Program, Technical and Code Design Reviews

Why Program, Technical and Code Design Reviews Matter

In the CMAA Construction Management Standards of Practice, quality is not something that is inspected into a project at the end — it is planned in, designed in, and verified at every stage. The design phase is where the Construction Manager (CM) has the greatest leverage over cost, schedule, and quality outcomes. A design error caught on paper during a review costs a fraction of what it costs once it is discovered in the field as a Request for Information (RFI), a change order, a rework item, or a failed inspection. Studies cited in CM practice consistently show that the ability to influence cost declines sharply as the project moves from programming through design to construction, while the cost of making changes rises exponentially.

Design reviews are therefore one of the most important design-phase quality management tools in the CM's toolbox. They are the mechanism through which the CM, acting as the Owner's agent, independently verifies that the design team's work product (1) meets the Owner's stated program and requirements, (2) is technically sound, coordinated, and constructible, and (3) complies with applicable codes, standards, and regulatory requirements. On the CCM exam, questions on this topic test whether you understand the CM's role (reviewer and facilitator, not the designer of record), the purpose of each review type, the timing of reviews relative to design milestones, and the process for documenting, resolving, and closing out review comments.

What Design Reviews Are

CMAA's Quality Management Guidelines describe design-phase quality as a system of planned, formal reviews at defined design milestones. Although practitioners sometimes lump them together, the exam expects you to distinguish three principal review types:

1. Program Review (Program Compliance Review)
A program review verifies that the design, as it evolves, satisfies the Owner's program — the documented statement of functional requirements, space needs, adjacencies, performance criteria, operational requirements, budget, and schedule established at project initiation. The reviewer asks: Does this design deliver what the Owner asked for? Typical checks include comparing designed square footage against programmed areas by room and department, confirming that required spaces exist and are properly related, verifying performance criteria (e.g., HVAC capacities, security zones, acoustical ratings, sustainability targets such as LEED levels), confirming that owner-furnished equipment is accommodated, and confirming that the design is tracking to the approved budget and schedule. Program reviews are heavily emphasized at early milestones (programming validation, schematic design) because program drift becomes progressively harder to correct.

2. Technical Review (Technical Design Review)
A technical review examines the design documents for technical adequacy, accuracy, completeness, internal consistency, and inter-discipline coordination. The reviewer asks: Is this design correct, complete, coordinated, and buildable? Typical checks include: discipline-to-discipline coordination (architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, civil, landscape); clash detection (often supported by Building Information Modeling); consistency between drawings and specifications; consistency between plans, sections, elevations, schedules, and details; appropriateness of materials and systems for the use and environment; constructability and sequencing; maintainability and operability; adequacy of specification language (performance vs. prescriptive, submittal requirements, testing requirements, warranties); and completeness relative to the expected level of development at that milestone (for example, a 100% Construction Documents set should be biddable and permit-ready). Constructability reviews and value engineering are closely related activities that are frequently conducted in conjunction with technical reviews, but the exam may treat them as distinct services.

3. Code Review (Code Compliance Review)
A code review verifies that the design complies with all applicable building codes, life-safety codes, accessibility requirements, energy codes, zoning ordinances, environmental regulations, and Owner-specific standards or design guidelines, as well as the requirements of Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs). Typical checks include occupancy classification, construction type, allowable height and area, egress (travel distance, exit widths, number of exits, dead-end corridors), fire separation and ratings, fire protection systems, accessibility (ADA/ABA or local equivalents), energy compliance, structural design criteria (loads, seismic, wind), plumbing fixture counts, and zoning items such as setbacks, parking, and height limits. The CM also tracks permit and agency review requirements so that approvals are obtained in time to support the schedule.

Key principle for the exam: The Architect/Engineer (A/E) of record remains legally and professionally responsible for the adequacy of the design. The CM's reviews do not transfer design liability to the CM or relieve the designer of responsibility. The CM reviews to protect the Owner's interests and to reduce risk; the CM does not redesign, does not stamp drawings, and does not approve the design in a way that assumes the A/E's professional responsibility. Exam answers that have the CM assuming design responsibility or directing the design are almost always wrong.

