Guide · Drawing review workflows · 10 min read · Updated September 19, 2026
How drawing review works under each project delivery method
Choosing a delivery method changes who is at the table when drawings are reviewed. It also changes when a missed detail can affect a bid, a price commitment, or a construction package. Here is how to organize the review—and where Groundbook can help.
Schedule drawing reviews before the decisions that depend on them. In design-bid-build, that usually means a coordinated check before tender. In design-build, it means checking developing designs against owner requirements and reviewing each release. In CMAR and GC/CM, it means connecting design review with constructability, pricing, and phasing. Groundbook supports the document-checking work with source-linked findings clouded on the drawings.
First, define which drawing review you mean
This is the practical companion to our owner's guide to construction project delivery methods. Start there for the contract structures; use this article to plan the review process once you have a shortlist or a selected method.
The workflows below describe common arrangements and our suggested review checkpoints. Actual duties, approval rights, and deadlines come from the project agreements. Public procurement and permit requirements vary by jurisdiction.
- Design QA/QC: architects and engineers check technical accuracy, completeness, and coordination within and between disciplines.
- Constructability review: builders and relevant specialists examine whether the design can be built using the proposed access, sequence, tolerances, and installation approach.
- Owner review: the owner and its advisers check the design against the brief, operational needs, maintainability, and agreed scope.
- Permit or regulatory review: the authority examines the submission within its regulatory remit. This does not replace the project's coordination process.
- Shop-drawing and submittal review: the team reviews proposed fabrication, products, or installation information through the required contract procedure.
These activities overlap, but they have different purposes. AIA's construction administration guidance, for example, explains the contractor's review and coordination of submittals before sending them to the design professional. An AI document finding is not a formal submittal approval or permission to proceed.
At a glance: who reviews, and when?
| Delivery method | Typical review participants | Key checkpoint | Groundbook's supporting role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design-bid-build | Design team, owner, advisers; builder after selection | Before tender and after addenda | Cross-check drawings, schedules, and specifications before bidders rely on them |
| Design-build | Design-builder's designers and construction team; owner at agreed milestones | Before each design or construction release | Check supplied requirements and connections between packages |
| Progressive design-build | Owner and design-builder during scope and price development | Before a price commitment or early package | Surface document questions for the team to resolve before commitment |
| CMAR / GC/CM / CM/GC | Owner-appointed designers, CM or contractor, owner, relevant trades | Design milestones, pricing, and phased releases | Help reviewers investigate cross-discipline and phasing-related document conflicts |
| Agency CM / multiple prime | Design team, owner, CM adviser, package contractors | Before package procurement and interface handoffs | Check related documents across package boundaries |
| IPD / alliance | Owner, designers, constructor, and key participants together | Joint decisions and package releases | Give the team referenced findings to investigate and track |
None of these methods has one universal review calendar. Agree on the documents, reviewers, response deadlines, and release authority for each checkpoint. Labels such as “60% design” are useful only when the team understands what that submission must contain.
Design-bid-build: resolve questions before they become bid assumptions
Under design-bid-build, the owner has separate design and construction contracts. The design team typically carries out discipline checks and coordination as the documents develop. The owner and its advisers review requirements at agreed milestones. The eventual builder often joins after the bid set has been prepared. The AIA–AGC project delivery primer explains that basic sequence.
How to organize the review
Review the developed design while there is still time to correct system relationships. Before tender, check plans against sections, schedules, details, and specifications. Resolve questions that could cause bidders to price different scopes. If an addendum changes a requirement, revisit the related documents rather than assuming the original coordination check still applies.
After award, the contractor's review, requests for information, and submittals introduce further questions. Keep those decisions connected to the current issued set. Do not leave an accepted change only in an email or meeting record.
How Groundbook can help
Supply the proposed tender drawings, specifications, reports, and QA/QC checklist for a cross-document review. Reviewers can open potential conflicts at the clouded locations and inspect their supporting references. This gives the design team a concrete list to investigate before issue. Repeat the document check with the appropriate revised set when changes affect coordination.
Release question: can bidders understand the same scope from the documents you intend to issue?
Design-build: review the requirements and every package release
The design-builder organizes its design and construction review within one delivery team. The owner still needs an agreed way to check whether the developing solution meets its requirements. DBIA's sample request for proposals asks teams to explain their design quality-control process and identify who reviews and coordinates design documents.
How to organize the review
Start with a clear owner brief and a design-review schedule. Identify which decisions require owner input and which are the design-builder's responsibility. Bring operations staff into reviews where access, maintainability, or equipment replacement matters.
Where design and construction overlap, review each package together with the information it depends on. An early foundation package, for example, may rely on equipment loads, openings, or service routes that are still developing elsewhere. Record unresolved dependencies before authorizing the package.
