Freeze the pricing package, compare drawn and specified scope, identify missing interfaces and document assumptions. Route unresolved decisions to their owners and reconcile the accepted answers before the team establishes its GMP baseline.
Agree what the milestone means
Identify the delivery arrangement, contract requirements and purpose of the review. A nominal design completion percentage does not tell you whether a particular equipment selection, facade interface or utility connection is resolved. Describe the deliverables actually available.
The milestone review planner helps define the package. Keep the technical review separate from the commercial decision about which assumptions, exclusions and allowances belong in the agreement.
Review the price basis as a package
Gather the current drawings, specifications, addenda, scope descriptions and accepted clarifications. Confirm that every participant is reading the same issue. Separate reference-only documents from those included in the pricing basis.
A detail can be complete while its receiving work is missing from another package. Trace an equipment item through its support, opening, power, controls and maintenance access. Record both sources when the interface is unresolved.
A hypothetical allowance question
Suppose a pump schedule identifies a duty while the controls diagram and specification leave the operating sequence unresolved. Record the sources, the missing decision and the disciplines affected. The design team determines the intended sequence; the estimating and commercial team decides how to treat the unresolved scope.
Do not infer a contingency amount from the number of document findings. A cited question makes the uncertainty visible, but the team needs its own scope, procurement and contract analysis to price it.
Pre-GMP review worksheet
| Check | Sources | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing register | Issued documents, addenda and GMP basis | Which exact files and revisions support the proposed price? |
| Missing information | Plans, callouts and specification index | Are required details, referenced sheets or sections absent? |
| System agreement | Equipment schedules, diagrams and specifications | Do the documents state the same system, capacity and selection? |
| Receiving work | Supports, openings, services and access | Is the work that receives each system defined and coordinated? |
| Scope boundary | Trade packages and responsibility matrix | Is each interface owned, including furnished-by and installed-by work? |
| Unresolved design | TBD notes, allowances and decision log | What decision is outstanding and how is it treated in the proposed basis? |
| Accepted response | Clarifications and revised documents | Did the answer reach the documents that the team will rely on? |
| Baseline record | Final register, assumptions and assigned owners | Can another reviewer reconstruct the accepted scope and remaining decisions? |
Resolve and backcheck the answer
Assign a decision owner and a review date. When an answer arrives, check the actual revised sources. Retain remaining conditions in the register rather than closing an item on receipt of an email.
The mixed-use case shows equipment and schedule disagreements worth resolving at a pricing milestone. It is evidence of document findings, not a record of a GMP negotiation or savings.
Sources and next review
AIA’s A201-2017 summary is background on a common contract framework; the executed project documents govern. Source checked October 13, 2026.
Use the pre-bid review for cited document questions and the addendum checklist when the pricing package changes.