Dimensioning and Revision Control on a Multi-Discipline Drawing Set
You are the draftsperson on a three-storey commercial fit-out. The architectural drawing set has 42 sheets, including floor plans, reflected ceiling plans, elevations, sections and details. The structural and services consultants have each issued two revisions since the architectural set was last coordinated. You have been asked to issue the architectural set for tender in ten working days. During a check you find that the ground floor plan shows a column at grid C4 that does not appear on the structural drawing, the first floor plan dimensions a corridor as 1.8 m while the section shows 1.65 m, and three detail callouts on the second floor plan refer to detail numbers that no longer exist in the detail sheet. The project manager wants the set issued on time and suggests 'just noting the discrepancies on a transmittal'.
1. Explain how you would resolve each of the three discrepancies and what drawing controls you would apply before tender issue.
Read the worked answer
Each discrepancy needs to be resolved at its source, not annotated on a transmittal. For the column at grid C4, the architectural plan and the structural drawing disagree on a primary structural element. I would not simply delete or add the column on the architectural drawing; I would raise a formal request for information to the structural engineer and the architect, and require a coordinated decision recorded in writing. Until that decision is made, the architectural plan should carry a revision cloud and a note that the column position is subject to structural confirmation, and the sheet should not be issued for tender with the conflict unresolved.
For the corridor dimension, the plan and section must agree. I would check the architect's intent, measure the setting-out from the grid, and correct whichever drawing is wrong, then issue a revision to that sheet. A corridor dimension is a construction dimension and cannot be left with two values. For the dead detail callouts, I would either reinstate the correct detail numbers or remove the callouts and renumber consistently across all sheets, then run a cross-reference check of every callout against the detail sheet index.
The drawing controls I would apply are: a revision register with the reason for each revision; a sheet index that is updated on every issue; a cross-reference check between plans, sections and details; a coordination check against the latest structural and services revisions; and a formal issue status on every sheet (for example 'Issued for Tender' with the date and revision). The transmittal should list the documents issued and their revisions, but it is not a substitute for correcting the drawings.
2. The project manager wants the set issued on time with the discrepancies noted on the transmittal. How would you respond, and what would you document?
Read the worked answer
I would explain that a transmittal note does not correct a drawing, and that tenderers price what is drawn, not what is noted on a covering document. Issuing a set with a known structural conflict and inconsistent dimensions invites claims, variations and disputes later, and it undermines the reliability of the whole set. I would propose a realistic path: resolve the column and corridor issues within the ten days by escalating to the architect and structural engineer immediately, and issue the set with those sheets either corrected or clearly marked as 'subject to confirmation' with a hold point. If the project manager still directs issue, I would ask for that direction in writing, record it in the project file, and issue the set with a schedule of discrepancies attached as a formal document, not a casual note.
What I would document: the date and content of each discrepancy found; the RFI references and responses; the written direction to issue; the revision status of every sheet; and the transmittal listing exactly what was issued and what remains outstanding. The principle is that the record must show what you knew, what you advised, and what you were directed to do.
3. Describe the checking regime you would put in place for future issues to prevent this situation recurring.
Read the worked answer
A disciplined checking regime has several layers. First, a drawing register and sheet index that are updated at every revision, so no sheet is issued without a current revision number and date. Second, a self-check by the author before issue, covering dimensions, cross-references, callouts, title block information and revision clouds. Third, an independent check by another draftsperson or the project architect, using a standard checklist that includes coordination with the latest structural and services revisions. Fourth, a cross-discipline coordination check at agreed milestones, with a record of what was checked and by whom.
The regime should also include a formal RFI process with a register, so that unresolved items are tracked and closed before issue; a hold-point list for items that cannot be resolved before a deadline; and a transmittal procedure that records the documents issued, their revisions, and any qualifications. Finally, a lessons-learned review after each issue would capture recurring errors, such as dead detail callouts, and feed them back into the checklist. The aim is that the set issued for tender is internally consistent and coordinated, and that any residual risk is known and documented rather than hidden in a covering note.