The Construction Document QC Checklist Worth Actually Running

Jun 12, 2026

Ten sections, concrete checks, no vague 'verify coordination' items. The QC checklist for construction documents, plus the part only your firm can write.

Every firm says it does QA/QC. Far fewer can show you the checklist. And of those that can, most checklists fail in the same way: they are too vague to be checkable ("verify coordination"), too long to actually complete under deadline, or treated as a signature formality rather than a working tool.

This guide is the checklist we would actually run before issuing a set, organized by what you are checking, with items concrete enough that two different reviewers would reach the same answer. It draws on the same error taxonomy we documented in our analysis of the most common errors in construction documents, built from more than 10,000 real RFIs.

1. Set and sheet hygiene

• Sheet index matches the actual sheets in the set, including names, numbers, and count
• Title blocks are complete and consistent: project name, number, date, revision, seal where required
• Every sheet carries the correct issue date and revision tag for this milestone
• North arrows, scales, and key plans are present and consistent across sheets
• No leftover placeholder text, XXX dimensions, or "NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION" stamps that should have been cleared (or that should be present and are not)

2. Callouts and cross-references

• Every detail callout points to a detail that exists, on the sheet it claims
• Every section and elevation mark resolves to the right drawing
• No orphaned details: drawings that exist but are referenced from nowhere
• Enlarged plan references match the areas they enlarge
• Keynotes used on drawings all exist in the keynote legend, and vice versa

3. Schedules versus plans

• Every door, window, and equipment tag on the plans appears in its schedule, with matching type and attributes
• Every schedule row corresponds to something that actually appears on a plan
• Finish schedule rooms match the room names and numbers on the plans
• Hardware sets, frame types, and ratings are consistent between schedule and details

4. Dimensions

• Dimension strings add up to their overall dimensions
• The same element is dimensioned identically everywhere it appears
• Grid lines and grid offsets match between architectural and structural sheets
• Critical clearances (corridors, stairs, accessible routes) are dimensioned, not implied

5. Cross-discipline coordination

• Structural elements (beams, columns, braces) do not conflict with mechanical, electrical, or plumbing routing
• Ceiling heights on architectural sheets survive the structural and MEP reality above them
• Penetrations through structure are coordinated and detailed
• Risers, shafts, and chases line up floor to floor across disciplines
• Equipment shown on one discipline's sheets is supported and served on the others (pads, power, drains)

6. Specifications versus drawings

• Products and materials named on drawings exist in the spec, and the spec sections referenced in notes exist in the project manual
• No contradictions between drawn details and spec performance requirements
• Terminology matches: the wall type, finish, or assembly is called the same thing in both places

7. Revisions and addenda

• Every change in this issue is reflected in all locations it touches: plans, sections, details, schedules, and specs
• Revision clouds and deltas match the revision log
• Superseded information is actually removed, not lingering on a forgotten sheet
• The permit set, pricing set, and construction set tell the same story for everything not deliberately changed between them

8. Code and accessibility spot checks

• Egress paths, travel distances, and exit widths check out when measured
• Accessibility clearances at doors, fixtures, and routes meet the applicable standard
• Fire-rated assemblies are continuous, and ratings match between plans, details, and door schedules
• Occupancy and construction type assumptions on the code sheet match what is actually drawn

9. Ambiguity sweep

• Hunt the phrases that generate RFIs: "match existing," "as directed," "or equal" without criteria, "typical" applied to conditions that vary
• Every note a contractor must price is specific enough that two bidders would price it the same way

10. Your firm's own list

This is the section no generic article can write for you, and it is the highest-value section of all. Pull your last few projects' RFI logs and change orders and ask: which questions came from the documents? Which of them have we been asked before? Those recurring items are your firm's signature errors, and they belong at the top of your checklist, checked first, every time. For the design-phase practices that prevent these questions from arising at all, see our guide on how to reduce RFIs in construction.

The honest problem with this checklist

Run fully, on a real institutional set with hundreds of sheets, this checklist represents days of focused work, and items like "every callout resolves" or "every schedule row matches the plans" are exactly the kind of exhaustive, mechanical verification that human attention is worst at sustaining. That is why these errors survive review at even excellent firms: not because reviewers are careless, but because the task is bigger than the time available.

This is the gap AI review fills. Tuuli runs these checks systematically across the entire set, 65+ document hygiene checks spanning the categories above, plus checks learned from your firm's own RFI and change order history, and cites every finding to the exact sheet so a human can verify it in seconds. The senior reviewer's time then goes where it belongs: judgment calls, design intent, and the items no machine can assess. To see how the tools in this space compare, read our guide to the best AI construction drawing review software.