How Groundbook can help
Include owner requirements as supplied reference documents or a QA/QC checklist, alongside the drawings and specifications. Groundbook can help surface potential inconsistencies for the team to examine. Include the related discipline documents when reviewing an early package; a check of the package alone cannot establish what an absent future design will require.
Release question: does this package meet the documented requirements and coordinate with the information currently available?
Progressive design-build: review before scope and price commitments
In progressive design-build, the owner and selected team develop the solution and commercial terms through a staged process. DBIA describes the progression toward design and price. Drawing review should support those decisions while alternatives are still open.
How to organize the review
At early stages, distinguish an error from information that is intentionally unfinished. A missing final equipment connection may be a decision to resolve, rather than a defect in a concept drawing. As the project develops, check whether decisions have reached the relevant plans, schedules, details, and specifications.
Before accepting a price or authorizing early work, identify the document revision that supports it. Ask the commercial team to reconcile assumptions, allowances, and exclusions with that scope. The drawing review and the price review inform each other, but remain separate tasks.
How Groundbook can help
Review the current package against the available reference documents and a checklist appropriate to its maturity. Use findings to identify document questions that need a design decision before commitment. Reviewers can record their assessment and follow-up status. Groundbook's document review does not validate the construction price or establish that a proposed GMP covers every obligation.
Commitment question: which unresolved document questions could change the scope you are about to authorize?
CMAR, GC/CM, and CM/GC: combine design review with construction input
These approaches bring contractor advice into an owner-led design process, while their contract and procurement details vary. Designers review technical work and coordination; the CM or contractor contributes pricing, logistics, phasing, and constructability input. FHWA's CM/GC guidance describes the contractor's design-phase consultation before construction contracting. AIA's collaborative-project document guide also addresses preconstruction participation and constructability.
How to organize the review
Agree on review packages tied to design and pricing milestones. Ask construction reviewers to identify the source of each concern and the decision needed. The responsible designer then evaluates the comment and incorporates the appropriate response.
For phased or occupied work, include temporary access, service continuity, demolition boundaries, and the transition from existing to proposed conditions. A permanent layout can be coordinated while the intermediate construction stage remains unclear. Before a price commitment, document which drawing issue and assumptions were used.
How Groundbook can help
Review related architectural, structural, and MEP documents together with available phasing information and the team's checklist. Potential conflicts are linked to their sources and clouded on the drawings, helping the designer and construction reviewer examine the same condition. Comments and status can preserve the review decision while the team updates the official documents.
Field logistics, installation methods, cost validation, and physical site conditions still require the appropriate people and evidence.
Release question: have design responses resolved the construction concern across every affected document and phase?
Agency CM and multiple prime: review across package boundaries
An agency CM helps the owner manage the review process. Under multiple-prime contracting, separate contractors may each hold a package directly with the owner. The CMAA owner's guide explains these management and contractual arrangements.
How to organize the review
Assign a review coordinator and define the interfaces between packages. A contractor checking its own work may not resolve a gap between that package and another. Review supports, penetrations, controls connections, waterproofing transitions, and temporary works wherever responsibilities meet.
For each interface question, name the person who must resolve the design and the person who can confirm the package scope. Both decisions may be needed before procurement.
How Groundbook can help
Supply the relevant packages together for cross-document review, including shared details and specifications. Use referenced findings to bring the affected reviewers to the same locations. The team must determine contractual responsibility; a drawing inconsistency alone does not establish which party owes the work.
Release question: is each interface both technically coordinated and included in an authorized package?
IPD and alliances: turn joint decisions into coordinated documents
Integrated project delivery brings key participants into early collaboration. The AIA's IPD guide describes early involvement and integrated decision-making. Alliances can also use joint governance, though their commercial and legal arrangements differ; Australia's national delivery guidelines provide further context.
How to organize the review
Use coordinated review sessions to assess issues involving several disciplines or trades. Record the chosen solution, affected documents, responsible designer, and required follow-up. A decision agreed in a workshop still needs to appear consistently in the issued information.
Before package release, check that revised drawings reflect the decision and that related schedules and specifications remain aligned. Make the release criteria explicit even when the team is collaborating closely.
How Groundbook can help
Use the document review to prepare referenced questions for joint sessions. Clouded locations help participants investigate the condition, while comments and status support follow-up. The team can then check the updated package with its supporting documents. Groundbook supports evidence gathering and review; the project's agreed governance process determines acceptance and release.
Release question: can someone who missed the coordination meeting understand the agreed solution from the documents?
Review priorities for specialized delivery arrangements
The same review principles apply beyond the main building-delivery methods. These are suggested applications of document review; adapt them to the actual contracts and technical scope.