How Design Reviews Work — The Process

Step 1: Plan the reviews in the Quality Management Plan (QMP) and Project Management Plan (PMP). During the pre-design phase, the CM establishes the design review program: which reviews will be performed, at what milestones, by whom, using what criteria and checklists, within what turnaround time, and how comments will be tracked and resolved. Typical milestones are: Programming/Concept, Schematic Design (SD, often 30%), Design Development (DD, often 60%), Construction Documents (CD, often 90% or 95%), and Final/100% CDs (bid or permit set). Review durations must be built into the master schedule — a common exam point is that the CM must allow adequate time for review and comment resolution so the design schedule is realistic.

Step 2: Establish review criteria and checklists. Reviews are performed against documented criteria: the Owner's program, the design criteria document, Owner design standards, applicable codes, the approved budget, the master schedule, and the deliverable requirements in the A/E's contract (what each milestone package must contain). Standardized checklists by discipline and by milestone promote consistency and completeness.

Step 3: Assemble the review team. The CM typically leads and coordinates the review and may use in-house technical staff, independent specialty consultants (e.g., code consultants, commissioning agents, cost estimators), Owner representatives (facilities, operations, maintenance, end users, security, IT), and sometimes AHJs or utility companies. Peer reviews by independent design professionals may be used for complex or high-risk elements.

Step 4: Conduct the review. Reviewers examine the milestone deliverables (drawings, specifications, calculations, narratives, cost estimates, schedules, BIM models) and record comments. Comments should be specific, referenced to a sheet, detail, or specification section, classified by type (program, technical/coordination, code, constructability, cost/schedule, editorial), and prioritized by significance. A key related activity is the independent cost estimate reconciliation — comparing the CM's estimate with the A/E's estimate at each milestone to confirm the design is within budget.

Step 5: Document comments in a review comment log. The comment log (or design review register) is the formal record. Each entry typically includes: comment number, reviewer, discipline, document reference, description of the issue, recommended action, A/E response, resolution/disposition, and status (open/closed). This log is an essential project record and supports later analysis of RFIs and changes.

Step 6: Hold a review/comment resolution meeting. The CM facilitates a meeting with the A/E and Owner to walk through significant comments, clarify intent, and agree on dispositions. The A/E responds to each comment (accept and incorporate, accept with modification, or reject with justification). Disagreements are escalated to the Owner for decision; the Owner, not the CM, ultimately decides on changes to scope, program, or budget.

Step 7: Back-check (verification) at the next milestone. The CM verifies that accepted comments were actually incorporated into the subsequent submittal and closes them in the log. Unresolved or recurring comments are flagged. This back-check is the quality control loop that distinguishes a real review program from a paper exercise.

Step 8: Report and feed forward. Review results are summarized for the Owner, including budget and schedule impacts, major risks, and open items. Lessons learned feed into the specifications, the bidding documents, the construction-phase quality plan, and future projects. Code review results also feed the permitting strategy and agency approval schedule.

Relationship to Other CM Functions

Design reviews connect directly to: Cost Management (estimate reconciliation, value engineering, budget control); Time Management (design schedule, review durations, permit approvals); Risk Management (identifying design risks early, reducing change orders and claims); Contract Administration (biddability, clarity of documents, fewer RFIs and disputes); Safety (designing for construction safety and life safety); and Sustainability (confirming sustainability goals are met). Expect exam questions that cross these boundaries — for example, a question about a budget overrun discovered at DD is really a design review and cost management question.

How to Answer Exam Questions on This Topic

CCM exam questions are frequently scenario-based and ask for the best action by the CM. Use the following approach:

1. Identify which review type the question is really about. If the issue is about rooms, areas, functions, Owner requirements, or performance criteria — it is a program review question. If it is about coordination, errors, omissions, consistency, constructability, or completeness — it is a technical review question. If it is about egress, fire ratings, accessibility, zoning, AHJ requirements, or permits — it is a code review question.

2. Place the scenario in the correct phase. Design-phase quality is proactive. The best answer usually involves catching and resolving issues at the earliest milestone, and allowing adequate review time in the schedule. Answers that defer resolution to construction, or rely on contractors to catch design problems, are generally wrong.

