Constructability Review Best Practices

Many General Contractors, Developers, and Construction Mangers are aware that incorporating Constructability Reviews into building development projects pre-construction phase can reduce overall project risk along with greater cost and schedule certainty. Often the challenge is that project teams lack the time, experienced human resources, technical knowhow, and refined processes to efficiently produce detailed Constructability Reviews.

In practice, many Constructability Reviews are rushed and not comprehensive. Reviewers often have just a few days and limited experience to comb through large volumes of information spread across drawings, specifications, and technical reports.

The quality of the Constructability Review process implemented on a project directly translates to the benefits realized. In this blog I will breakdown what I consider to be best practices associated with Constructability Reviews that can help project teams realize maximum return on investment.

Constructability Review Best Practices

• Planning – Consider and plan for Constructability Reviews at the earliest stages of a project and incorporate the process and associated time to complete into the overall project design development schedule. We find performing iterative reviews during design development delivers the highest quality results.

• Collaboration is Key – It is important to align the Team around the Constructability Review plan and foster a collaborative environment where the project team is collectively aligned around working to maximize design document quality.

• Checklist – Develop and utilize a checklist outlining planned approach and scope of the Constructability Review. This will ensure that the review is systematic and can be efficiently executed.

• Strategic Resource Utilization – For a Constructability Review to be cost effective resources must be right sized to the specific Constructability Review checks. For example, it would not be good use of resources for a highly experienced and/or high-cost resource to be utilized for a tedious or repeatable check that could be performed by a lower cost resource.

• Technology Implementation – Before deciding to implement technology tools to aid with a Constructability Review carefully evaluate and understand limitations to avoid misleading or inaccurate results.

• Avoid Dividing Reviews by Discipline – Many issues with design documentation that is identified during Constructability Reviews occurs at the boundaries between design disciplines. Splitting a Constructability Review between resources at the boundaries makes it more difficult to identify these types of issues and generally is not recommended.

• 3rd Party Reviewer – Consider engaging a 3rd Party Consultant experienced with Constructability Reviews with a background in Construction as a technical builder. Reputable providers should have a proven system in place that can deliver detailed results often more cost effectively than would be possible through self-performance.

• Specialty Reviews – Depending on the unique characteristics of a project incorporating specialty consultants into the review process may be prudent. In our experience strategically engaging Waterproofing, Code Compliance, and Permitting Consultants helps to maximize results.

• Distillation of Results – To be most effective Constructability Reviews should not just be a long list of comments across the document sets that are not put into context. Distilling the information and giving a high-level summary and analysis of the results is a critical step that helps the team quickly understand the big-picture and where resources need to be applied to improve documentation quality.

• Specifications and Reports – Constructability Reviews should capture to the extent possible the full breath of design information for a project to include the Specifications, Basis of Design, OPR, Geo-Technical reports.

Practical Impact: Increasing Certainty of Project Outcomes

Following the above Constructability Review best practices can help maximize the benefits of the process which can translate to improved project outcomes.

According to Dodge Data & Analytics (via Rhumbix), rework and delays cost the U.S. construction industry $177 billion per year, roughly 5% of all construction spending. Change orders alone can account for 10–25% of total contract value.

While it is difficult to precisely measure the results investment of resources into effective Constructability Reviews provides incorporation into workflows in addition to other Pre-Construction due diligence lowers project exposure to Risk to include rework and delays.

Sources

1. Dodge Data & Analytics
   Report: “Managing Risk in the Construction Industry”
   Highlights that construction rework and delays cost the U.S. industry approximately $177 billion annually.
   https://www.construction.com

2. Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG), National Institute of Building Sciences
   Resource: “Constructability”
   Provides guidance on best practices for constructability reviews, including interdisciplinary coordination and timing.
   https://www.wbdg.org/resources/constructability

3. David Fields Consulting Services – OPTSTRUCTION Methodology
   Website: https://www.fields-builds.com/optstruction
   Proprietary constructability review system developed for structured, interdisciplinary, and owner-aligned reviews.