AI Construction Doc Review Software for General Contractors

No — it runs alongside it and makes it more thorough. Melt Review handles the reading and extraction that takes your senior team days, so they can focus on the judgment calls only they can make. Think of it as an expert reviewer whose job is to read every page carefully and lay everything out before you sit down to make decisions.

Melt Review is built for GC precon teams and runs from SD onward. DAC checks run at each design milestone — 25% SD, 100% SD, 25% DD, 50% DD, 100% DD, and CD. Change narratives run every revision cycle. Mockup, testing, and sole-source reports are available from DD onward, when the spec set is developed enough to yield reliable extraction. The earlier you run it, the cheaper the issues are to resolve. Most teams run it at each milestone and each major issuance.

Minutes, not days. Melt Review processes your full drawing and spec set in parallel — every page read simultaneously. Reports are ready the same session you upload. A manual review of the same set would take your team days to weeks.

As many times as needed. Every revision cycle, every new issuance, every milestone.

Yes. Melt Review calibrates its findings to what's expected at each design phase. An SD-phase DAC check tells you what's missing for SD, not what's missing for CDs. You get phase-appropriate findings, not a list of everything the documents will eventually need.

PDF drawings and specifications, as issued — exactly the files you receive from the design team. No BIM model required. No format conversion. Upload your set and run.

Three deliverable types, each mapped to a specific GC precon workflow:

Yes — both, cross-referenced against each other in the same pass. Most tools read drawings only or specs only. Melt Review reads the full document set and flags where the two conflict or where specs call out requirements not reflected in the drawings. This matters most for precon reports — mockup requirements, testing obligations, and sole-source items are buried across spec sections, not just on drawing sheets. A drawings-only tool misses them entirely.

Architectural, structural, MEP, civil, and all the others — all cross-referenced in a single review pass. Findings are organized by discipline and severity so your team knows where to focus first.

No. Every finding is cited to the exact sheet number and spec section it came from. If Melt Review can't cite a source, it doesn't produce a finding.

Melt Review tracks version lineage across your full document set — drawings, specs, and addenda. When conflicting information exists across versions, it flags the conflict and cites both sources so your team can resolve it before committing to a number.

Melt Review runs every SD, DD, CD, and their interim sets against AIA standard phase-appropriate completeness criteria — flagging inconsistencies, missing information, and cross-discipline coordination gaps. One DAC report per phase, cited to source, exported as a BCF file ready for the design team to action. What typically takes 16–24 hours of senior staff time per document set is ready in minutes.

General AI tools summarize and answer questions. Melt Review runs structured review workflows against your documents — it's not answering questions, it's producing specific deliverables your precon team would otherwise spend days generating manually. DAC reports, change narratives, and precon logs are not something a chatbot produces. They require cross-document analysis, version comparison, and phase-calibrated completeness criteria.

BCF (BIM Collaboration Format) is the standard file format for communicating design issues back to the design team — directly actionable in tools your architect and consultants already use. Instead of emailing a PDF with comments that someone has to re-enter manually, Melt Review exports findings as a BCF file that the design team opens, reviews, and responds to in their own workflow. Fewer steps, fewer translation errors, faster resolution.

Every change between two consecutive drawing set issuances — dimensional, material, layout, and note changes — across every sheet and every spec section. Manual revision comparison using Bluebeam overlays or side-by-side PDF review takes 9–11 hours per revision cycle and still misses things. Melt Review runs the same comparison in minutes and produces a structured narrative your estimating team can price from directly.

Yes. Each project set is processed in an isolated environment — your documents are never commingled with another firm's data. For full details on encryption, access controls, infrastructure, and compliance, see the Melt Review Security page.

No. Your project documents are never used to train Melt Review's models. What goes in stays in your environment.

Access is controlled at the organization level. You control which team members see which project sets. No per-seat limits — your full precon team can collaborate on a review without additional cost.

Usage-based. You only pay for what you run. Volume pricing applies: the more reviews you run, the lower the cost. To see how pricing applies to your project, contact sales.

Getting started with Melt Review is simple. Submit the contact sales form to talk to our precon expert, get a personalized demo to see the product in action and get started with the pilot right away.