason, is written out beside it.
What was delivered
- A page by page index
- All 97 pages, with the discipline and content of each.
- A reconciliation against the drawing list
- Missing sheets and uncontrolled sheets, named.
- A conflict list
- Each conflict, where both sides of it appear, and what it changes if it is resolved one way rather than the other.
- A scope extraction
- What the set actually asks for, separated from what it cannot yet tell you.
- A quote for the estimating work
- Fee and turnaround for pricing the set, issued once it was clear what could be priced.
What the contractor could do with it
He could send a single consolidated request for information instead of discovering the same gaps one at a time during pricing.
He could raise the occupancy and code cycle conflicts with the design team before they became a change order.
He could check the elevator count against what he had been told, rather than after.
And he could decide whether to bid the job at all with an accurate picture of how complete the documents were, which is the whole point of paying for a review before paying for an estimate.
Same kind of job on your desk?
Send the documents. A written fee and a turnaround come back before anything is measured.