Checking Thousands of Pages Against an Owner’s Design Standards

The Challenge

Institutional owners such as universities and healthcare systems create detailed design standards covering everything from finishes and mechanical systems to laboratories and specialist equipment.

The challenge is making sure those standards are actually reflected in each new project.

A single project specification can contain thousands of pages. Comparing it manually against hundreds or thousands of pages of owner requirements is extremely time-consuming, difficult to perform consistently, and easy to repeat differently from one project to the next.

The Test

Core Runway was tested on a completed university construction project.

The platform compared:

1,000 pages of institutional design standards

against

2,800 pages of project specifications

Core Runway analyzed the documents, identified potential conflicts and partial compliance, and linked each finding back to the relevant project and standards documentation.

The Results

The review identified:

• 19 potential non-compliances

• 10 areas of partial compliance

• Supporting source locations for each finding

• A structured review that a qualified human could approve, reject or override

The complete analysis was produced in approximately 15 minutes.

Why It Matters

Design standards have limited value if they cannot be applied consistently across every capital project.

Core Runway allows owners to systematically compare project documentation against their own requirements while keeping the final decision in the hands of experienced reviewers.

Over time, those decisions, interpretations and approved exceptions can become institutional knowledge available to future projects.

The Outcome

Instead of relying on manual comparison, institutional memory and precedent from previous specifications, Core Runway creates a repeatable standards-review process that can operate at the scale of real construction projects.

Thousands of rules. Thousands of pages. One source-linked review.

Turning Construction Documents Into a Ready-to-Review Submittal

The Challenge

Preparing a construction submittal requires more than choosing a product.

Teams must determine exactly what the specification and drawings require, identify the correct products and finishes, collect supporting manufacturer documentation, and make sure the completed package satisfies the project requirements before it reaches the general contractor.

Much of that work still involves manually searching specifications, drawings, product literature and previous submissions.

The Test

Core Runway was tested using a real painting scope from a completed university project.

The platform analyzed the project documentation and automatically extracted the requirements needed to prepare the submittal.

These included:

• Paint tags and locations

• Required product types

• Colors and sheens

• Substrates

• Primer and topcoat combinations

• VOC and sustainability requirements

• Sample and mockup requirements

• Dry-film-thickness requirements

• Quality-control requirements

The system identified requirements across 25 individual paint tags, including multiple coatings and application conditions.

The Results

Core Runway converted information spread throughout the project documentation into a structured pre-submittal package in approximately one minute.

Instead of asking the subcontractor or manufacturer to reconstruct the project requirements manually, the complete set of relevant requirements can be provided before the formal manufacturer package is created.

When that package is returned, Core Runway can then compare the proposed products and supporting documentation against the original project requirements.

Why It Matters

Submittal errors are often discovered late because requirements are distributed across specifications, drawings and supporting documents.

That creates:

• Rejected submittals

• Missing documentation

• Repeated emails

• Product substitutions

• Rework

• Delays during procurement and construction

By extracting the requirements first and validating the returned package afterward, Core Runway moves compliance checking earlier in the workflow.

The Outcome

The workflow becomes:

Project requirements → structured pre-submittal → manufacturer package → automated validation → human approval

The result is a faster, more complete submission process with fewer opportunities for requirements to be missed.

Know what the project requires before the submittal is assembled.

Project Impact Analysis - Quantifying the Value of AI-Powered LEED Documentation

The Project

Volpatt Construction completed the renovation of Newell-Simon Hall for Carnegie Mellon University, a project that required extensive LEED documentation, including Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), Health Product Declarations (HPDs), and construction waste diversion reporting.

Like many sustainable construction projects, documenting compliance required hundreds of hours of administrative effort from project engineers and managers—time that could otherwise be spent managing the work in the field.

To better understand the financial impact of automating this process, ConstructIQ modeled the LEED documentation effort associated with this project.

The Challenge

On a typical LEED Gold project, project teams spend significant time:

* Collecting EPDs and HPDs from manufacturers

* Completing BPDO and LEM calculators

* Organizing waste diversion documentation

* Tracking compliance throughout construction

For a project the size of Newell-Simon Hall, that work was estimated to require:

* 322 engineering hours

* $25,760 in project engineering labor

The ConstructIQ Analysis

Based on ConstructIQ’s current automation capabilities, the platform would have reduced LEED documentation effort by approximately 85%.

Estimated Results

* 274 engineering hours returned to the project team

* $21,896 in direct labor savings

* Documentation effort reduced from 322 hours to 48 hours

The Financial Impact

For a contractor operating at the industry average 5.5% net profit margin, a $5 million project generates approximately $275,000 in profit.

Reducing LEED documentation costs by $21,896 increases project profit to $296,896.

Result:

* Nearly $22,000 added to the project’s bottom line

* Approximately 8% increase in project profit

* Net margin improved from 5.50% to 5.94%

More Than Labor Savings

The greatest benefit isn’t simply saving engineering hours.

It’s giving project managers and engineers more time to manage the project.

Instead of searching for documentation and completing spreadsheets, project teams can focus on:

* Coordinating subcontractors

* Managing procurement

* Reviewing submittals

* Resolving RFIs

* Evaluating material substitutions

* Keeping the project on schedule

In an industry where profit margins are often measured in single digits, giving project teams more capacity while improving profitability creates value far beyond administrative savings.

Key Results

Project: Newell-Simon Hall Renovation

Documentation Effort Reduced: 85%

Engineering Hours Returned: 274

Direct Labor Savings: $21,896

Increase in Project Profit: 8%

Improved Profit Margin: 5.50% → 5.94%