Why this site, why now

• Tell me briefly why this project was approved now.
• Walk me through your program priorities, the target gross area, and the primary occupant types you must accommodate. Options: Office, Mixed-use, Retail, Hospitality, Healthcare, Education or institutional, Industrial or logistics, Other
• Which parts of the site or program are non-negotiable, for example a fixed floorplate, required loading, or a public realm component?
• How much contingency did the board or sponsor include for design, entitlement, and soft costs, expressed in percent of construction budget? Options: None, Up to 3%, 3–5%, 5–10%, More than 10%
• Who on your team will act as the day-to-day decision maker once design begins? Options: VP of Real Estate, Development Manager, Facilities Director, Project Director, Procurement lead, External PM or owner's rep, Other
• Is there a pre-existing board resolution, lender covenant, or funding condition that would prevent the project from proceeding even if design and permitting go well? Options: Yes, financing or lender covenant blocks start, Yes, board resolution required before fees, No blocking conditions, Unsure

Time pressure and the one schedule miss that matters

• If entitlement slips by 3 months, what is the immediate business consequence for leasing, occupancy, or financing?
• Describe the most recent entitlement delay you faced, what triggered it, and how the team recovered.
• How many months of schedule buffer did you actually assume at board approval? Options: None, 1–2 months, 3–4 months, 5–6 months, More than 6 months
• When planning staff or the jurisdiction raise questions about massing or parking, who leads the technical response and how quickly can you assemble supporting analysis? Options: Internal planning lead, External planning consultant, Architect team lead, Owner's rep, Not defined yet
• Which single entitlement or zoning risk would make you stop the project immediately?

Who holds the purse strings and who objects

• Who can pause funds or veto scope if a design change pushes cost beyond the board approved number? Options: Board or investment committee, CFO or finance, VP of Real Estate, Sponsor or owner, Joint venture partner, Other
• List the core internal stakeholders, their approval thresholds, and the format they prefer for decision materials, for example one-page memo, redline set, or a workshop.
• How do you typically reconcile conflicting stakeholder priorities, for example when leasing wants more rentable area and planning demands setbacks?
• When decisions run late, what workaround have you used to keep consultants productive without formal approvals? Options: Proceed with defined assumptions and contingency, Develop parallel options, Pause affected workstreams, Procure long-lead items early, Other
• Name the single stakeholder whose buy-in we must secure before we can commit to a fixed fee and schedule.

Where the rules will bite, zoning and constructability

• Point to the zoning code interpretation, setback, or parking rule most likely to force a redesign.
• Describe any recent planning commission outcomes or local design precedents that shaped how the jurisdiction interprets those rules.
• Do you currently have an ALTA survey, topographic map, and geotechnical report for the site? Options: All three available, ALTA and topo only, ALTA only, Geotechnical only, None available
• How does your required parking and loading program map to the site's buildable envelope and curb cuts?
• What setback, floor area ratio, or parking outcome would render the project infeasible under your financial model?

What could stop this in its tracks

• If one of these risks materializes, which would make you walk away: a 10 percent budget breach, a 6-month permit delay, or a planning denial? Options: 10 percent budget breach, 6-month permit delay, Planning denial or refusal, None of the above
• How often have scope changes during design increased your construction cost estimates beyond available funding? Options: Frequently, most projects, Often, many projects, Occasionally, Rarely, Never
• Tell me about one past project where poor consultant coordination drove change orders, what the dollar or percent impact was, and who absorbed it.
• On a scale from 1 to 5, how confident are you in the current project's cost estimate and the assumptions behind it? Options: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• What single contractual or governance gap would lead you to refuse to sign a mutual commit in the next 30 days?

Who else is on your short list, incumbents and internal options

• Why would you stick with your incumbent architect, or choose to run this work with internal staff instead of hiring a new external firm?
• Select from the list below which alternatives you are actively evaluating for project delivery. Options: Incumbent architecture firm, New external architecture firm via competition, Design-build contractor led delivery, Full internal delivery with owner's team, Hybrid owner PM plus external design team, No decision yet
• List the conditions that would have to hold for you to remain with your current approach instead of changing to a new partner.
• Has anyone on your team proposed solving permitting or constructability challenges internally, and if so who would lead that effort? Options: Yes, internal leader named, Yes, internal but no lead named, No internal solution proposed, Not sure
• Assuming an external firm met your fee target and showed a clear permit path, identify the single remaining barrier that would keep you from switching today.

