# How Engineering Firms Build a QA/QC Plan Reviewers Follow **By Dan Cumberland** · Published November 1, 2026 · Categories: Leadership ![Featured image for How Engineering Firms Build a QA/QC Plan Reviewers Follow](https://cms.dancumberlandlabs.com/uploads/featured_image_88bce0d5fd.webp) Illustration: Dan Cumberland Labs with Gemini. > Your firm has a QA/QC plan. It might even be a good one. Your firm has a QA/QC plan\. It might even be a good one\. But if your reviewers are opening it at the 90% milestone— under deadline pressure, with the project already largely designed— the document is performing a specific function: it's creating the paper trail of a process that didn't actually happen\. A QA/QC plan for engineering design is only useful if reviewers follow it\. Most don't— not because the plan is bad, but because the system around it is broken\. According to Great American Insurance Group[1](#ref-1), nearly every significant professional liability claim— from coordination disputes to costly construction\-phase conflicts— can be traced to a breakdown in quality control\. The connection between QA/QC failures and E&O exposure isn't theoretical\. Design\-related errors account for 1–9% of total project costs[2](#ref-2), and rework typically runs 5–10% of total project value[2](#ref-2) without a functioning quality system in place\. This article is about the system\. Not a better template— a better structure of roles, milestones, schedule integration, and accountability that makes reviewers use the plan you already have\. ## What a QA/QC Plan for Engineering Design Actually Needs to Do A QA/QC plan for engineering design is a documented system specifying who reviews design deliverables, when reviews happen, and what criteria are used\. Its purpose is to ensure the firm meets the standard of care— what a reasonably careful professional engineer would do under similar circumstances[3](#ref-3)\. Those two goals are different jobs\. According to ASCE[3](#ref-3), the quality management process is "a planned and systematic set of actions that provide confidence that the project will meet its performance objectives and be developed to meet the standard of care\." That definition sits at the intersection of process design and professional liability\. Get this wrong, and the consequences aren't just poor documents— they're legal exposure\. The QA/QC distinction matters here, and it's consistently missed: ```html-table
Quality Assurance (QA)Quality Control (QC)
FocusProcessDeliverable
PurposePrevents errors from occurringCatches errors before submittal
WhenThroughout the projectAt defined review milestones
ExamplesDesign standards, peer review procedures, trainingChecker review, drawing sign-off, spec verification
``` Quality Assurance sets up the system[4](#ref-4)\. Quality Control validates the output\. Both are required; conflating them is one reason QA/QC plans often fail— firms think a sign\-off procedure covers both when it covers only one\. A complete QA/QC plan includes three components, per the ACEC's CASE Tool 9\-2[5](#ref-5): Quality Control Review, Firm\-wide Standards, and Construction Quality Assurance\. The plan connects your firm's professional obligations to the deliverables that leave your office\. Done well, it functions as professional protection— the documented evidence that your firm met its standard of care obligations on every project\. ## Why Most Engineering QA/QC Plans Go Unused Engineering QA/QC plans fail for four reasons: they're over\-complicated, they're not integrated into project schedules, they lack enforcement authority, and no senior reviewer is available when review time comes\. The plan exists\. The system to make it work doesn't\. Four failure modes, and what each looks like in practice: 1. **Overcomplication\.** Zweig Group[6](#ref-6) found that AEC firms commonly produce plans that are "hefty documents with flowcharts and layers of safety checks"— and then don't use them\. Firms cite "not enough time, not enough money in the budget, no one to assist" as the barriers\. Simpler plans get used\. Comprehensive ones get filed\. 1. **No enforcement authority\.** If no one has explicit responsibility to stop project delivery until reviews are complete, deadline pressure wins\. Structure Magazine[4](#ref-4) frames the key questions a functioning QA/QC system answers before project kick\-off: "Who performs reviews? Which projects require them? When do reviews occur? How does QA integrate into production schedules?" Without answers, review becomes discretionary— which means it doesn't happen\. 