Constructability Review Design intent meets material reality.

Four questions, asked of every condition that looks unusual.

Can it be fabricated?

With normal shop methods, from material that is actually available, to a tolerance the method can hold. A detail that requires capability most shops do not have is a finding, not a drawing problem.

Can it be assembled?

In an order that works, where no connection becomes inaccessible after an earlier step.

Can it be delivered?

Through the openings it has to pass, in one piece or in sections, with the field joints placed where they can be concealed rather than where the geometry happens to break.

Can it be installed?

By a normal crew with normal access, against the field tolerance the site will actually present rather than the one the drawing assumes.

During detailing, not after it.

That timing is the whole value. A condition caught while the drawing is being produced costs a query. The same condition caught at fabrication costs a remake, and caught at installation it costs a remake plus a delayed handover plus whoever is standing on site waiting.

Flags arrive as part of the drawing work rather than as a separate report that lands after the set has been issued.

The item that will not reach its own room.

Long continuous runs and tall units built in one piece, drawn without reference to the lift, the stair turn or the door width between the loading bay and the floor it belongs on.

The scribe that cannot absorb the site.

A drawing showing a consistent reveal against a wall that will not be plumb by the amount walls are usually not plumb. The reveal is achievable; the drawing has to say how.

The assembly sequence that has no valid order.

Two connections that each require access the other one blocks. Common on feature items where the design resolved the appearance before the build.

The tolerance that exceeds the material.

A joint specified tighter than the substrate can hold across its own seasonal movement. It approves cleanly and opens in the first heating season.

Each finding is stated with the condition, why it is a problem, what happens if it is built as drawn, and one or more alternatives with their trade-offs.

Where the answer belongs to the design team, it is drafted as an RFI ready for you to issue. Where it affects a written obligation, it goes to specification analysis. Where it is a shop decision, it comes back to you as a decision rather than being resolved quietly.

A review conducted from drawings alone assesses against general fabrication practice.

Assessing against your specific machines, your tooling and your labour practice requires knowing your operation, and that knowledge accumulates over projects rather than arriving with the first package. Reviews inside an established account are materially sharper than reviews at first contact, and which one you are getting will be said plainly rather than implied.

Structural questions are flagged for a qualified engineer rather than answered.

Shops taking on work more complex than their usual run. Project managers who have inherited a feature-heavy job drawn by someone who has never built one. GCs carrying design-assist responsibility on a millwork package without in-house woodwork depth. Architects and design-build firms who want a feature piece tested for buildability before it is priced.