Quick Project Snapshot

• Briefly describe the project program, current schematic status, and the primary structural challenge you expect.
• Which building type best matches this project? Options: Office tower, Hospital or healthcare facility, Data center, Industrial or plant, Mixed-use, Residential mid-rise, Long-span assembly such as arena or convention, Renovation or change of occupancy, Other
• How many floors and the approximate gross building area are you planning?
• Tell me the intended primary structural material preference, if any. Options: Steel, Concrete, Timber, Masonry, Hybrid, No preference / undecided
• Walk me through the decision triggers that moved this project into schematic design now.
• If you had to name the single outcome that would make this project a clear success from an owner's perspective, what would it be?

Where the Site Could Surprise You

• What's the one site or soil condition that, if true, would force a rethink of foundation type or blow the budget?
• Which geotechnical deliverables do you currently have for the site? Options: Final geotech report with borings and logs, Preliminary geotech report only, Level B reconnaissance or summary, No geotech yet, Other
• How many borings, test pits, or CPTs are included in the available geotech data? Options: None, 1-3, 4-7, 8 or more, Unknown
• Tell me if liquefaction potential, compressible soils, or a high groundwater table have already been flagged for this site, and who raised the concern.
• List any known easements, retaining walls, or adjacent building constraints that will limit foundation layout or equipment access.
• Identify any site realities that, if confirmed by the geotech, would make you stop and re-scope the project immediately.

Seismic Performance, Not Just Code Compliance

• If the project required performance beyond code minimums, how would that change your tolerance for cost and schedule impacts? Options: Accept higher cost and schedule risk, Accept modest increase up to a set percent, Prefer to stay at code minimum, Undecided
• Specify the seismic code edition or performance standard you expect the seller to design to. Options: Latest adopted local seismic code edition, Previous code edition adopted by authority, Performance-based criteria beyond code, To be determined by the project team
• To what extent is reducing lateral system weight more important than preserving large open spans or architectural intent? Options: Weight reduction is top priority, Balanced trade-off between weight and openness, Architectural openness is top priority, Undecided
• Describe any past seismic retrofit findings, peer reviews, or evaluation reports for this property that the seller should know about.
• Explain the lateral system trade-offs you and your team would accept to save schedule or reduce bid variability.
• Would a seismic-driven structural cost increase of about 15 percent cause you to pause the project and reopen options? Options: Yes, we would pause, No, we would absorb or reallocate budget, We would seek other design trade-offs first, Unsure

Who's Responsible, Who Signs, and Who Slows Things Down

• Who on your team ultimately decides between framing and foundation options, and by what date must that decision be made to stay on schedule?
• Name the specific internal and external stakeholders who must approve structural approach before permit submission.
• Describe how contractor input will be collected and used, for example an early framing study, value-engineering workshop, or bid clarifications.
• What cadence of design reviews does your team require during schematic, design development, and construction document phases? Options: Biweekly, Monthly, At major milestones only, Ad-hoc as required
• Who will be the seller's primary contact for design decisions during the schematic framing study and during construction administration?
• Identify any single decision that, if delayed more than four weeks, would force a redesign or push the bid window beyond acceptable limits.

Where Costs and Bids Tend to Break

• What single recurring issue in previous bids—connection ambiguity, missing shop details, or foundation unknowns—has most often driven cost up or produced unreliable bids?
• List contractor-reported connection detail problems or shop drawing issues you have seen on comparable projects.
• Share the typical percent spread between the three lowest conforming structural bids on comparable projects. Options: Under 5%, 5–8%, 8–12%, Over 12%, Unknown
• Do you have an internal target for allowable variance in structural bid results? Options: Yes, under 5%, 5–8%, 8–12%, No formal target
• Explain whether your procurement will favor low-bid selection, best-value scoring, or contractor qualifications, and why. Options: Low-bid, Best-value / scoring, Contractor qualifications primary, Undecided
• Would a projected 10 percent structural cost overrun compared with your target cause you to pause or cancel the current path? Options: Pause and re-evaluate, Absorb or reallocate budget, Request value engineering, Unsure

Alternatives You're Actively Considering

• What's the costly mistake the incumbent firm or an internal delivery team is most likely to repeat on this project?
• Provide a short list of the external options you are evaluating, and indicate whether internal teams are being considered.
• Name the partner attributes—technical, schedule, or commercial—that would convince you to switch immediately.
• Has anyone proposed solving this without an outside engineering firm, using internal resources or a design-build contractor? Options: Yes, fully internal approach proposed, Yes, partial internal support proposed, No internal proposal, Undecided
• Estimate how much faster your evaluation would be if you had a contractor endorsement and a short sample framing study. Options: Less than 1 week, 1–2 weeks, 2–4 weeks, More than 4 weeks, No change expected
• State the specific conditions under which you will stay with your current approach rather than switching to a new partner.