1. **Not integrated into proposals or schedules\.** Engineering Management Institute[7](#ref-7) is direct: "not budgeting for quality control in your project proposal can cause you to go over budget or be less thorough on the quality control\." Review tasks that appear on the Gantt chart have deadlines\. Those that don't get eliminated the moment the project falls behind\. 1. **Reviewer bottleneck\.** The most common practitioner frustration is this: a second set of eyes is needed from someone experienced enough to actually catch problems— and that person is billable, busy, and not formally allocated for review\. Senior engineers capable of genuine QC review are the firm's most valuable employees\. They also have the fullest calendars\. A QA/QC plan that becomes boilerplate documentation to satisfy minimum agency requirements[6](#ref-6) isn't a quality system\. A fully checked\-off form is information\. What a genuine reviewer adds is insight\. That distinction matters for both quality outcomes and professional liability protection\. ## The Three Roles That Make a QA/QC Review Work A functional design QA/QC process requires three distinct roles: the Designer who prepares the work, the Checker who independently verifies all numbers and details, and the QC Reviewer who evaluates the overall design approach\. These are different jobs, and they cannot be done by the same person\. You can't read the label from inside the bottle\. The engineer who created the design is too close to their own assumptions to catch their blind spots\. That's not a competence failure— it's a structural one\. Role independence is the mechanism by which QA/QC actually works\. ```html-table
RolePrimary ResponsibilityWhat They CatchCan Be Same Person As…
DesignerPrepares plans, calculations, specificationsN/A— not the reviewerNo one in the review chain
CheckerIndependently verifies all numbers, facts, figures— without reference to designer's workCalculation errors, dimensional inaccuracies, specification conflicts, missing informationNot the Designer or Reviewer
QC ReviewerReviews overall design approach, contract compliance, fatal flawsApproach soundness, scope conflicts, coordination failures, code compliance gapsNot the Designer or Checker
``` Per TxDOT's QA/QC framework[8](#ref-8)— and consistent with independent review standards across engineering disciplines— "a Checker will be of equal, or greater, level of expertise compared to the original Designer\." This is detail\-level technical work— not a high\-level scan\. The Checker verifies correctness\. The QC Reviewer evaluates soundness\. Conflating them is how critical design flaws get missed by both\. Genuine QC review demands one question above all others: is this design sound? A signed\-off checklist documents that a reviewer showed up\. Whether they brought judgment to that review is a different matter entirely\. For small firms with two or three engineers, internal reviewer independence isn't always possible\. External peer review is a legitimate solution— and for some project types, it's the correct one\. EVStudio[9](#ref-9) reports that peer review can achieve 75–80% reduction in E&O\-related change order costs \(practitioner\-reported; single source, not independently verified\)\. ## When Reviews Happen— The Design Milestone Framework Waiting until 90% to run the first review is how firms discover expensive problems they can no longer afford to fix\. Design QA/QC reviews happen at four standard milestones— 30%, 60%, 90%, and 100% \(Issued for Construction\)[10](#ref-10)— and each milestone has a different job\. The 30% review is when the QA/QC plan earns its budget\. At that stage, a course correction costs hours\. At 90%, the same correction costs weeks\. ```html-table
MilestoneFocus AreasPrimary Role ActiveCommon Errors Caught
30%Overall design intent, major routing decisions, layout philosophy, early coordination gapsQC ReviewerApproach conflicts, scope misalignments, structural system selection errors
60%Technical completeness, interdisciplinary inputs, vendor document integration, BIM coordinationChecker (fully active)Calculation errors, coordination gaps, missing specifications
90%Near-complete review before final submission, all comments addressedQC Reviewer + CheckerContract compliance, remaining coordination issues, comment resolution verification
