Permit Set vs IFC Set: They Are Not the Same Document, and Reviewing Them the Same Way Is a Mistake

Two Documents, Two Audiences, Two Purposes

A permit set is reviewed by a plan checker. The plan checker has 15 minutes per sheet. They're looking for code compliance — egress, fire ratings, accessibility, structural calcs, energy code — not coordination quality. A drawing can be perfectly permittable and unbuildable.

An IFC set is read by a contractor. The contractor reads every detail to prepare the bid, then again to build the work. They need dimensional accuracy, complete sections, every interface detailed, and a coordination story across all disciplines. An IFC set that's only as detailed as the permit set will generate hundreds of RFIs.

Many design firms use the same drawing file for both, just at different completion levels. The permit set is the design at 75%, the IFC set is the design at 95-100%. The reviewer has to know which version they're reviewing and what to look for. A common mistake is reviewing a permit set as if it were the IFC set, finding hundreds of incompletenesses, and confusing everyone. Or reviewing an IFC set as if it were the permit set, missing coordination problems because the reviewer is focused on code compliance.

What the Permit Reviewer Cares About

The plan checker focuses on items that affect public safety and code compliance. Their checklist is jurisdictional, but it generally includes:

• Occupancy classification, construction type, and allowable height/area
• Egress paths, exit widths, and travel distances per IBC 1005
• Fire-rated assemblies and the listed UL designs they reference
• Accessibility per ADA and local accessibility codes
• Energy code compliance (envelope, HVAC, lighting, water heating)
• Structural lateral and gravity load resistance with stamped calcs
• Plumbing fixture counts, water service sizing, and backflow protection
• Electrical service sizing, panel schedules, and grounding

The reviewer is not looking at how the drawings interrelate. They're not flagging that the structural plan shows a column the architectural plan doesn't. They're not noticing that the mechanical plan shows ductwork in a corridor that the architectural plan shows is finished height 9'-0". Those are coordination issues. They live in the IFC review, not the permit review.

What the Contractor Cares About

The contractor reads the IFC set with one question: can I build this? Their checklist is different:

• Are dimensions complete and self-consistent?
• Is every detail referenced and drawn?
• Do the discipline drawings agree at every interface?
• Are schedules complete with no "TBD" or "by others" gaps?
• Are specifications cross-referenced correctly to the drawings?
• Are sequence-dependent items detailed (waterproofing, fire-stopping, vapor barriers)?
• Are the existing-conditions and demolition drawings reconciled?
• Is the project phasing buildable with the means and methods available?

The IFC review needs to come from a contractor's perspective. If your reviewer is a designer, they will tend to confirm what they drew was right rather than question whether it's buildable. The most effective IFC reviews bring in someone who has built similar projects and can spot the constructability gaps the design team can't see.

The Permit-to-IFC Delta

Between permit submission and IFC issuance, the drawings change. Sometimes a lot. Plan check comments come back. Owner-driven scope changes happen. Value engineering happens. Coordination work happens. The IFC set is a different document from the permit set, and the team needs to track what changed.

The right approach: maintain a delta log between the permit set and the IFC set. Cloud the changes on the IFC drawings. Issue an addendum or revision narrative that explains what moved, what got added, what got deleted. Without this, contractors bid the IFC set without realizing what changed since they may have started planning from the permit set or an earlier draft. See our coverage in drawing version control.

When the Same Drawings Have to Do Both

Some jurisdictions allow combined permit-and-construction documents, especially on smaller projects. In those cases, the design team is producing one document that serves both purposes. The reviewer has to do both reviews simultaneously: code compliance from a plan-checker perspective, coordination from a contractor perspective.

That's twice the review work, not the same work. The teams that handle this well allocate two separate review passes. Pass one is code compliance against the published checklist for the jurisdiction. Pass two is coordination, dimensional, and constructability. Trying to do both in one pass guarantees you miss things in both directions.