A constructability review is a structured analysis of a project's design and documentation, conducted by experienced construction practitioners before construction begins, with the specific goal of identifying issues that will create problems on site. Not theoretical risks — actual, practical problems that will cause delays, cost increases, safety incidents or quality failures if not caught and resolved in advance.

It sounds obvious. Review your design before you build it. And yet it's one of the most consistently skipped steps in the capital works delivery process.

Why owners skip them

There are a few recurring reasons. Budget pressure: the review costs money, the project is already tight, and the design looks fine to the people who produced it. Timeline pressure: there's a grant funding deadline, or a political commitment, and the programme is already stretched. And a subtler one: optimism bias. The assumption that the design team has already considered constructability, so a separate review is redundant.

That last one deserves examination. Designers are excellent at producing designs that meet the technical performance requirements of the asset. They are not always expert in how those designs translate to site — particularly in brownfield environments, live operational settings, or locations with access constraints. The skills overlap, but they're not the same discipline.

10×Cost to fix during construction vs design
60–80%Of variations traceable to design-stage issues
2–4 wksTypical time to complete a full constructability review

What a constructability review covers

A good constructability review goes beyond checking the drawings for clashes. It should include:

"The most expensive constructability problem we've seen cost a council $1.4M to rectify mid-construction. The issue — insufficient headroom for a mechanical installation — would have been visible to anyone with site experience who looked at the drawings before tender."

When to do one

The most valuable point for a constructability review is at the end of detailed design, before the project goes to tender. This gives you the maximum opportunity to resolve issues without cost impact — design changes at this stage cost the consultant's time. Design changes after construction has started cost construction time, which is far more expensive.

A secondary review of the contractor's construction methodology, programme and shop drawings shortly after award is also valuable — particularly for complex or high-risk scopes.

Who should conduct it

The review needs to be conducted by someone with direct, hands-on construction experience — not a desk-based engineer reviewing drawings theoretically, but someone who has managed construction of similar project types in similar environments. Ideally, someone who has experienced the consequences of the kinds of issues the review is designed to catch.

An internal review by the design team has limited value for this purpose. The team who produced the design has implicit assumptions baked in that a fresh pair of eyes won't share. Independence is part of what makes the review work.

The bottom line

A constructability review on a $10M project typically costs $30,000–$70,000, depending on complexity. A single significant variation or delay event on the same project can cost ten times that. The arithmetic is straightforward. The harder question is whether you have the right person to run the review — experienced enough to find the problems, independent enough to call them out clearly, and disciplined enough to produce a report that's actually actionable.

Need a constructability review?

S3NTEC provides independent constructability reviews for civil, water and industrial projects across NSW. We find the issues before your contractor does.

Talk to Us →
← Prev: Council Capital Works Next: Contract Admin vs PM →