Constructability Review: The Design-Phase Review That Catches the Problems the Field Would Otherwise Find
Constructability review is the systematic evaluation of design documents from the construction perspective — does what's shown on these drawings actually build? The review identifies coordination conflicts, impractical details, access problems, sequence issues, specification ambiguities, and dozens of other issues that would otherwise show up as RFIs, change orders, or rework during construction. The earlier the review happens, the cheaper it is to fix what it finds.
Most contractors do some constructability review. Casually flipping through drawings at a preconstruction meeting is not it. Systematic review — with specific people, specific checklists, specific deliverables, and specific timing — produces captures the value that informal review misses. This post describes the process.
Constructability review addresses multiple dimensions:
Constructability review categories
- Interdisciplinary coordination — structural, MEP, architectural, civil agree with each other
- Detail buildability — can this detail actually be constructed as drawn
- Material compatibility — specified materials work together
- Dimensions and tolerances — reasonable for construction methods
- Sequence feasibility — can the specified sequence actually be built
- Access during construction — can crews reach what they need to build
- Access for maintenance — owner can service installed systems
- Specification clarity — performance standards clear and testable
- Drawing/specification consistency — no conflicts between drawings and specs
- Code compliance — meets applicable building codes
- Constructability of complex assemblies — curtain wall details, roof intersections, etc.
Each category has its own review approach. Coordination issues are found by overlaying different discipline drawings. Detail buildability needs experienced construction perspective. Access analysis requires 3D thinking about the physical space.
Different issues surface at different design phases:
Design phase review focus
- Schematic design — overall approach, major coordination, structural system selection
- Design development — detailed coordination, specifications maturing
- 50% construction documents — comprehensive coordination review
- 75-90% CDs — detail-level review, final coordination check
- 100% CDs — final pre-bid review, ensure biddability
Early review catches foundational issues when they're cheapest to change. Late review catches detail issues before they become field problems. Both matter. A single review at 90% CDs catches less than progressive reviews through design phases.
Effective review involves multiple perspectives:
Review team members
- Preconstruction manager — overall coordination
- Project superintendent — field execution perspective
- Trade specialists — MEP coordinators, structural erection planners
- Scheduler — sequence feasibility analysis
- Safety specialist — constructability from safety perspective
- Estimator — cost implications of design choices
- Subject matter experts for specialty elements
- Owner's rep — if they have construction experience
Each team member brings specific perspective. A superintendent catches buildability issues a designer wouldn't see; a scheduler catches sequence problems; an estimator catches value-engineering opportunities. Combining perspectives produces comprehensive review.
Review follows structured methodology:
Constructability review methodology
- Set up — drawings distributed, review framework communicated
- Individual review — each reviewer examines documents for their area
- Consolidated log of issues identified
- Review meeting — team reviews log, discusses, adds items
- Prioritization — critical vs minor issues
- Communication to design team — specific list with supporting information
- Resolution tracking — each issue to closure
- Post-review assessment — lessons learned for next project
The consolidated log becomes the deliverable. Design team can work through it systematically. Tracking to closure ensures issues don't disappear without resolution.
Constructability reviews consistently find certain issue patterns:
Common constructability issues
- MEP coordination clashes — where structural, MEP, ceiling don't harmonize
- Waterproofing details at penetrations and transitions
- Curtain wall attachment to structure
- Fire-rated assemblies — maintaining rating at transitions
- Expansion joints — placement conflicts with finishes
- Crane access for structural erection
- Roof penetrations for mechanical equipment
- Material handoffs — one material ending where another begins
- Sequence conflicts — trade A needs trade B complete but B needs A
- Specification conflicts — one spec section contradicting another
Recognizing patterns helps prioritize review. An experienced reviewer looks for the common issues specifically rather than discovering them fresh on every project.
The highest-value constructability issues are usually the ones that affect sequence or access. A coordination clash is typically fixable in field; an access problem that prevents installation may require expensive design revisions late in the project. Early identification of access issues has outsized value.
Review findings need to be documented for resolution:
Issue documentation standards
- Issue number
- Drawing or specification reference
- Description of the concern
- Why it matters — impact if not addressed
- Suggested resolution or question for design team
- Priority / severity
- Assigned to — which designer should address
- Status — open, under review, resolved, closed
- Resolution or response from design team
Specific documentation helps designers understand and respond. Vague issues ("coordinate this") are harder to resolve than specific issues with location, concern, and suggested resolution.
Get AP insights in your inbox
A short monthly roundup of construction AP + accounting posts. No spam, ever.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BIM-Assisted Review
BIM tools augment constructability review:
BIM in constructability review
- Clash detection — automated identification of physical conflicts
- 4D simulation — sequence visualization
- Visualization — 3D views reveal issues 2D drawings hide
- Quantity takeoff — surfaces estimating anomalies
- Walk-throughs — virtual tours identify issues
- Generative review of variations
BIM tools don't replace human review but augment it. Clash detection finds physical interferences; experienced reviewers find the issues BIM doesn't catch (access, sequence, buildability judgment).
Constructability and value engineering overlap:
Constructability and VE integration
- Some issues have alternate solutions with cost/schedule improvements
- VE proposals subject to constructability review themselves
- Alternate materials — may or may not be more constructible
- Simpler details often cost less and build faster
- Construction method choices (CIP vs precast, site-built vs modular)
Good constructability review produces VE ideas. A complex detail that's hard to build is often also expensive — suggesting an alternative captures both constructability and VE benefit.
Constructability review can be politically delicate:
Stakeholder dynamics
- Designers may perceive contractor constructability review as criticism
- Owners may not understand why designer isn't catching these issues
- Contractors may fear pushing too hard damages the relationship
- Collaborative framing reduces friction — "working together to succeed"
- Specific issues with reasoning more constructive than general critique
- Design team constructability resources (reviewer) on their side helps
Diplomatic framing matters. Constructability review presented as collaborative improvement produces better outcomes than review framed as error-finding. The goal is the best project, not the designer-vs-contractor scorecard.
The business case for constructability review:
Constructability value categories
- RFI reduction — issues caught in review don't become RFIs
- Change order reduction — design issues not built wrong
- Rework avoidance — issues caught before construction
- Schedule protection — fewer field issues preserves schedule
- Claim reduction — less basis for delay or impact claims
- Owner satisfaction — smoother project
Quantifying exact value is difficult (counterfactuals about issues that were prevented aren't measurable), but companies with disciplined constructability review consistently report fewer field problems and better project outcomes than those without.
Constructability review is one of the highest-ROI preconstruction activities available to GCs. Systematic review across design phases, with appropriate team composition, structured methodology, comprehensive documentation, and BIM assistance, catches issues during design when they're cheap to fix. The same issues surfacing during construction become RFIs, change orders, rework, and schedule impacts that together cost many multiples of what review would have cost. Diplomatic delivery to the design team preserves relationships while capturing value. Companies that invest in constructability review consistently report fewer field problems, better margins, and better owner satisfaction than companies that don't. Like many operational disciplines, the investment is small and the return is substantial for those who actually do it systematically.
Written by
Marcus Reyes
Construction Industry Lead
Spent twelve years running AP at a $120M general contractor before joining Covinly. Lives in the world of AIA G702/G703, retainage schedules, and lien waiver deadlines. Writes about the construction-specific workflows that generic AP tools get wrong.
View all posts