100% / IFCFinal pass— no fatal flaws, all prior comments documented as resolvedQC ReviewerDocumentation completeness, last-pass accuracy check
``` The kick\-off meeting is where the review framework gets established— before design begins[4](#ref-4)\. That's when QA/QC tasks get placed on the project schedule, with dates tied to each milestone\. It's also when reviewer assignments get made\. Waiting to handle this until the first review is due means the first review will be late, incomplete, or both\. Fast\-track projects often compress or eliminate milestone structure\. The minimum viable response: a pre\-issue review by an independent engineer before any formal submittal goes to the client or reviewing agency\. The schedule pressure that justifies skipping the review is also the condition most likely to produce an error\. ## Building a QA/QC Plan That Actually Gets Used A QA/QC plan gets followed when it is built into the project from day one— not added after the fact\. That means budgeting for it in the project proposal, placing review tasks on the project schedule, and giving one person explicit authority to enforce it\. Six moves that make a QA/QC plan survive deadline pressure: 1. **Budget at proposal stage\.** Per Engineering Management Institute[7](#ref-7), not budgeting for QA/QC in project proposals causes firms to go over budget or cut corners on review quality\. Use historical project data to estimate review hours and build them into the fee\. Review time that isn't in the budget is the first thing cut when a project falls behind\. 1. **Place review tasks on the project schedule\.** A review task on the Gantt chart has a deadline\. One that isn't visible is discretionary— and deadline pressure eliminates discretionary tasks, every time\. Make milestones visible with named owners\. 1. **Keep checklists simple\.** Zweig Group[6](#ref-6) is clear: plans with excessive flowcharts get ignored\. One or two pages by discipline and phase is more likely to get used than a 30\-page document\. Effective checklists cover both technical elements \(calculations, code compliance, specification accuracy\) and practical items \(naming conventions, dimensional legibility, sheet completeness\)\. 1. **Maintain reviewer independence\.** Use someone unfamiliar with the specific project for a genuinely fresh perspective[7](#ref-7)\. For small firms, external peer review is a valid option\. The goal is an engineer who can ask "is this design sound?" without being anchored to the assumptions that went into it\. 1. **Establish a QA/QC committee\.** A firm\-wide QA/QC committee provides standardized checklists, consistent guidelines, and ongoing lessons\-learned integration[7](#ref-7)\. It also signals organizational commitment: this isn't a project manager's problem to solve alone\. 1. **Reframe QA/QC as professional protection\.** Great American Insurance Group[1](#ref-1) frames strong QA/QC cultures as being built on expectations, accountability, communication, and consistency\. Staff buy\-in depends on how the process gets positioned\. [Building an AI culture in your organization](/blog/building-ai-culture) follows the same principle: the firms that get adoption are the ones that communicate the why, not just the what\. Firms with consistent QA/QC processes keep rework below 5% of project budget in 56% of cases, compared to 37% of firms without standards[2](#ref-2)\. The difference isn't the document\. It's the system\. ## Where AI Fits Into Engineering QA/QC Reviews AI drawing review tools can address the most common QA/QC failure point— the unavailable senior reviewer— by automating the checking layer\. What they cannot do is replace professional judgment about design soundness\. The types of errors AI drawing review tools catch[9](#ref-9): - Coordination issues between drawings and specifications - Code compliance flags - Missing information and incomplete details - Dimension errors and inconsistencies - Symbol mismatches - Clash detection between disciplines - Design conflicts across drawing sets Nomic AI— a vendor in this space, and these numbers should be weighted accordingly— reports that 90% of engineering leaders expect AI to outperform human checkers in all drawing reviews within 18 months, and that 72% of drawing reviews could be automated with trained AI[12](#ref-12)\. That trajectory is directional, not