Practical Readiness and Deal-Killing Constraints

• Confirm whether your team can provide a final geotech report, clear site access, and any existing borings within 6 weeks or whether those items will block issuing construction documents. Options: All available within 6 weeks, Partial availability within 6 weeks, Cannot provide within 6 weeks, Unknown
• Provide the names or roles responsible for the soils report, permit applications, and site access approvals inside your organization.
• Indicate which permits or approvals are most likely to add schedule risk, for example environmental review, grading, or fire department approvals. Options: Environmental review, Grading permit, Demolition permit, Fire department approval, None expected, Other
• Does your team have a dedicated coordinator assigned for RFI responses and submittal review during construction? Options: Yes, dedicated coordinator, Shared responsibility across team, No coordinator assigned yet, Contractor will coordinate
• Estimate the number of internal reviewers who will receive structural documents at schematic, design development, and construction document milestones. Options: 1–2 reviewers, 3–5 reviewers, 6–10 reviewers, More than 10, Unknown
• Are there third-party vendors or prefabrication partners the seller must integrate with, such as MEP prefabs, pile contractors, or a nominated fabricator? Options: Yes, multiple third parties, Yes, one identified third party, No third parties, Unknown
• State whether the absence of a single responsible contact for timely RFI and submittal turnaround will require pausing work after bids. Options: Yes, pause required, No, proceed with shared contacts, We would assign a contact before bids, Undecided

Acceptance Criteria and Clear Next Steps

• Define the objective metrics you will use to accept the seller's schematic framing study and final construction documents, for example allowable bid spread, completeness of connection details, and field observation cadence.
• Specify the schedule milestone that must be met to keep the planned construction start date intact. Options: Permit issuance, Contractor selection, Completion of construction documents, Site mobilization readiness, Other
• Outline the specific deliverable acceptance criteria that would allow you to sign construction documents without requesting additional contractor reviews.
• Indicate how quickly you would make a contractor selection after receiving a satisfactory framing study and preliminary cost guidance. Options: Immediately, within 1 week, Within 2–4 weeks, Longer than a month, Depends on approvals
• Flag any remaining approvals, internal signoffs, or funding holds that would prevent you from signing an engagement the same week the framing study proves a preferred, cost-saving system.
• Finally, which seller-provided supports would most accelerate your decision: a short sample framing study, contractor introductions, a guaranteed shop drawing review turnaround, or a field observation plan? Options: Sample framing study (2–3 pages), Contractor introductions and endorsements, Guaranteed shop drawing review SLA, Named field observation cadence and schedule, Combination of the above, Other

• Design Options Workshop

• Confirm the current state and its cost to your team
• You confirm the exact current state and quantify the schedule, cost, and bid-variability consequences.
• Deliver a one-page comparative schematic framing summary with preliminary cost ranges, constructability notes, and the recommended option within 5 business days.
• You agree on which framing and foundation option to advance into a schematic framing study.
• Review project assumptions and constraints
• Prepare acceptance criteria and contingency thresholds for foundation selection to include in the engagement terms.
• Compare Option A/B/C — Constructability implications
• Provide the latest geotechnical report, site survey, and any known subsurface constraints before the schematic framing study.
• You validate the acceptance criteria and geotechnical contingencies that will decide go/no-go for the chosen option.
• Identify the decision-maker list and the target budget thresholds for structural scope to enable final recommendation alignment.
• Compare Option A/B/C — Seismic performance and analysis implications
• You confirm the remaining evidence needed before a procurement decision, and the next deliverable to provide that evidence.
• Compare Option A/B/C — Preliminary cost ranges and sensitivities
• Show contractor and fabricator readiness proof
• Agree recommended path and acceptance criteria
• Validation check, confirm this maps to your need

• Design Options Workshop
• Design Options Workshop Deck
• Design Options Workshop Brief

