AI Plan Review for General Contractors

General contractors do not produce the drawings, but they carry the field cost when document errors reach construction. According to analysis from the Construction Owners Association of Alberta cited by FMI, rework accounts for approximately 5% of total contract value on affected projects. That figure reflects direct costs only; it does not include schedule impact, subcontractor standby, or the relationship cost of avoidable change orders.

Who pays for drawing errors

Architects and engineers produce the drawings, but the GC builds from them and carries the impact when those drawings are wrong. Conflicting dimensions, missing details, and spec-drawing discrepancies turn into RFIs, waiting time, resequencing, and schedule pressure. Change orders may recover some direct costs, but they do not cover every lost hour or strained owner conversation. Plan review matters commercially for GCs because it protects the project before document errors become field costs.

Where the losses come from

GC losses usually come from three document failure points. Coordination conflicts between architectural, structural, and MEP drawings generate field RFIs when trades cannot build from conflicting information. For background on how mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are supposed to align—and why clashes drive RFIs—see what MEP coordination is. Spec-drawing contradictions often surface during submittal review, forcing clarification, resubmittals, and procurement delays. Code compliance gaps can trigger permit resubmissions or failed inspections.

Navigant Construction Forum estimates the average RFI processing cost at $1,080—processing only, not schedule impact.

InspectMind targets drawing and specification issues that most often create RFIs, rejected submittals, rework, and schedule delays for general contractors.

Cross-discipline coordination

Architectural, structural, MEP, civil, and fire protection drawings are checked against each other for spatial conflicts, dimension inconsistencies, and missing coordination details. When these conflicts are not caught before mobilization, they become field RFIs the GC must issue and manage. That makes plan check a practical risk-control step. For a deeper look at MEP-specific coordination (clashes, clearances, and trade sequencing), read What Is MEP Coordination?.

Spec vs drawing conflicts

Every product or system on the drawings should match the specifications. When it does not, submittal review can mean rejection, reorder, or re-fabrication. InspectMind runs a spec vs drawing cross-reference across the full document set—a high-ROI check for GC preconstruction teams. It also supports shop drawing review when mismatches are caught before submittal.

Code compliance gaps

Gaps often appear in egress paths, occupancy notes, fire ratings, accessibility details, or life safety documentation. InspectMind flags missing or inconsistent code information that can affect permits, inspections, and field approvals.

Constructability issues

Unclear details, missing dimensions, access conflicts, and assemblies that fail in the field drive RFIs and downtime. A constructability review checks whether the set gives trades enough information to build the work as shown.

At $100 to $500 per check, InspectMind can cost less than the processing cost of a single RFI. One missed drawing conflict can create review time, subcontractor standby, resequencing, and schedule pressure.

For a structured comparison of plan-check pricing to typical RFI economics, use the guide AI plan check cost vs one RFI.

Frequently asked questions