← ALL EXAMPLES

CASE STUDY · RIDGELINE CONSTRUCTION

Three plan conflicts caught after pre-con was done and site work had started

How Ridgeline Construction used VIF Pro to find coordination problems in the plans, sort them out with the design team, and keep them from turning into field surprises.

AT A GLANCE

CUSTOMER
Ridgeline Construction, Seattle, WA
PROJECT
Custom residence with structural steel on the main floor, a heat recovery ventilator (HRV) and a complex roof. Ridgeline brought in VIF Pro after it had finished its own pre-con, signed its subcontracts and started site work.
RESULTS
Of the 40 risks VIF Pro flagged, these 3 examples demonstrate conflicts between sheets that had been missed by the team. All three went to the design team before they became a problem in the field.

THE CHALLENGE

Every sheet right. The set still wrong.

The architectural, structural and mechanical sheets in a residential plan set are usually drawn by different people at different times. Each sheet can be right by itself and still conflict with another one.

Those conflicts usually come out in the field, when a plumber hits a beam or a framer finds two different heights for the same point. Fixing them then means RFIs, change orders and lost days. A careful pre-con review can still miss them, because few teams have time to check every sheet against every other one.

WHAT VIF PRO FOUND

Three conflicts, each between two or more sheets.

01 · COORDINATION SHEETS · A2.2 · S2.2

A kitchen island sink directly over a steel beam

WHAT VIF PRO FLAGGED

Sheet A2.2 put the kitchen island sink directly above a W10x77 steel beam and its posts, shown on S2.2 (Main Floor Framing Plan). There was no plumbing plan showing how the island drain would reach a vent/waste stack without running into the beam.

WHAT THE TEAM DID

Looking into it showed the beam blocked a main route for all MEP (mechanical, electrical and plumbing) runs, not just plumbing. The team brought in the design team to solve every affected system together, so they didn't have to deal with them one at a time in the field.

02 · COORDINATION SHEETS · EM1.1 · S2.2

Ventilation ducts routed through a shear wall

WHAT VIF PRO FLAGGED

Notes on EM1.1 said the HRV's exhaust and return air ducts would go through a main-floor wall next to the mechanical room. The structural plan (S2.2) showed that same wall as shear wall W3/W6, with dense stud framing that has to stay intact.

WHAT THE TEAM DID

The team checked every MEP penetration near shear walls in that area. They also added a budget line for engineering work to design around any penetrations they couldn't avoid. That way the cost was planned for, instead of showing up later as a surprise change order.

03 · DIMENSIONS SHEETS · A3.1 · A3.2 · A4.1–A4.3 · SITE PLAN

A 5⅝" disagreement over the roof height

WHAT VIF PRO FLAGGED

The exterior elevations (A3.1, A3.2) gave the top of roof as 59'-6¼". The building sections (A4.1–A4.3) gave the same point as 59'-0⅝", a 5⅝" difference. The height calculation on the site plan listed a third number, 59'-1¼".

WHAT THE TEAM DID

They contacted the design team right away and got a quick answer before anyone acted on it onsite.

The Risk listed was a critical (and confusing) error that we were able to contact the design team about proactively for a quick resolution before any action was taken onsite, saving what could have been a big issue if not caught and verified in the field.

Carl Pagh PRINCIPAL · RIDGELINE CONSTRUCTION

WHY IT MATTERS

None of it was visible on a single sheet.

Ridgeline had already done its own pre-con, and these three problems still got through. None of them was visible on a single sheet. Each showed up only when two or more sheets were compared.

VIF Pro reads the whole plan set together and flags where the sheets disagree. That let Ridgeline Construction take each problem to the design team early, put the engineering cost in the budget, and keep building with numbers they could trust.

See what VIF Pro finds in your next plan set.

Try it on a plan set
TERMS OF SERVICE