Can you mobilize, approvals data and capacity

• Is there any board resolution, lender covenant, or regulatory pre-approval that must be in place before we begin paid design work? Options: Board resolution required, Lender covenant or financing condition, Regulatory pre-approval required, No prior approvals needed, Unsure
• Select the documentation and deliverables you can provide within two weeks. Options: ALTA survey, Topographic survey, Geotechnical report, Existing building drawings, Preliminary program, Environmental report, None of the above
• Do you have an internal project manager or owner's representative who will coordinate meetings and approvals? Options: Yes, assigned full time, Yes, assigned part time, No, we need support, Not yet decided
• How many hours per week can your key decision-makers commit to reviews and milestone meetings during schematic design and permit review? Options: Less than 4 hours, 4–8 hours, 8–16 hours, More than 16 hours
• Identify any gating constraints, for example budget holdbacks, required approvals, or missing site reports, that would prevent the project from progressing on your target start date.

How you will know we succeeded

• Name the single measurable outcome that would make you consider this engagement a success: on-time occupancy, budget within 5 percent, or planning approval without redesign. Options: On-time occupancy, Budget within 5 percent of estimate, Planning approval without redesign, Tenant satisfaction and occupancy post-handover, Other
• Provide the acceptance criteria you will use at the end of construction administration to approve final billing.
• Assuming we produce a validated permit strategy, an initial site plan, and an opinion of probable cost within 6 weeks, how quickly could you sign a mutual commit? Options: Immediately, Within 2 weeks, Within 4 weeks, Longer than 4 weeks, Unsure
• Specify the reporting cadence and document formats your internal approvers expect during design and permitting. Options: Weekly written updates plus CAD or BIM deliverables, Biweekly workshops and PDF sets, Monthly executive memo and redline set, Ad hoc as needed, Other
• Identify the signatory for the mutual commit and describe the procurement or approval steps we must follow to reach contract.

• Design & Permitting Walkthrough

• Confirm the current state and its cost
• You confirm the restated current state and accept the quantified schedule and cost consequences.
• Produce a risk register mapping each entitlement and constructability issue to a mitigation option, estimated time impact, and estimated cost impact.
• You agree that the presented zoning, design, and constructability mitigations materially reduce the likelihood of a redesign cycle that would delay occupancy.
• Review zoning analysis for your site
• Deliver an annotated zoning analysis and two massing sketch alternatives that reflect the agreed mitigation direction within 7 business days.
• Provide the final site survey, existing permit documents, and any prior planning commission comments.
• You identify any remaining unknowns that must be resolved before mutual commit and agree on ownership for each unknown.
• Walk through the proposed design strategy and massing
• Confirm the decision-makers required for mutual commit and their availability for a follow-up alignment session.
• Constructability and coordination check
• Map risks to schedule and budget
• Share the target occupancy date and any immovable schedule constraints to be used in the mitigation prioritization.
• Validation question

• Design & Permitting Walkthrough
• Design & Permitting Solution Deck
• Design & Permitting Solution Brief

• meeting
• slides
• document

• Programming Study and Zoning Envelope
• Zoning Compliance Package
• Schematic Design Package
• Design Development Package
• Construction Document Set — Architectural
• Construction Document Set — MEP Coordination
• Structural Drawings Coordination
• Permit Set Preparation and Submission
• Entitlement and Planning Commission Support
• BIM Model Coordination and Clash Resolution
• Cost Model and Value Engineering Package
• Construction Administration and Site Visits
• As-Built Drawings and O&M Manuals

Programming Study and Zoning Envelope

• Describe the project program by gross floor area, net rentable area per use, typical floorplate size, and target occupancy date.
• How many parking stalls, loading berths, and bicycle spaces does your program assume and how should those be allocated by use? Options: Less than required by code, Meet minimum code, Exceed code by 10%, Custom allocation - describe
• Which occupancy classifications (e.g., Business B, Assembly A, Residential R) and assumed occupant loads must the massing and egress strategy reflect? Options: Business (B), Assembly (A), Residential (R), Mixed occupancies - describe
• Do you have a recent boundary and topographic survey or ALTA to establish lot lines, easements, and critical grade constraints? Options: Yes - attached, Yes - will provide, No - survey required, Unknown
• List any hard budget constraints and the construction cost per square foot target used for initial zoning envelope and massing studies.

