Contractors know the difference between a drawing conflict found before installation and one found after the work is in place. The first can become a timely request for information (RFI). The second can become rework, delay, and an argument over who should have raised the issue sooner.
AI drawing review is moving into that gap. New tools can scan full 2D drawing sets for errors, omissions, coordination conflicts, code issues, and mismatches between specifications and drawings. They can also compare drawing revisions and deliver hundreds of potential findings faster than a project team could review the set manually.
The market is moving quickly. On Sept. 9, 2026, Buildcheck announced a $12 million Series A led by Telescope Partners. Its computer-vision models can read 2D drawing sets and run more than 400 checks, but Buildcheck still pairs its technology with construction experts who validate the output before it reaches the customer. Even the vendor doesn’t treat the software report as the final answer.
For contractors, the important question is not whether AI can find more potential issues. It is what the contractor must do once those issues enter its system.
The software does not decide whether a flag is valid, send the required notice, or assume design responsibility. But its report may become part of the record of what the contractor knew and when. AI can increase the volume and timing of potential knowledge without changing the contractor’s role under the contract.
That makes the path from flag to validation, RFI, and final disposition the central risk-control issue for contractors using AI drawing review.
Quick Reference Guide: What Contractors Should Do With AI Findings
Treat the output as a queue of potential issues, not as a design verdict.
If This Happens | The Contractor’s Practical Next Step |
The tool flags a credible drawing conflict | Validate the flag, stop affected work when appropriate, and report it promptly through the agreed RFI process. |
The flag is a false positive or preference | Record why it does not require an RFI so the disposition is clear. |
The tool raises a code or design question | Route the question to the architect or other qualified design professional. Do not resolve it as the designer. |
The report contains hundreds of flags | Triage by materiality, assign qualified reviewers, and track every material disposition. |
The owner provides the report | Clarify whether the contractor may rely on it and how the report affects scope, schedule, and notice requirements. |
AI Changes What You May Know Before It Changes What You Owe
A201® – General Conditions of the Contract for Construction strikes a deliberate balance. Before starting each portion of the work, the contractor must study and compare the contract documents, take field measurements, and observe site conditions. But A201 Section 3.2 says that review is intended to facilitate coordination and construction, not to discover errors, omissions, or inconsistencies.
It also recognizes that the contractor reviews the documents as a contractor, not as a licensed design professional, unless the contract says otherwise.
The key trigger is knowledge. The contractor must promptly report to the architect errors, inconsistencies, omissions, and code nonconformities that are “discovered by or made known to the Contractor.” If the contractor fails to meet those obligations, A201 Section 3.2.4 makes the contractor responsible for costs and damages the owner could have avoided, subject to the general mutual waiver of consequential damages. If the contractor performs those obligations, the provisions protect them from liability to the owner or architect for damages resulting from those document problems.
This is where AI may shift the baseline. An AI review doesn’t change the contractor’s underlying scope of duty. But it may expand the universe of issues made known to the contractor.
A flag is not a proven error just because software generated it. It is, however, a potential issue that someone should evaluate. A credible issue sitting in the contractor’s own report would be hard to characterize as unknown.
That is the contractor-specific point of view: AI’s most immediate legal effect may not be a new duty. It may be a better record of existing knowledge.
Two Risks Sit on Opposite Sides of the Workflow
Contractors should keep two cautions in mind.
Do Not Selectively Ignore the Report
Running the tool and reporting only some credible findings, without a documented review, can create the worst of both worlds. The report may show potential knowledge, while the project record shows no timely notice.
That does not mean every flag requires an RFI. Automated reviews can produce false positives, preferences, duplicates, or issues that lack enough context. The project team needs a qualified person to determine which findings are credible and material. The contractor then needs a record of what happened to each material finding.
Do Not Drift Into Design Responsibility
The contractor’s review remains focused on coordination and construction. AI doesn’t change the contractor into a licensed design professional.
Depending on the jurisdiction and contract, implied-warranty defenses based on an owner’s furnished plans and specifications can weaken when the contractor knew about a defect or when the defect was obvious enough that a contractor should have recognized it. At the same time, contractor proposals, subcontracts, and AI-use plans should not imply that the contractor is guaranteeing the design or performing code review unless the contractor intends to accept that responsibility.
The practical balance is straightforward: report credible issues promptly, but route design decisions to the party that owns them.
Build the Workflow Before You Run the Tool
AI review can generate more findings than a project team can responsibly process without a defined system. A useful workflow has five steps.
Define the Review Purpose
State whether the tool will support coordination, constructability, revision comparison, code checks, or another specific task. A defined purpose helps the team evaluate whether a flag matters and prevents a coordination aid from quietly becoming a promised design review.
Assign a Qualified Validator
The reviewer must understand both the tool and the construction issue. The person should be able to identify false positives, missing context, duplicates, and findings that require a design professional’s judgment.
Triage by Materiality
Prioritize findings that could affect safety, code compliance, cost, schedule, sequencing, or installed work. Triage helps the team act promptly without treating every software flag as equally important.
Route Credible Issues Through the Contract
Under the typical A201 structure, the contractor reports errors, inconsistencies, and omissions to the architect as an RFI. A useful RFI should identify the specific drawing or specification that needs clarification and describe the clarification requested. A raw export of AI flags may not provide enough context.
Close the Loop
Record whether the team submitted an RFI, rejected the flag with a reason, combined it with a related issue, or referred it to a qualified consultant. Keep the disposition in the project record, not only in one person’s email or chat history.
