A useful early review turns a vague concern into a specific, source-backed decision. Verify the issue, identify the affected work, route it through the project’s clarification process, and check the revised documents. Measure whether drawing-originated questions recur; an AI finding count is not an RFI savings measure.
Focus on avoidable document questions
An RFI is a request for information. It can be appropriate even on a carefully reviewed project: site conditions, new decisions, or incomplete information may require a formal response. The goal of drawing review is to resolve questions that the team can identify earlier, while the affected design and procurement decisions are still being made.
Start with questions caused by the document package itself. Can a contractor identify the intended material? Does the equipment requirement agree across disciplines? Is an opening or support described where another system needs it? Can the reader follow the reference to a usable detail?
Keep internal coordination comments, pre-bid questions, and formal RFIs distinct in the project record. The required communication route depends on the project’s procedures. A review finding should not be forwarded as a confirmed design defect before someone checks its evidence.
Review the questions most likely to block a decision
| Question type | Evidence to inspect | Decision to request |
|---|---|---|
| Conflicting requirements | The same item in a plan, schedule, detail, and specification | Which requirement is intended, and which sources must change? |
| Missing interface | The service or assembly that needs an opening, support, or connection | Where is the receiving condition defined, and who resolves it? |
| Unclear dimensions | The annotation, its measurement basis, and related detail | Which faces, datum, or component does the value describe? |
| Incomplete reference | The callout and its intended destination | Which supplied detail describes the actual condition? |
| Unresolved revision | Competing issues and the transmittal instructions | Which source governs this review and its dependencies? |
| Scope boundary | Notes, details, specifications, and discipline responsibilities | Who provides the identified interface, and where is that stated? |
Prioritize by the decision needed and its timing. A small discrepancy can be urgent when fabrication depends on it; a more consequential issue may require a coordinated design review. Record both the consequence and the dependency instead of sorting exclusively by an AI severity label.
Write one answerable clarification
The worksheet separates the two source statements from your interpretation. Enter the location, governing issue, the requirement in source A, and the requirement in source B. Then describe what remains unclear and the decision needed. That structure helps the receiving designer investigate the question directly.
A weak question says, “Please coordinate the mechanical and structural drawings.” A more useful illustrative question is: “The service plan shows a sump at this location, but the corresponding structural area reviewed does not identify a recess or opening. Please identify the applicable structural detail or confirm the intended coordinated arrangement.” Attach the actual references for the project.
Also state when the answer is needed and why, such as an upcoming coordination issue or procurement dependency. Do not invent a cost impact, proposed engineering solution, or instruction to proceed merely to fill a form. Distinguish a possible consequence from an assessed project impact.
Verify the finding before routing it
Open every cited source and confirm the same location, component, and issue are being compared. Read surrounding notes and exceptions. Check whether the apparently missing information is supplied in another detail, specification, or referenced package. Reject or revise a finding when that context changes the question.
The published mixed-use opening example is a useful starting point for this method. It describes a potential interface gap that requires confirmation, not an approved structural alteration. Preserve that distinction when preparing a clarification for the project team.
Group duplicate questions that share the same required decision, while retaining the affected locations. If two similar issues have different governing conditions, keep their technical assessment separate. Fewer rows are only useful when the record still explains the work that needs to be resolved.
Get the response into the governing documents
After the responsible party responds, identify every source affected by the decision. Backcheck the actual revised plan, schedule, detail, or specification. Confirm that related disciplines received the information and that the update resolves the original question in its full context.
A response and a change authorization serve different purposes. The AIA’s G716 instructions explain that its RFI form does not itself authorize changes in project cost or time. Follow the project’s applicable contract and change process when a response affects those matters.
This downloadable clarification worksheet is an original internal review aid, not an AIA form or a replacement for the project’s required RFI process. Use the review resolution log when you need a fuller record of responses and closure.
Measure the review without claiming prevented RFIs
Track verified document questions, decisions completed before the relevant milestone, repeat questions after a response, and reviewer effort. If you compare RFI records across projects, account for project size, phase, scope, and the way teams classify questions. A lower raw count alone does not establish that the review caused the difference.
Do not count every AI finding as an RFI prevented. Some findings are incorrect, duplicate, already known, or would have been resolved by the normal review. An avoided cost is especially difficult to establish without a defensible baseline and project evidence.
Groundbook can help surface potential drawing and reference conflicts during pre-bid review and constructability review. Verify the findings, route the questions, and measure the decisions your team can actually document.