Are your project documents ready for tender? Checks that expose construction problems before award

Drawings may look complete without providing a workable basis for construction. Problems emerge when the contractor compares architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical information, or when the site team tries to install a detail within space that cannot accommodate it. Questions that could have been resolved during design can then become requests for information, changes and site delays.

A constructability review examines a design systematically from the perspectives of construction, procurement and operation. Its purpose is not to redesign the project or transfer the designer’s responsibility. It identifies what may prevent the documented solution from being built, then refers findings to the appropriate parties for a clear decision before tender or the relevant work starts.

How does a constructability review differ from a design review?

A design review typically examines the validity of the solution and compliance with applicable requirements and codes. Constructability adds practical questions: can the team access the work area? Is the installation sequence achievable? Do dimensions and levels accommodate all systems? Are details compatible with available materials and the proposed construction methods? Can the element be inspected and maintained after the building is occupied?

The reviews complement each other. A calculation may be correct while access to a joint or valve becomes impossible after ceiling closure. Drawings may meet requirements while the proposed sequence requires completed work to be removed and reinstated.

When is the review most useful?

Plan the review before issuing tender documents, once the design is sufficiently developed to examine details and coordination. Major packages can be reviewed as they mature rather than waiting for the entire design to finish.

The later an issue is discovered, the more commitments may need to be revisited. Changing a service route in a model generally involves fewer consequences than changing it after material approval or installation. Allow review and correction time within defined decision gates for each design stage; this is not a promise that every later change can be prevented.

Define the review scope step by step

1. Establish the review basis

Assemble a document and revision register covering drawings, specifications, bills of quantities, geotechnical and survey reports, owner requirements, relevant authority requirements and previous decisions. A finding is difficult to substantiate when the disciplines are working from different revisions.

2. Check consistency between documents

Compare terminology, dimensions, materials and scope across drawings, specifications and bills of quantities. A conflict is not necessarily a geometric clash: an item may appear on a drawing but be absent from the quantities, or a specification may require performance that the detail does not support.

Do not assume a universal order of precedence when resolving discrepancies. Refer to the contract’s document hierarchy and instructions from the designer and authorised decision-maker. Before tender, incorporate resolutions into a coordinated issue or a formal tender addendum available to all tenderers. Link each finding to the corrected document and revision.

3. Coordinate the disciplines

Review routes, levels, openings, service rooms and maintenance space. BIM coordination helps identify geometric clashes, but a model alone does not establish installation practicality, sequencing or suitability for the contractor’s methods. Combine digital checks with construction input.

4. Review site access and logistics

Consider access points, storage and lifting areas, temporary circulation, closure stages and interfaces with existing buildings or roads. On constrained sites, access and sequencing may need to inform the design rather than being left entirely to construction.

Review assumptions about temporary works, excavation and support stages, lifting and diversion of existing services without transferring responsibility for construction means and methods from the contractor. If the design depends on a particular method, identify relevant constraints, temporary loads and hold points requiring specialist design or approval within the tender documents.

5. Review maintainability

Check access and replacement space, safe inspection routes and the ability to isolate systems without unnecessary disruption. A solution that appears economical to install may create recurring operating costs if inspection and maintenance access are overlooked.

How should findings be prioritised?

A long list is not enough. Record the document reference, location, issue, potential effect, responsible party and response date. Illustrative priority categories include:

• Critical: prevents the relevant work or identifies a safety or compliance concern.
• High: likely to cause a change, delay or rework if unresolved.
• Medium: affects efficiency or quality and can be resolved before the relevant work.
• Improvement: an opportunity to simplify the solution or improve maintainability.

Keep a finding open until a decision has been recorded and the affected document updated. A written reply alone may not close it: reflect the decision in the appropriate contract document through the agreed change-control process. Review does not transfer design responsibility or solution approval from the licensed designer, nor remove the contractor’s subsequent checks and contractual obligations.

Indicators of tender readiness

An owner can use a readiness gate to check closure of critical findings, consistent document revisions, quantities linked to scope, stated assumptions and exclusions, and the status of required authority reviews.

For a Saudi project, establish the suitability and status of survey and geotechnical information, existing-utility investigations and applicable building-permit, utility-provider and Civil Defence requirements for that project type. Distinguish approvals and information actually obtained from assumptions that tenderers must address in their pricing.

Readiness does not mean that no further questions will arise. The gate should show how known risks have been resolved or allocated. A limited review cannot establish comprehensive readiness outside its agreed scope or substitute for authority approval.

Common mistakes

• Reviewing immediately before tender without allowing time for corrections.
• Treating model clash detection as the entire review and overlooking sequencing, procurement or maintenance.
• Recording comments such as “coordination required” without a location or potential effect.
• Accepting responses that are not incorporated into the issued documents.
• Introducing cheaper alternatives without comparing performance and service-life implications; connect these decisions to value engineering.

Worked example: a digitally coordinated ceiling that cannot be installed as documented

In a hypothetical office-floor fit-out, the model shows no intersection between air-conditioning ducts and beams. However, the required clear ceiling height cannot be achieved after insulation and supports are included, and a maintenance hatch sits above a fixed cabinet.

A “clash-free” result is insufficient. Confirm the height and access requirements and compare alternatives for service routes, ceiling layout and furniture with the design team.

A useful review output is a coordinated section showing actual dimensions and usable maintenance openings, together with updated drawings, specifications and quantities where affected. Do not permit an opening through a structural element simply because it makes a route easier: the structural designer must review its effect before approval.

What should the owner ask the reviewer to deliver?

Request a register identifying each finding’s document reference and revision, its risk to the tender package, the party responsible for resolving it and evidence of closure.

The review connects architectural design and planning, interior design and fit-out and structural design with MEP coordination and permits and approvals. Define each discipline’s appointment before commissioning the review. Final authority decisions remain with the competent bodies.

Executive takeaway

A constructability review supports earlier, better-informed decisions. Review identified documents with design, construction and operations input, then incorporate resolutions into the documents tenderers will use. This gives the parties a clearer scope and a basis for addressing known risks. A late review without time or authority to implement corrections may only record the problems.

Professional references and limits

The Arabic source records a general reference review on 8 September 2026. Applicable editions and project requirements must be checked for the specific appointment. The sources below are reference entry points, not evidence that an individual project is compliant or approved. Examples are illustrative and do not report completed AYM project outcomes.

• Saudi Building Code Center: identify the applicable code, edition and project provisions with the competent specialist. The general site does not establish project-specific compliance.
• EXPRO National Manual for Project Management: a general reference entry point. Use the controlled procedures applicable to the project; the public library does not establish the latest issue of an individual procedure.