• meeting
• slides
• document

• Schematic framing design package
• Comparative framing cost analysis
• Lateral system design and seismic analysis
• Gravity framing design and member sizing
• Foundation design and bearing recommendations
• Deep foundation (pile/caisson) design package
• Shallow foundation and slab-on-grade design
• Bid-ready structural construction documents
• Detailed connection and shop-ready details
• Structural calculation and code compliance report
• Shop drawing review and fabrication coordination
• Construction administration and field observation
• Seismic retrofit design and drawings
• Revised foundation redesign after geotechnical change

Schematic framing design package

• Provide the architectural schematic drawings and site plan sheet numbers we should use for the framing study (attach file names or sheet callouts).
• Identify which framing materials you want evaluated in the schematic study (steel, reinforced concrete, mass timber, hybrid). Options: Steel, Reinforced concrete, Mass timber, Hybrid
• Which project load criteria or code references should govern the schematic framing study (for example ASCE 7 wind/seismic cases, design live loads by space type)?
• Who on your team will be the architect contact for clarifications on openings, roof access, and heavy equipment locations affecting framing?
• Specify any cost or weight targets that should constrain schematic options (for example maximum steel tonnage or structural budget per gross square foot).

Comparative framing cost analysis

• List the framing options you want compared (e.g., steel moment frames, braced frames, concrete shear walls, timber long-span), and indicate any options previously rejected.
• Estimate the level of cost fidelity required for each option (preliminary order-of-magnitude, contractor pricing estimate, or budgetary cost per square foot). Options: Order-of-magnitude, Contractor pricing estimate, Budgetary cost per square foot
• Select which cost drivers you want broken out in the comparison (material cost, fabrication hours, erection time, foundation impacts, schedule premium). Options: Material cost, Fabrication hours, Erection time, Foundation impacts, Schedule premium
• Who will provide contractor feedback or historical bid data to calibrate the comparative cost model (general contractor, fabricator, estimator)? Options: General contractor, Steel fabricator, Owner's estimator, No external feedback
• Describe any site constraints that materially affect costs (tight crane access, night work restrictions, staging limits, or heavy-lift exclusions).

Lateral system design and seismic analysis

• Indicate the design seismic parameters from the geotechnical or code basis you want used (site class from geotech, Ss/S1, mapped spectral response per ASCE 7).
• Outline whether you require response-spectrum analysis, modal response history, or equivalent static analysis for the lateral systems. Options: Equivalent static analysis, Response-spectrum analysis, Modal response history analysis
• State any architectural constraints that limit lateral system placement (large glazing bays, long cantilevers, atrium openings) that the analysis must respect.
• Detail required deliverables for lateral design (drift checks by story, diaphragm tributary area documentation, seismic load combination sheets).
• Flag any project-specific seismic performance targets (immediate occupancy, life safety, collapse prevention) that should be documented in the analysis. Options: Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety, Collapse Prevention, Other

Gravity framing design and member sizing

• Are there concentrated loads or equipment loads (roof chillers, medical equipment, racking) that require point-load detail in the member sizing work? Options: Yes, No
• Will you provide final architectural column grid and slab thickness assumptions, or should we use preliminary assumptions for the schematic sizing? Options: You will provide final grid and slab assumptions, Use preliminary assumptions provided with schematic documents
• How will you want member sizing outputs delivered (summary tables, markups on plan sheets, Revit model families)? Options: Summary tables (PDF), Plan markups (DWG/PDF), Revit model families
• Where are the highest-risk gravity framing zones (long spans, cantilevers, heavy mezzanines) that we should prioritize during sizing?
• Attach or reference any project-specific load combinations or nonstandard occupancy loads that differ from the code default.

Foundation design and bearing recommendations

• Confirm whether a geotechnical report with soil borings and allowable bearing values is available; if so, list report date and boring IDs. Options: Geotech report provided with borings, Geotech report pending, No geotech borings available
• Identify any site constraints affecting foundations (existing shallow utilities, adjacent foundations, high groundwater, basements) that must be considered.
• Which foundation types are preferred or restricted on-site (spread footings only, mat foundation allowed, micropiles prohibited)? Options: Spread footings allowed, Mat foundation allowed, Micropiles allowed, Piles/caissons preferred
• Specify required deliverables from the foundation recommendation (bearing pressure tables, settlement estimates, foundation plan sketches). Options: Bearing pressure tables, Settlement estimates, Foundation plan sketches
• When would you like foundation bearing recommendations relative to the architect's slab-on-grade and utility coordination milestones? Options: Before schematic design completion, Before design development, Before construction documents