3. Respect roles and responsibilities. The CM reviews, coordinates, documents, facilitates, recommends, and reports. The A/E designs, responds, and remains responsible for the design. The Owner decides on scope, program, and budget changes. The AHJ interprets and enforces codes. Eliminate any answer where the CM redesigns, overrides the A/E, assumes design liability, approves the design for code compliance in place of the AHJ, or makes Owner decisions unilaterally.

4. Look for process and documentation. The CMAA approach favors formal, documented, repeatable processes: a written QMP, defined milestones, checklists, a comment log, a resolution meeting, A/E written responses, and back-checks. Answers emphasizing formal documentation and closure usually beat informal or verbal approaches.

5. Think about the Owner's interest. The CM is the Owner's agent. The best answer protects the Owner from cost, schedule, quality, and risk exposure while maintaining professional relationships with the design team.

Exam Tips: Answering Questions on Program, Technical and Code Design Reviews

Tip 1 — Know the purpose of each review in one sentence. Program review: does the design meet the Owner's requirements? Technical review: is the design correct, coordinated, complete, and constructible? Code review: does the design comply with codes, regulations, and AHJ requirements? Many questions simply test which type of review would have caught a given problem.

Tip 2 — The CM does not assume design liability. If an answer choice says the CM approves the design, certifies code compliance, or redesigns a system, eliminate it. The correct CM action is to identify, document, and communicate the issue and request the A/E's response.

Tip 3 — Earlier is better. When asked when a review should occur or when a problem should be resolved, favor the earliest practical milestone. The influence curve favors early action; the cost-of-change curve punishes late action.

Tip 4 — Reviews are planned, not ad hoc. Design review milestones, durations, criteria, participants, and tracking methods belong in the Quality Management Plan and Project Management Plan established during pre-design, and review time must be reflected in the master schedule.

Tip 5 — The comment log is the key document. Expect questions on tracking comments to closure. The correct sequence is: review, document comments, A/E written response, resolution meeting, Owner decision on disputed items, incorporation into next submittal, back-check and closure.

Tip 6 — Distinguish related services. Constructability review focuses on how the project will be built (means, methods, sequencing, access, site logistics, tolerances). Value engineering focuses on achieving required function at lowest life-cycle cost. Peer review is an independent professional review of design adequacy. Commissioning verifies systems perform as designed. The exam may ask which service is most appropriate for a given goal.

Tip 7 — Budget reconciliation is part of design review. If a scenario involves an estimate exceeding budget at a design milestone, the CM's role is to reconcile estimates, identify the drivers, present options (value engineering, scope adjustment, budget increase) and recommend — but the Owner decides.

Tip 8 — Code questions usually hinge on the AHJ. The CM identifies potential code issues and ensures they are resolved with the A/E and, where interpretation is needed, with the Authority Having Jurisdiction. The CM also manages the permit and agency approval schedule but does not make binding code interpretations.

Tip 9 — Watch for Owner program changes. If the Owner or end users request changes during a review that alter the program, the CM should evaluate the cost, schedule, and design impact, document the change, and obtain formal Owner authorization before directing the A/E — program changes are scope changes and often require amendment of the A/E agreement.

Tip 10 — Read for the word best. Several answers may be technically acceptable. Choose the one that is most proactive, most consistent with CMAA Standards of Practice, most protective of the Owner, properly documented, and respectful of the roles of the Owner, A/E, CM, and AHJ.

Quick Review Summary

Program Review — compliance with Owner requirements; emphasized early; checks areas, functions, adjacencies, performance criteria, budget and schedule alignment.
Technical Review — accuracy, completeness, coordination, constructibility, consistency between drawings and specifications; supported by checklists and BIM clash detection.
Code Review — compliance with building, life-safety, accessibility, energy, zoning and environmental requirements; coordinated with AHJ and permit schedule.
Process — plan in QMP, set criteria, assemble team, review at milestones, log comments, resolve with A/E and Owner, back-check, report, feed lessons forward.
Roles — CM reviews and facilitates; A/E designs and remains responsible; Owner decides; AHJ interprets and enforces code.

Mastering these distinctions and the disciplined review process will allow you to confidently answer CCM exam questions on Program, Technical and Code Design Reviews within the Quality Management domain.