Zoning Compliance Package

• Identify the authority having jurisdiction for zoning review (city planning, county planning, campus master plan) and any known overlay zones affecting the parcel. Options: City planning department, County planning department, Special district/campus plan, Unknown
• Provide the controlling zoning metrics required for compliance exhibits (FAR, height limit, setbacks, lot coverage, parking ratio).
• When is the target date for the zoning compliance submittal relative to your project milestones (program sign-off, SD completion, procurement)? Options: Before SD, After SD / before DD, After DD, Tied to permit schedule
• Who will prepare required zoning exhibits such as an FAR worksheet, setback diagrams, shadow studies, and parking tables? Options: You will provide, We will provide, Joint delivery with consultant, Third-party planning consultant
• Are there existing conditional approvals, covenant restrictions, or recorded agreements that constrain buildable area or program (easements, reciprocal access)? Options: Yes - attached, Yes - will provide, None known, Unknown

Schematic Design Package

• Identify the SD deliverables you expect from the phase: conceptual massing, preliminary floor plans, key exterior elevations, and two narrative options for program adjacencies. Options: Massing + floor plans, Massing + floor plans + elevations, Full SD board package, Custom - describe
• Provide the dimensional fidelity required at SD for early cost validation (conceptual only, approximate +/−10%, or dimensioned layouts for early estimating). Options: Conceptual only, Approximate +/-10%, Dimensioned for estimate
• When you expect to finalize SD for stakeholder review, are planning and zoning inputs required beforehand to confirm envelope assumptions? Options: Yes - zoning confirmed before SD, No - zoning parallel to SD, Partial confirmation required
• Will SD include preliminary site grading and stormwater approach to check feasibility against the site topography and municipal requirements? Options: Yes, No, Limited conceptual only
• Specify the number of SD revision cycles included in scope before additional fees apply. Options: 1 revision, 2 revisions, 3 revisions, As negotiated

Design Development Package

• Provide the DD drawings and documents expected to be fully dimensioned and coordinated (plans, key elevations, sections, primary details, finish palettes).
• Select the specification level required at DD: outline performance specs only, performance specs with product preferences, or near-complete specification sections for major assemblies. Options: Outline performance specs, Performance + preferred products, Near-complete specs
• Attach any pre-approved facade systems, proprietary curtainwall shop drawings, or manufacturer constraints that must be used in DD coordination.
• Indicate which life-safety and accessibility decisions must be resolved at DD (stair size, egress capacity, accessible routes, toilet counts). Options: All to be resolved at DD, Partial - some deferred to CD, Resolve at code check
• Outline the expected coordination deliverable between architects, structural and MEP at DD (coordinated overlays, clash log, combined model snapshot). Options: Coordinated overlays + clash log, Basic coordination notes, Federated model snapshot

Construction Document Set — Architectural

• Define the full contents of the architectural CD set you require (plans by level, sections, wall sections, door/window schedules, finish schedules, typical details).
• Provide the expected method of coordination between the architectural CD set and the MEP and structural contract documents (federated BIM, overlay PDFs, coordination meetings). Options: Federated BIM coordination, 2D overlays & coordination meetings, Hybrid approach
• Confirm whether the architectural CD deliverable must be suitable for competitive public bidding, including full quantities and specification cross-references. Options: Yes - suitable for bidding, No - for negotiated procurement, Either depending on procurement
• Who is responsible for final plan signing and sealing for architectural sheets in the permit submission (licensed architect on record, local consultant, other)? Options: Architect on record, Local licensed architect, Third-party local sealer, TBD
• What acceptance criteria will confirm the architectural construction document set is complete and ready for issuance (stamped drawings, coordination log closed to defined threshold, labeled schedules)? Options: Stamped drawings + clash log < 10 open items, Stamped drawings + full schedules included, Owner sign-off on deliverables

Construction Document Set — MEP Coordination

• Provide any existing single-line diagrams, record drawings, or servicing agreements that the MEP coordination must incorporate.
• Identify the preferred HVAC and electrical distribution approach to be documented in MEP CDs (VAV with central plant, dedicated packaged units, all-electric distribution, central plant). Options: VAV / central plant, Packaged rooftop units, All-electric with DOAS, Undecided - study required
• Which MEP deliverables are required at CD handoff: equipment schedules, riser diagrams, coordination overlays, load calcs, and commissioning basis of design? Options: All listed deliverables, Subset - specify in notes, Only equipment schedules + risers
• Will the MEP CDs include load calculations and energy model summaries for code compliance and HVAC sizing? Options: Yes - full loads included, Limited summaries only, No - separate deliverable
• Estimate the temporary construction power, metering and phasing needs to be shown or noted in the MEP coordination drawings.

