Transportation Bridge QA: 112 Issues Found Across Plans + Specs Before Review
An anonymized bridge project used InspectMind to surface cross-document contradictions, constructability conflicts, and internal drawing inconsistencies—saving weeks of manual checking.
"It's not just saying, hey, you might have an issue here. It's actually identifying the cross-references between the two pieces, which is pretty handy."
— Project Team
Overview
On a complex transportation bridge project (plans + spec book), the team needed a fast, reliable way to catch coordination errors before the next review cycle. InspectMind analyzed the full package and generated a prioritized issue list—highlighting plan–spec conflicts, internal sheet discrepancies, missing requirements, and constructability problems.
The result: 112 total issues surfaced with clear explanations and references, enabling rapid triage and fewer RFIs.
The Problem
- Large plan set + long spec book → easy for contradictions to slip through
- Multiple disciplines and repeated details → frequent plan/section/elevation mismatches
- Critical requirements buried in specs → hard to verify consistently
- Manual QA is slow and inconsistent under deadline pressure
What InspectMind Did
- Ingested the full plan/spec package and ran automated cross-document checks
- Detected plan ↔ spec contradictions and internal drawing inconsistencies
- Flagged "physically impossible" or non-constructible callouts
- Produced a severity-ranked issue list with actionable descriptions
What Was Found
InspectMind surfaced 112 issues across three key categories:
1. Constructability / "Physically Impossible" Conditions
Anchor bolt geometry conflict: The plans showed anchor bolt configurations where the specified length equaled the embedment depth—leaving zero projection above the concrete. However, details required projection for base plates, washers, and nuts to be installed. This is physically impossible to construct as shown.
2. Plan–Spec Contradictions (High ROI Fixes)
Fastener Standard Conflicts
Tension-control bolts specified in one location vs heavy-hex requirements in another, with conflicting tightening method specifications.
Drilled Shaft Clear Cover Mismatch
Drawings showed 3" clear cover for drilled shafts, while specifications required a minimum of 5" clear cover—a significant structural discrepancy.
Compaction Criteria Conflicts
Different compaction standards (Standard Proctor vs Modified Proctor) and conflicting percentage requirements specified near abutment areas.
3. Internal Coordination Errors
- Plan vs elevation/section dimension mismatches
- Member designation conflicts across views and details
- Missing or placeholder items (e.g., required values not shown on drawings)
Outcome
InspectMind helped the team shift from "hunt for issues" to review + decision-making. Instead of spending days manually cross-referencing drawings and specifications, reviewers started with a prioritized list, validated the highest-severity items, and resolved contradictions earlier—reducing downstream RFIs and rework risk.
Key Benefits
- Prioritized issue list enabled rapid triage of 112 findings
- Days to review vs weeks of manual cross-checking
- High-signal conflicts surfaced: fasteners, drilled shaft cover, compaction, QA/testing requirements
- Reduced downstream RFIs and rework risk by catching issues before review cycle
"It's not just saying, hey, you might have an issue here. It's actually identifying the cross-references between the two pieces, which is pretty handy."
Project Team
Transportation Bridge Project