Define the decision the review supports, identify the governing documents, assign review responsibilities, check completeness and interfaces, record evidence, resolve comments, and verify the issued correction. Keep one review log that connects those steps.
Start with the decision and the scope
State what the package is being reviewed for: a design milestone, permit submission, bid, procurement decision, or revised issue. Identify the disciplines, buildings or areas, and reference requirements in scope. A reviewer cannot judge whether information is missing without knowing what this issue is supposed to contain.
Record known exclusions and decisions still in progress. Agree on when comments are due, who resolves conflicting instructions, and how responses will be incorporated into the next issue. For pricing questions, use the pre-bid review workflow; for milestone expectations, use the design-review matrix.
Establish the governing document register
List the files, consultant issues, specifications, addenda, and reference documents that form the review package. Compare the drawing index with the actual sheets. Identify superseded material and explain why any older document is retained as a reference.
Open representative pages to confirm that the sources are readable and complete. A filename alone does not establish which requirement governs; inconsistent dates or competing schedules need a decision from the project team. Record that decision before using one version to assess another.
Keep the register with the review record. If the package changes during the review, identify the replacement issue and which comments need to be checked again.
Assign responsibilities across the interfaces
The coordinator manages scope, the register, deadlines, and the consolidated log. Discipline reviewers examine their own technical requirements. The affected designers resolve conflicting design information. An owner or project representative clarifies program and operational requirements where those are part of the scope.
Assign shared interfaces explicitly. For an equipment support, the mechanical, structural, and architectural documents may each describe only part of the condition. Name a person or role to coordinate the answer while preserving each designer’s responsibility for their work.
Agree who verifies closure. The person answering a comment should identify the affected revisions; the checker needs to confirm those changes appear in the issued documents.
Check completeness before comparing requirements
Follow the index, callouts, schedules, and reference chains. Distinguish information that is absent from information that is deliberately deferred at this milestone. Record a missing prerequisite so later reviewers understand the limit of the check.
Then examine discipline consistency and shared interfaces: equipment identities, datums, openings, assembly requirements, and drawings against specifications. Use the construction document review checklist to organize coverage, and adapt it to the project.
Separate a document conflict from a performance calculation or professional determination. A mismatch can be established by the sources; deciding the correct design may require additional analysis.
Write comments that carry their evidence
One comment should describe one decision clearly. Identify the current issue, affected file and sheet or specification section, location or tag, the conflicting or missing information, and the question that will resolve it. Explain a possible consequence without presenting an unverified concern as a confirmed defect.
Illustrative comment: The equipment schedule and the plan callout state different connection requirements for the same tag. Please confirm the intended requirement and identify the drawing, schedule, and specification revisions needed to coordinate it.
Attach the actual project references. Group duplicate observations around the same decision while retaining all affected locations. Add a responsible reviewer and a decision deadline, especially where procurement or submission depends on the answer.
Download the review and resolution log (CSV)
The blank template includes source references, ownership, decision, response, affected revisions, closure evidence, and verification fields. It is a team record you can edit in your spreadsheet application.
Separate the response from closure
A response can accept the finding, reject it with supporting reasoning, identify a duplicate, or request more information. Record which decision was made and why. An accepted comment should name the intended correction and all documents affected by it.
“Will revise” records an action, not a completed check. To close a comment, open the issued revision, confirm the intended change, and trace dependent schedules, details, and specifications. Record the issue, evidence, verifier, and date. If no correction is needed, keep the source context that explains the apparent conflict.
The worked door-rating example shows a published finding alongside an illustrative response template and closure criteria. The template does not claim that the project actually reached that outcome.
Use AI as part of the review workflow
Groundbook reviews the supplied drawings and references and returns potential findings with source evidence. State the scope in the review instructions, then use the findings to direct your team’s investigation. The same responsibilities, response process, and closure checks still apply.
Keep the register and unresolved questions with the review record so a later issue can be assessed against the right baseline. Measure useful outcomes such as supported findings, decisions reached, and verified corrections—not simply the number of comments generated.
Learn more about construction document review with Groundbook or the scope and limits of AI plan review.