Volume Does Not Excuse Delayed Notice
Automated reviews can generate far more flags than a human reviewer. That creates a real operational problem, but it does not make the contract’s notice process disappear.
The project team should agree early on:
- The format for submitting AI-assisted findings
- The information each submission must include
- Who validates findings before submission
- How the team will group duplicates or related issues
- How urgent issues will be escalated
- What response times are reasonable for the volume and severity involved
Without those rules, the contractor may face a backlog of potential issues, while the architect receives a raw report that cannot be answered efficiently. That slows decisions, increases the chance of rework, and makes the record harder to follow.
Owner-Provided Reports Need Their Own Ground Rules
A201 Section 2.3 generally allows the contractor to rely on the accuracy of information the owner furnishes. If an owner commissions an automated review and gives it to the contractor, the owner should decide whether the report is information the contractor may rely on and whether the owner intended that result.
The contractor should ask the same question before using the report, clarifying:
- Who commissioned and validated the review
- Whether the contractor may rely on the output
- Whether the report is complete or limited to defined checks
- Whether reviewing and processing the findings is included in the contractor’s scope
- How the work affects the schedule and compensation
A disclaimer can help define what an AI finding means and who may rely on it. It cannot replace a workable review and reporting process.
Contract Terms That Control the Contractor Workflow
Before a contractor accepts an AI review requirement, the contract should answer how findings move through the project and who owns each decision.
Review and Reporting Duties
Compare any AI rider with A201 Section 3.2. Avoid language that expands a coordination review into a warranty that the contractor will find every drawing error, omission, inconsistency, or code issue.
Reliance on AI Findings
Define who may rely on automated review and for what purpose. The parties can agree that automated reviews are a coordination aid, findings must follow the normal RFI process, no one represents the output as complete, and using the tool does not raise or lower any party’s contractual review obligation.
Scope, Schedule, and Compensation
Processing a large report takes time. State whether validating findings, creating RFIs, attending coordination meetings, or re-running reviews after revisions falls within the contractor’s scope. Address schedule relief and compensation when owner-directed reviews materially increase the workload.
Design Responsibility
Avoid proposal, subcontract, or technology language that implies the contractor is performing design or code review unless the contractor specifically intends to accept that responsibility. Make sure delegated design requirements remain clear and limited.
Vendor Terms, Project Data, and Coverage
Check the operational backstops. Software terms disclaim accuracy or limit the vendor’s liability, while the project contract may expect the contractor to act on the output. Confirm how the vendor handles project data and ask your broker whether any expanded review or design-related commitment sits outside the contractor’s coverage.
A Practical AI Review Playbook
Before activating the tool on a project, ask three questions.
- Who has authority to validate, escalate, and close a finding?
- Which findings require notice, and how quickly must the team report them?
- Where will the record show the RFI, response, and final disposition?
If the answer to any question is no, the workflow is not ready.
Then put the process into practice:
- Decide what happens to the output before using the tool. Remember that every credible finding should likely be reported as an RFI. Define who validates findings, what becomes an RFI, and where the disposition is recorded.
- Report credible issues promptly. Use the agreed RFI process and include the drawing, specification, context, and clarification needed.
- Record every material disposition. Document whether the team submitted, rejected, combined, or referred the finding.
- Stay in the contractor’s role. Avoid proposal or subcontract language that implies the contractor is performing design or code review unless you specifically intend to accept that responsibility.
- Align downstream teams. Make sure subcontractors know how to route AI-assisted findings and do not send unvalidated tool output directly into the project record.
- Connect the contract to coverage. Review AI use requirements with your insurance broker before accepting to confirm how the requirements interact with your coverage.
- Keep an audit trail. Record the tool, task, date, reviewer, findings, decisions, and resulting changes.
The Bottom Line
Finding a conflict before installation can protect the schedule, reduce rework, and preserve margin. But a report only helps when the project team knows what to do with it.
The contractor still reviews the documents as a contractor and reports what it knows. AI may make more potential issues known, and it may create a durable record of those issues. Prompt validation, notice, and documentation are what turn that information into useful project action.
The contractors that benefit most from AI will not be the ones that run the most checks. They will be the ones that turn useful findings into timely decisions without accepting design responsibility they did not intend to own.
AI Is Changing Construction, Are Your Contracts Keeping Up?
AI tools can help project teams identify issues faster, but they also introduce new questions about liability, professional responsibility, and contractual obligations.
Explore practical AI risk considerations in this webinar replay.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not every flag is a verified error. A201 requires the contractor to report errors, inconsistencies, omissions, and code nonconformities discovered by or made known to it. The project team should agree on who validates flags and when a finding enters the RFI process.
Not by itself. Under the typical A201 structure, the contractor reviews for coordination and construction, not as a licensed design professional. Contract amendments, proposals, or AI-use plans can change that risk if they promise broader review services.
The contractor can reject a false positive or immaterial finding after a qualified review. Record the reason for the decision. An unexplained, unresolved flag can make it harder to show that the team fulfilled its reporting duty.
Clarify whether the contractor may rely on the report, who validated it, what checks it includes, and whether processing the findings changes the contractor’s scope, schedule, or compensation.
The answer depends on the agreement. If validating findings, preparing RFIs, attending added coordination meetings, or re-running reviews exceeds the contractor’s scope, address compensation and schedule relief before the review begins.