Deep foundation (pile/caisson) design package

• Select the deep foundation systems to be investigated (drilled caissons, driven piles, drilled displacement piles) for feasibility and cost comparison. Options: Drilled caissons, Driven piles, Drilled displacement piles, Micropiles
• Who will coordinate with the geotechnical engineer to confirm skin friction and end-bearing assumptions for pile capacity?
• Estimate the maximum foundation loads (factored axial and lateral loads) we should assume for pile sizing if contractor loads are not yet available.
• List site access and rig restrictions that affect deep foundation selection (street closures, laydown limits, crane capacity).
• Describe required contract deliverables for pile design (pile layout plan, capacity tables, pile detail sheets for foundation contractor bidding).

Shallow foundation and slab-on-grade design

• Describe the intended slab-on-grade usage (warehouse racking loads, light office use, heavy equipment) so slab thickness and reinforcement can be sized. Options: Warehouse racking, Office/light use, Heavy equipment, Other
• Indicate whether vapor barrier, slab on grade joint details, and slab reinforcement schedules must be included in the deliverable. Options: Vapor barrier included, Joint details included, Reinforcement schedules included
• Specify subgrade preparation expectations from the geotechnical report (CBR, modulus, required compaction) that the slab design must assume.
• Where are slab load concentrations expected (forklift aisles, equipment pads) that require thickened slab or isolated footings?
• Estimate the acceptable post-construction slab settlement or tolerance (for finish floor elevation coordination with architectural finishes). Options: Less than 3/8 inch, 3/8 to 3/4 inch, Custom tolerance

Bid-ready structural construction documents

• Select the sheet deliverables you require in the bid set (plan framing layouts, foundation plans, sections, schedules, general notes, load tables). Options: Framing plans, Foundation plans, Sections and details, Schedules and tables, General notes
• Attach any contract or procurement constraints that affect the bid set (fast-track phased bidding, early steel procurement, two-stage bid process).
• Which coordination responsibilities do you expect in the bid-ready package (coordination with architect for curtain wall embeds, with MEP for penetrations)?
• Which items are explicitly out of scope for the fixed-fee bid-ready structural package (we will not deliver these), for example permit expediting, ongoing change-order negotiation, or full-time site supervision? Options: Permit expediting, Change-order negotiation, Full-time site supervision, MEP system design, Construction implementation
• What defines acceptance for the bid-ready structural construction documents (for example completeness for contractor pricing, PE-stamped cover sheet, and clash-free coordination markups)?

Detailed connection and shop-ready details

• List the connection types needing shop-ready detail (beam-to-column moment connections, base plates, brace connections, panel zone details). Options: Moment connections, Base plates, Brace connections, Panel zone details, Other
• Identify any fabricator preferences or shop standards we should follow (preferred bolt sizes, weld types, hole tolerances) to minimize shop rework.
• Who will be the fabricator contact for a pre-shop-drawing review if you want fabricator input before issuing shop-ready details?
• Describe the drawing format and detail callouts required for shop approval (DWG detail files, connection calculation attachments, revision clouds).
• What acceptance criteria will confirm connection details are shop-ready (fabricator signoff, no open design assumptions, and connection calculation with weld/bolt checks)?

Structural calculation and code compliance report

• Indicate which code editions or local amendments must be referenced in the compliance report (for example IBC 2018, ASCE 7-16, local seismic ordinance).
• Specify the report deliverables required (calculation binder PDF, electronic spreadsheets of load combinations, model files for structural analysis). Options: Calculation binder PDF, Spreadsheets of load combos, Model files (analysis)
• Identify any third-party reviews that the report must satisfy (plan check authority, owner's peer reviewer, special inspector requirements). Options: Plan check authority, Owner's peer reviewer, Special inspector
• Detail required documentation for load paths and redundancy checks that the compliance report must include for bidder clarity.
• Estimate the level of narrative explanation you require in the report (brief code citation, moderate engineering narrative, or comprehensive derivations). Options: Brief code citation, Moderate engineering narrative, Comprehensive derivations

Shop drawing review and fabrication coordination

• Describe the turnaround expectations for shop drawing reviews (hours or business days per submission) to match your procurement schedule.
• Who will be responsible for marking up as-built conditions vs. fabricator-submitted details when clashes are discovered during shop drawing review?
• Select the level of coordination you need between structural shop drawings and other disciplines (MEP penetration coordination, architectural embed locations). Options: Minimal (structural only), Moderate (coordinate key penetrations), Full coordination with MEP/architect
• Indicate whether you require a formal transmittal log and comment register for each shop drawing cycle for audit and contract response. Options: Yes, No
• List any prefabrication milestones that shop drawing approvals must align with (early steel procurement date, roof truss fabrication cut-off).