Structural Drawings Coordination

• Describe the primary structural system intent to be incorporated in the coordination set (steel frame, concrete podium, post-tension slab, mass timber). Options: Steel frame, Concrete, Mass timber, Hybrid/other
• How many structural grid options should be reviewed for constructability versus architectural constraints? Options: One primary grid, Two options, Three or more options
• Provide geotechnical report highlights that affect foundation design, lateral system selection, and allowable bearing pressure.
• Are there site-specific loading conditions to address in structural coordination such as tower crane loads, rooftop mechanical supports, or large atrium spans? Options: Yes - specify, No, Unknown
• Confirm the expected level of structural constructability review during CD (peer review, contractor input, value engineering workshop). Options: Peer review required, Contractor review desired, No formal review, Value engineering workshop

Permit Set Preparation and Submission

• Which authority having jurisdiction forms and supporting documents are typically required by this AHJ for a full permit intake package?
• Who will compile and submit the permit set and respond to plan check comments: the design team, your in-house rep, or a local permit expeditor? Options: Design team handles submission, You handle submission, Local permit expeditor, Shared approach
• Provide the AHJ's historical plan check turnaround and any known plan reviewer constraints that could impact schedule. Options: <2 weeks, 2-6 weeks, 6-12 weeks, 12+ weeks, Unknown
• When do you plan to submit for building permits relative to bid and procurement milestones (pre-bid, post-bid, after contractor selection)? Options: Pre-bid, Post-bid before award, At contract award, Other
• What evidence will validate a successful permit submission for this project (issued permit number, stamped permit set, or written AHJ condition list)? Options: Issued permit number + stamped set, Stamped set only, Written AHJ conditions acknowledged, Other - describe

Entitlement and Planning Commission Support

• Outline the public hearing materials you expect (photo-simulations, renderings, shadow analysis, traffic memo) to support planning commission review. Options: Full board package including renderings, Minimal package - studies only, Custom - describe
• List the discretionary approvals anticipated (design review, conditional use permit, density bonus, variance) that will require narratives and exhibits.
• Are there specific community concerns (parking, height, shadow, traffic) you anticipate and want mitigation strategies prepared for in entitlement narratives? Options: Yes - list concerns, No known concerns, Unknown
• Who will present at the entitlement hearings and lead community outreach (project principal, planning consultant, owner representative)? Options: Project principal, Planning consultant, Owner rep, Joint team
• Provide any precedent approval packets or comparable project materials that the entitlement presentation should reference.

BIM Model Coordination and Clash Resolution

• Describe the required level of development (LOD) for architecture, structure, and MEP at CD handoff (for example LOD 300 or LOD 350). Options: LOD 200, LOD 300, LOD 350, LOD 400
• Select the preferred clash detection cadence and responsible party for issuing clash reports. Options: Weekly - design team issues, Biweekly - BIM coordinator issues, Milestone-based, Contractor issues
• Will the federated model be used for schedule simulation (4D) or for cost extraction (5D) during preconstruction? Options: 4D required, 5D required, Both 4D and 5D, Neither
• Provide the model file formats and minimum software versions required for handoff (Revit version, IFC, Navisworks).
• How often should coordinated model snapshots and clash resolution logs be shared with the owner and the construction team? Options: Weekly, Biweekly, Monthly, At major milestones

Cost Model and Value Engineering Package

• Estimate the target construction cost per gross square foot, contingency percentage, and owner-held allowances to be embedded in the cost model.
• Which level of cost accuracy do you require at each phase (order of magnitude at programming, elemental at SD/DD, unit-price detailed at CD)? Options: Order of magnitude, Elemental estimate, Unit-priced detailed
• Do you require a formal value engineering package with prioritized alternates, life-cycle cost comparisons, and schedule impact analysis? Options: Yes - full VE package, Limited VE options only, No VE required
• Specify the approval threshold for cost changes that will trigger owner sign-off (e.g., >$50k, >1% budget, any scope change). Options: >$50,000, >1% of project budget, Any change requires approval, Other - describe
• Identify owner-held allowances, exclusions, or scope items to be excluded from the base cost model (FF&E, owner-furnished equipment, off-site infrastructure).