EPC and turnkey
The lead delivery team coordinates engineering, equipment information, and construction documents, while the owner reviews agreed performance and acceptance requirements. Before procurement and construction releases, examine equipment interfaces, utility connections, access, and the documents supporting commissioning. Groundbook can help check consistency across the supplied drawings, specifications, and checklists. It does not replace calculations, testing, or performance acceptance.
EPCM
The engineering and management provider helps coordinate packages that the owner typically contracts separately. Review vendor information against the developing engineering documents and connected packages. Groundbook can help surface inconsistencies across those sources; the owner's team still manages package commitments and resolves responsibility.
Management contracting
Coordinate the designer's reviews with the management contractor and relevant works contractors. Before releasing each package, check its boundaries and dependencies. Groundbook can support document checks across the package set while the team handles formal instructions and approvals.
P3, DBFOM, and other long-term operating arrangements
Bring the operator or maintenance representatives into the agreed reviews where whole-life requirements matter. Compare design information with documented access, replacement, durability, and maintenance requirements before release. Groundbook can help examine these requirements when supplied in references or checklists. Physical performance and long-term service compliance need their own verification.
Job order contracting and repeat work
Review the scope, existing conditions, applicable details, and supporting documents for each work order. Reusing a standard detail does not establish that it fits a particular task. Groundbook can support a document check using a reusable QA/QC checklist, while site verification, quantities, and work-order authorization remain with the project team.
For the contractual differences behind these workflows, see the specialized delivery methods overview.
A practical drawing review workflow with Groundbook
Use this sequence at the review checkpoints established for your delivery method.
- Define the review decision. State whether the package is being prepared for owner review, tender, a price commitment, permit submission, or construction release. Identify who can authorize the next step.
- Confirm the document set. Upload or import the intended drawing revisions with specifications, reports, and QA/QC checklists. Include the connected disciplines and supporting information that the check needs. Resolve uncertainty about superseded documents before starting.
- Review the findings in context. Open the referenced spots highlighted and clouded on the drawings. Check both sides of a potential conflict and confirm that the cited information applies to the condition.
- Evaluate and route the issue. Use severity, comments, feedback, and status to support triage. Send confirmed concerns through the project's agreed process to the responsible designer or reviewer. Distinguish a correction from a question requiring more information.
- Record the authorized response. Capture what the team decided and which documents need revision. Process scope, price, or schedule changes through the required contractual channels.
- Check closure before release. Examine the revised documents and related references. A response saying “addressed” is not the same as confirming that the issued package communicates the correction.
This structure follows a basic principle of controlled review: identify the review set, record comments and responses, and confirm their disposition. GSA's Design Review Quick Reference Guide illustrates a formal review-set and comment workflow in its own system.
Groundbook aims to reduce the effort of cross-document checking and finding verification. AI can miss an issue or flag an intentional condition. Keep professional review, site verification, and formal approvals in the process.
What the owner should expect from a completed review
A useful review record should make the next decision easier. Ask for the following, regardless of the delivery method:
- The document names, revisions, and scope reviewed.
- The condition, source references, and reason for each confirmed concern.
- The person responsible for the response and the decision deadline.
- The response, affected documents, and evidence of correction.
- Any open questions, missing information, or accepted exceptions at release.
Judge the review by whether important questions are resolved in time for the next commitment. Finding counts alone do not show that a package is ready, and a finding list is not evidence of guaranteed cost savings.
Start with our construction document QA/QC checklist, adapt it to the package and delivery method, and give the team time to verify and close the findings before work proceeds.
Keep reading
Related pages
Questions, answered
Frequently asked questions
Who reviews drawings in design-bid-build?
The design team typically performs design QA/QC and coordination, with the owner and advisers reviewing their requirements. The selected contractor later reviews documents for its construction work and follows the agreed RFI and submittal processes. Exact duties are set by the contracts.
Does design-build eliminate owner drawing review?
No. The owner should have agreed review milestones for checking the developing design against its requirements. The design-builder also needs its own design and construction coordination process. Owner review does not automatically transfer the design-builder's responsibilities.
When should drawings be reviewed in CMAR or GC/CM?
Plan reviews around design milestones, pricing commitments, and early construction packages. Bring contractor input into the design process, and verify that responses are carried into the relevant drawings, schedules, and specifications before release.
Can Groundbook approve drawings for construction?
No. Groundbook provides potential findings with supporting references for people to evaluate. The responsible professionals and authorized project parties retain design decisions, formal approvals, and release authority.
Can the same drawing review checklist be used for every delivery method?
A common checklist can provide a starting point, but adapt it to design maturity, package boundaries, owner requirements, and the decision being made. A tender-set review needs different completeness expectations from an early design review.
Make drawing review part of every project commitment
Review drawings and supporting documents together, then verify potential issues directly on the marked-up sheets.