Design Coordination Review Checklist: What to Check Before Issue for Construction.

← Back to Technical Resources

Design coordination review is the point at which the project team tests whether the information can be built, documented and issued with confidence. A well-structured review looks beyond isolated drawings or model geometry. It checks the interfaces between disciplines, the assumptions behind the design and the information needed by the next project stage.

This checklist provides a practical review sequence for design managers, BIM coordinators, consultants and contractors. It is intended to support project-specific review procedures, not replace the appointed designer’s responsibility or the agreed quality plan.

1. Confirm the review brief and information baseline

Start by defining what the review is intended to achieve. A concept review, detailed-design review and pre-issue review will each have different questions, tolerances and evidence requirements. Record the relevant project stage, package boundaries, model and drawing revisions, and the intended audience for the output.

Before the session, confirm that the team is working from the same information baseline. Check model dates, drawing registers, design changes and outstanding instructions. If one discipline is using an earlier revision, note the limitation rather than treating the review as a complete coordination check.

• Review scope and package boundaries
• Information issue dates and revision status
• Applicable design criteria, room data and employer requirements
• Known constraints, assumptions and open decisions

2. Review the model structure before reviewing the design

A coordination review is only as reliable as the information being reviewed. Check that each discipline model is positioned correctly, uses the agreed project coordinates and is suitable for federation. Confirm that linked files, levels, grids and model origins are consistent with the project information requirements.

Review the model breakdown as well. Large buildings may be divided by discipline, zone, building, level or package. The chosen structure should support authoring performance, issue tracking and clear responsibility boundaries. If the model structure has changed since the previous review, document the change and its effect on the review set.

3. Test architectural and structural interfaces

Begin with the interfaces that define the building envelope and usable space. Review grids, floor-to-floor heights, cores, stairs, lift zones, shafts and major openings before moving to local details. Compare structural framing with room layouts, façade lines and planning requirements.

Pay particular attention to transfer zones, large spans, movement joints, retaining walls and changes in structural depth. These areas often affect ceiling zones, façade build-ups, waterproofing, plant rooms and service routes. A useful review records the design intent, the constraint and the agreed next action rather than only marking a clash.

• Grid, level and core alignment
• Slab edges, transfer structures and movement interfaces
• Openings, penetrations, façade zones and waterproofing interfaces
• Stairs, lifts, ramps and accessible circulation

4. Coordinate MEP systems in real working zones

MEP coordination should be reviewed in the spaces where services compete for height, access and maintenance clearance. Use reflected ceiling plans, sections and plant-room views alongside the federated model. Check that primary routes are established before secondary distribution is fitted around them.

Ceilings, risers and corridors

Confirm that ducts, pipes, cable trays and fire-protection systems can pass through the available zones without reducing required headroom. Review risers for usable access, separation and maintainability. In corridors and back-of-house areas, check that doors, hatches and equipment removal routes remain practical.

Plant rooms and gravity systems

Plant rooms should be reviewed as operational spaces, not only as collections of equipment. Check access paths, lifting zones, valve and filter clearances, drainage points, floor falls and connection directions. Gravity drainage requires particular attention to falls, invert levels and coordination with beams and ceiling zones.

5. Prioritise coordination issues by project risk

Not every issue requires the same response. Classify issues so the team can focus its time on matters that affect safety, construction sequence, approvals, cost or programme. A practical classification may include critical, major, minor and observation, provided the definitions are agreed in the project procedures.

Record the affected disciplines, location, issue description, proposed action, owner and target date. Where a rule-based clash is not a genuine design conflict, record the reason for acceptance. This prevents the same issue from reappearing in later reports and creates a traceable basis for closeout.

6. Review buildability and construction sequence

A coordinated model should support decisions about how the work will be installed. Review access for major components, lifting and temporary works zones, installation sequence, prefabrication limits and interfaces between trades. Look at congested areas in section and, where useful, test an exploded or phased view of the model.

Ask practical questions: Can the component reach its final location? Is there space to connect, inspect and maintain it? Does the sequence create a temporary obstruction or require an opening that has not been documented? These questions often identify risks that a geometric clash test alone will not reveal.

7. Check documentation against the coordinated model

Design review should include the drawings and schedules that will be issued. Compare plans, sections, elevations, details and schedules with the current coordinated model. Confirm that tags, keynotes, levels, dimensions and references are consistent across the package.

• Drawing and model revisions match the issue register
• Sections expose the interfaces being reviewed
• Details reflect the coordinated geometry and build-up
• Schedules, room data and equipment information are complete enough for the stage
• Notes and references do not rely on superseded information

8. Hold a focused review meeting

The most effective meetings use a prepared agenda and a short list of decision areas. Circulate the model set, issue summary and questions before the meeting. During the session, review issues in a consistent order and distinguish decisions from actions that still require design development.

Assign one owner for each action and record the evidence required for closeout. A revised model, drawing, calculation, detail or written confirmation may be appropriate depending on the issue. Closeout should be checked by the coordinator and accepted by the responsible discipline before the issue is marked complete.

9. Complete the review record

At the end of the review, issue a concise record that can be used by the wider project team. It should identify the information reviewed, limitations, decisions, actions, owners and due dates. Where the review supports a submission or construction package, retain the relevant model and drawing references so the record remains traceable.

Keep superseded reports and issue lists in the project document-control process. The objective is not to create paperwork for its own sake; it is to preserve why a decision was made and what information it relied on.

10. Practical checklist before issue

1. Scope, stage and information baseline are confirmed.
2. Models use the agreed coordinates, levels, grids and naming conventions.
3. Architecture, structure and MEP interfaces have been reviewed in plan and section.
4. High-risk zones such as cores, risers, plant rooms, transfer structures and service corridors have been checked.
5. Access, maintenance, installation sequence and temporary conditions have been considered.
6. Issues have owners, priorities, target dates and closeout evidence.
7. Drawings, schedules and model views agree with the coordinated information.
8. Review limitations and accepted residual risks are recorded.

Conclusion

Design coordination review is a project control, not a final visual check. When the team agrees the review scope, tests interfaces in the right order and records decisions with clear ownership, the coordinated model becomes a more reliable basis for documentation and construction planning.

Related services and resources

Trueform supports BIM & Digital Engineering, Design Review & Value Engineering and coordinated Engineering Documentation & Authority Support. For related guidance, see the BIM Execution Plan Guide and MEP Coordination Guide.