Construction Administration and Site Visits

• How many site observation visits are included in the standard CA scope and at which construction milestones (footings, slab, superstructure, envelope, substantial completion)? Options: Monthly visits, Weekly visits, Fixed number - specify, Milestone-based only
• Describe the expected RFI and submittal review turnaround time during construction (for example response within 5 business days). Options: 3 business days, 5 business days, 10 business days, As negotiated
• Will the CA scope include construction phase meetings, shop drawing review, and coordination of field directives? Options: All included, Shop review only, Site visits only, Custom - describe
• Who will own the log of RFIs, submittals, and field decisions and provide weekly status updates to the owner? Options: Design team owns, Contractor owns, Shared log, Owner requests
• Outline the expected documentation for progress verification and payment (photographic logs, site observation reports, minutes).

• Master Services Agreement (MSA)
• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Fee Schedule & Payment Terms
• Milestone Schedule & Deliverable Acceptance
• Proof of Insurance & Licensing Confirmation
• Mutual Obligations & Coordination Agreement
• Change Order & Scope Management
• Notice to Proceed / Authorization to Commence
• Deliverable Licensing & Document Ownership

• Post-Completion Health Check
• First Outcomes Review (4–10 weeks)
• Lessons Learned and Punch-list Burn-down (around day 90)
• Operationalization Review, Quarterly
• 12-Month Outcomes and Continuous Improvement Review, Annual

• Schedule targeted vendor or consultant engagements for any unresolved warranty or long-lead issues.
• Remaining punch-list items scheduled to closure with verification steps and dates.
• Publish the lessons learned summary with recommended process changes and map each lesson to an owner for follow-through.
• Update the shared punch-list channel with the final burn-down schedule and verification checklist for each item.
• Prepare a short remediation package for any design-level fixes that require consultant action, including scope and timeline.
• Operational metrics review
• Agreement on priority operational fixes and timeline for the next quarter documented in the shared channel.
• Clear status on warranty items and long-lead components that could affect occupancy or operations.
• Publish the prioritized operational backlog with owners and quarter targets in the shared channel.
• Re-confirm acceptance criteria and owners
• Deliver an updated as-built documentation checklist showing outstanding items and estimated completion dates.
• 12-month outcomes summary
• Year-one performance assessed against Project Scope targets and a clear statement of which targets were met or missed.
• Lessons learned action implementation rate documented and the plan for remaining actions agreed.
• Publish the 12-month outcomes report and lessons-implemented score with supporting data and conclusions.
• Archive final project documents to the agreed long-term repository and confirm access and retention policy.
• Document the post-closure issue-handling process and escalation path for any warranty or enhancement items that arise after formal cadence close.
• All contract deliverables and as-built documentation confirmed received and accessible to the buyer.
• All early issues and punch-list items are logged in the shared channel with owners and initial remediation dates.
• Publish a handover checklist indicating delivered items and outstanding documents for the buyer to confirm.
• Populate the shared punch-list channel with current open items, owners, and target resolution dates.
• Provide access credentials and navigation notes for the project document repository and shared channel.
• Present first outcome data vs Project Scope targets
• Clear understanding of where measured outcomes differ from Project Scope targets for change orders and punch-list items.
• Named remediation actions with target dates recorded in the shared channel and added to the project tracker.
• Publish the metric dashboard calculations and raw data used to compute change-order percent and open punch-list count for audit.
• Create a prioritized punch-list remediation schedule with target close dates for the top 10 items.
• Document any agreed changes to change-order approval or scope-change process and circulate to stakeholders.
• Current punch-list and RFI performance
• Top recurring causes identified with concrete process or design changes to prevent recurrence on future projects.
• Shared channel backlog review
• Deliverable handover validation
• Root-cause analysis of recurring issues
• Gap diagnosis
• Assess lessons implemented and remaining improvements
• Capture lessons learned
• Onboarding and access check
• Project documentation archive and handoff
• Punch-list priority and remediation plan
• Warranty and long-lead item status
• Plan next quarter deliverables
• Update risk and change-order controls
• Early issue and punch-list logging
• Agree long-term issue handling and escalation
• Agree final burn-down and verification steps
• Agree immediate remediation actions