definitive\. But it points to where the reviewer bottleneck is heading\. Great American Insurance Group[1](#ref-1) is precise about the limit: "BIM and AI tools are powerful, but they cannot replace professional judgment\." How professional liability standards apply specifically to AI\-assisted design decisions is not yet settled in case law or regulation— existing engineer\-of\-record liability frameworks apply, but courts and professional bodies have not yet drawn the definitional lines\. Firms using AI for QC must maintain engineer\-of\-record oversight throughout\. The right framing: AI drawing review augments the Checker role\. It doesn't replace the QC Reviewer\. For [AI implementation services for engineering firms](/services/ai-implementation), getting that distinction right matters— both for quality outcomes and for professional liability coverage\. Understanding [the hidden costs of AI projects](/blog/hidden-costs-ai-projects) matters here too: implementing AI drawing review tools without the right oversight structure creates new risks while solving old ones\. The engineer's judgment is the asset\. AI makes it more consistent at scale\. Several questions come up consistently when engineering teams are evaluating or overhauling their QA/QC systems\. Here are direct answers\. ## FAQ— Common Questions About Engineering Design QA/QC Plans ### What is the difference between QA and QC in engineering design? Quality Assurance \(QA\) is process\-focused: it establishes procedures to prevent errors before they occur\. Quality Control \(QC\) is deliverable\-focused: it verifies that finished work meets standards\. QA sets up the system; QC validates the output[4](#ref-4)\. Both are required\. They are not the same job, and treating them as interchangeable is how firms end up with one when they need both\. ### What should a QA/QC plan for engineering design include? A complete QA/QC plan for engineering design includes quality objectives, applicable standards and specifications, clearly defined reviewer roles and responsibilities, design milestone review triggers, documentation and reporting procedures, and a process for identifying and resolving non\-conformances— items that don't meet the specified quality standard[11](#ref-11)\. The ACEC's CASE Tool 9\-2[5](#ref-5) provides the industry\-standard framework for structural engineering firms, covering Quality Control Review, Firm\-wide Standards, and Construction Quality Assurance\. ### How much does rework cost engineering firms without QA/QC? Rework typically costs 5–10% of total project value, and up to 20% on poorly controlled projects[2](#ref-2)\. Design\-related errors account for 1–9% of project costs[2](#ref-2)\. Firms with consistent QA/QC processes keep rework below 5% of project budget in 56% of cases, compared to 37% of firms without standards[2](#ref-2)\. The 43% of firms with no set QA/QC standard who have no idea what rework is actually costing them[2](#ref-2) are the ones most exposed to surprises\. ### When is it too late to catch a QA/QC issue in engineering design? Issues caught at the 30% milestone cost hours to correct[10](#ref-10)\. The same issue at 90% costs days or weeks\. Issues that reach construction cost orders of magnitude more in change orders and potential liability exposure\. Early review cadence is the only reliable way to keep correction costs manageable— which is why the milestone structure exists and why skipping the 30% review under deadline pressure is the most expensive kind of shortcut\. ## A Better System, Not a Better Document A QA/QC plan for engineering design that reviewers follow isn't just a better document— it's a better system\. The document still matters\. But a 30\-page plan that doesn't get opened is evidence of a system failure, not a formatting problem\. Role clarity, milestone integration, schedule placement, and cultural buy\-in built in from the proposal stage\. That's the structure\. The firms that keep rework under control aren't the ones with the thickest QA/QC plans\. They're the ones that made review time non\-negotiable\. Start with the proposal: budget the hours, place the milestones on the schedule, assign the roles before design begins\. The standard of care defense isn't a form someone signed\. It's a documented system of who reviewed what, when, and according to what criteria— and evidence that those reviews actually happened\. [Measuring the success