What to Look for in Automated Plan Check Software

Completeness and intake support

Most first-round rejections happen because the application is incomplete, not because the design fails code. Buyers should confirm the platform reads 2D PDFs at intake, detects missing sheets, blank title-block fields, dead detail callouts, and sets that are not reviewable. A tool that only starts after staff have already cleaned the file is adding work to the queue.

Document quality matters. Permit sets arrive scanned, flattened, rotated, or mixed with addenda. Ask how the system handles low-resolution scans, inconsistent sheet numbering, and multi-building packages. BIM-required tools miss the residential and tenant-improvement sets that never entered Revit.

Completeness scoring should map to the department's existing intake checklist. If staff still open every file to find missing life-safety sheets, the automation is not doing the intake job.

Adopted codes and local amendments

Generic IBC or IRC checks are not enough. Every jurisdiction enforces a base edition plus local ordinances, interpretation memos, and occupancy-specific rules. Confirm the platform can load the adopted edition, local amendments, and internal checklists without a months-long configuration project.

Ask how the vendor handles grace periods when a code edition changes, existing-building work, additions, and grandfathered conditions. Those cases are where generic plan-check tools produce findings the department will throw out.

Coverage should be listed by check, not by slogan. Egress width, accessible routes, fire-rated assemblies, energy forms, and zoning setbacks are different modules. A platform that is strong on one does not automatically cover the others.

Cited findings and reviewer authority

Every flag should name the sheet, the location, the code section, and a suggested correction. A reviewer has to accept, modify, or reject the item. If the vendor cannot show the reasoning, treat that as a disqualifier. Public-records requests will ask how the comment was produced.

The software assists the reviewer. It does not issue the permit. Platforms built for design-phase drawing review often skip this accountability model. They optimize for a GC coordination meeting, not a defensible comment letter.

Version comparison belongs here. A useful system highlights what changed between the first submittal and the resubmittal so staff do not re-read unchanged sheets. Ask whether added, removed, and revised pages are detected automatically.

Permitting-system fit and security

Comments have to land in the permitting and code-enforcement system the department already uses. A second workflow is a tax on staff. Ask which systems integrate natively, whether reviewer comments sync both ways, and whether SSO and role-based access are available before a pilot starts.

Permit drawings include confidential layouts, security systems, and owner information. Ask about encryption, audit logs, data residency, retention, and whether uploaded sets are used to train models. Government buyers usually need SOC 2 or an equivalent control report in the contract, not a slide.

Evidence from live jurisdictions

Ask how long the platform has been in production, how many departments of similar size use it, and whether those references will take a call. A polished demo on a clean set does not prove the queue will move.

Usage stats need a denominator. Sheets reviewed, comments issued, and hours saved should exclude rejected findings. High comment volume is a problem if reviewers spend the savings filtering false positives.

Implementation time is part of the evidence. Weeks is a different product from months of GIS cleanup and process redesign. Ask what the vendor needs from the department before the first live application is scored.

A checklist for the vendor conversation

Take this list into the next call. Can the tool screen a PDF for missing sheets at intake? Can staff load the adopted edition and local amendments? Does every finding cite a sheet and a code section? Does a reviewer still accept or reject each item? Do comments write back into the current permitting system? Can the vendor name live jurisdictions and explain how rejected findings are counted?

A production-ready platform is one that keeps the reviewer in authority, maps to the codes the department actually enforces, and has references who will confirm it on a real queue. Early-stage tools still fail those three tests. For a ranked product list after the criteria are set, use automated plan check software. For producer-side drawing review, use what to look for in an AI construction drawing review platform.

Frequently Asked Questions