Construction administration and field observation

• Specify the cadence of field observation visits required (number per week/month or milestone-based visits tied to foundation pour, first steel erection, final acceptance). Options: Weekly, Biweekly, Milestone-based
• Who is your designated construction contact for daily coordination and RFI routing on site?
• How will RFI and submittal response SLAs be measured on the project (hours, business days) and what is your expected SLA for initial responses? Options: 24 hours, 48 hours, 5 business days, Custom
• Indicate required outputs from field observation visits (signed field reports, photo log tied to grid references, nonconformance reports). Options: Signed field reports, Photo log, Nonconformance reports
• What evidence will validate completion of construction administration deliverables (site visit log with photos, stamped field observation reports, and contractor acknowledgement)?

• Master Services Agreement (MSA)
• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Fee Schedule & Payment Terms
• Schedule & Milestone Exhibit
• Geotechnical Contingency Addendum
• Change Order Agreement
• Insurance & Indemnity Exhibit
• Construction Administration & Field Observation Authorization
• Acceptance & Closeout Deliverables
• Dispute Resolution & Termination Terms

• Handover and Go-live Health Check
• First Measurement Review (weeks 4-10)
• Acceptance Gate — Final Acceptance Decision (day 90 closeout)
• Quarterly Operational Review, Warranty, and Lessons Learned

• Close resolved warranty tickets and attach verification evidence in the project folder.
• Update the punch-list with resolution target dates and verification criteria within 72 hours.
• Schedule required re-inspections and document outcomes to show percent-closed within 30 days.
• Restate acceptance criteria and numeric targets
• A documented acceptance decision is captured for each acceptance criterion recorded in Engineering Scope.
• All conditional items have remediation plans with resolution dates and verification steps.
• Final as-built package delivery and archive location are confirmed.
• Publish the formal acceptance record and attach final as-built deliverables within 48 hours of the meeting.
• Deliver the finalized as-built drawing package in the agreed file formats and archive location within 7 days.
• Create a verification checklist for conditional remediation items with target completion dates and verification criteria.
• Review current open punch-list and warranty tickets
• Open punch-list and warranty items are reduced or have agreed timelines for closure with verification steps.
• SLA performance for field-observation resolution shows improvement or a clear remediation path.
• Top three lessons learned are documented with recommended process changes for future projects.
• Update the shared punch-list channel with current status and the next verification date within 48 hours.
• Document the top three lessons learned and recommended changes to handover and QA workflows and distribute to the project archive.
• Re-confirm acceptance criteria and owners
• Acceptance criteria from Engineering Scope are confirmed and each criterion has an accountable owner.
• All missing or nonconforming handover deliverables are documented and prioritized for remediation.
• Immediate blockers are captured with remediation actions and target dates.
• Publish the handover discrepancies log with remediation target dates within 48 hours.
• Deliver any missing as-built drawings in the contract file format within 14 days.
• Schedule first site re-inspection for critical open items within 10 business days.
• Present metric dashboard and evidence
• Current metric status for as-built delivery, punch-list count, and field-observation closure rate is documented and accepted by stakeholders.
• Corrective actions with clear outcomes and target dates are agreed for each off-target metric.
• Acceptance gate date and required deliverables are confirmed.
• Publish the metric dashboard with attached evidence and circulate to stakeholders within 48 hours.
• Present outcome data against each criterion
• Trend analysis of resolution SLA compliance
• Handover deliverables verification
• Diagnose gaps and root causes
• Document pass or fail per criterion and capture acceptance
• Early site observations and field notes
• Lessons learned and process improvements
• Agree corrective actions and timelines
• Update shared punch-list channel and escalation path
• Agree remediation items for any failed or conditional criteria
• Immediate blockers and risk flags
• Update punch-list priorities and verification steps
• Confirm timeline to Acceptance Gate
• Deliver and archive final as-built package and closeout documents
• Decide next check-in or close the review loop
• Agree short-term remediation actions and timeline