of AI implementation](/blog/measuring-ai-success) follows the same logic: you need a system that tracks what happened, not just what was planned\. For AEC firms evaluating where AI drawing review tools fit into an existing quality system, [Dan Cumberland Labs](/services/ai-implementation) helps engineering teams implement AI in ways that improve process consistency without creating new overhead or compliance risk\. ## References 1. Great American Insurance Group, "Building a Stronger QA/QC Culture for the New Year" \(2024\)— [https://www\.greatamericaninsurancegroup\.com/content\-hub/news\-details/building\-a\-stronger\-qa\-qc\-culture\-for\-the\-new\-year](https://www.greatamericaninsurancegroup.com/content-hub/news-details/building-a-stronger-qa-qc-culture-for-the-new-year) 2. PlanRadar, "The Real Cost of Rework in Construction" \(2023\)— [https://www\.planradar\.com/us/cost\-of\-rework\-construction/](https://www.planradar.com/us/cost-of-rework-construction/) 3. American Society of Civil Engineers \(ASCE\), "Standards of Professional Practice for Design Management" \(2012\)— [https://ascelibrary\.com/doi/10\.1061/%28ASCE%29EI\.1943\-5541\.0000190](https://ascelibrary.com/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29EI.1943-5541.0000190) 4. STRUCTURE magazine \(NCSEA/SEI/CASE\), "A Check\-Up of Your Firm's Quality Assurance Plan" \(2023\)— [https://www\.structuremag\.org/article/a\-check\-up\-of\-your\-firms\-quality\-assurance\-plan/](https://www.structuremag.org/article/a-check-up-of-your-firms-quality-assurance-plan/) 5. American Consulting Engineers Council \(ACEC\) / Coalition of American Structural Engineers \(CASE\), "CASE Tool 9\-2: Quality Assurance Plan" \(2024\)— [https://acec\.org/resource/case\-tool\-9\-2\-quality\-assurance\-plan](https://acec.org/resource/case-tool-9-2-quality-assurance-plan) 6. Zweig Group, "PM Perspectives: That Elusive QA/QC Plan" \(2022\)— [https://zweiggroup\.com/blogs/the\-zweig\-letter/pm\-perspectives\-that\-elusive\-qaqc\-plan](https://zweiggroup.com/blogs/the-zweig-letter/pm-perspectives-that-elusive-qaqc-plan) 7. Engineering Management Institute, "How to Effectively Budget for QA/QC Review— Ep\. 023" \(2021\)— [https://engineeringmanagementinstitute\.org/?p=55128](https://engineeringmanagementinstitute.org/?p=55128) 8. Texas Department of Transportation, "QA/QC Guide for Bridge Design" \(2020\)— [https://ftp\.dot\.state\.tx\.us/pub/txdot\-info/library/pubs/bus/bridge/qa\_qc\_guide\.pdf](https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/library/pubs/bus/bridge/qa_qc_guide.pdf) 9. EVStudio, "QA/QC: The Benefits of Peer Review" \(2023\)— [https://evstudio\.com/qa\-qc\-the\-benefits\-of\-peer\-review](https://evstudio.com/qa-qc-the-benefits-of-peer-review) 10. Horst Construction \(citing multiple state transportation agencies\), "Construction Document Milestones: 30/60/90" \(2022\)— [https://www\.horstconstruction\.com/cd\-milestones\-30\-60\-90/](https://www.horstconstruction.com/cd-milestones-30-60-90/) 11. Equator Studios, "QA Plans for the Civil Engineer" \(2024\)— [https://equatorstudios\.com/qa\-plans\-for\-the\-civil\-engineer/](https://equatorstudios.com/qa-plans-for-the-civil-engineer/) 12. Nomic AI, "AI Drawing Review Software for AEC QA/QC" \(2025\)— [https://www\.nomic\.ai/use\-cases/automated\-drawing\-review/ai\-drawing\-review\-software\-aec\-qa\-qc](https://www.nomic.ai/use-cases/automated-drawing-review/ai-drawing-review-software-aec-qa-qc) *\(Vendor source— treat as directional\)* --- **How we made this article:** We use AI in our research and writing so our small team can share more of what we learn. We verify the sources and take responsibility for every article we publish. [Read how we use AI.](https://dancumberlandlabs.com/how-we-use-ai/) --- ## About the author **Dan Cumberland** — Founder, Dan Cumberland Labs Dan Cumberland helps engineering and construction firms see where they stand with AI and decide what to build first. He created Pacemark, the AI maturity model used in every Dan Cumberland Labs engagement, built from published research on more than 400 named firms and organizations. - Take the assessment: https://pacemark.ai/signal/assessment/?track=aec&utm_source=dcl-site&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=pacemark-assessment - Book a call: https://book.dancumberland.com/ai-strategy --- Source: https://dancumberlandlabs.com/blog/qa-qc-plan-for-engineering-design/