— Reference · 01 · Anonymised

Adult Day Service · Stage 2C tender pack.

A worked anonymised example. 161 documents across five disciplines. Three weeks in front of the team's planned tender release date.

327

Findings · all

Critical

144

High

116

Medium

Low

38h

End-to-end

Identifiers anonymised · findings reproduced verbatim · standards references preserved

Why this engagement.

The design team had three weeks to tender release. A sample-read against the live Irish corpus and PW-CF5 contract form, with chartered-reviewer review on every released finding.

The Stage 2C tender pack covered architecture, structures, M&E, fire, and BCAR — five disciplines, 161 documents. The Employer was a public-sector body procuring under CWMF using PW-CF5 (Employer-Designed Works Contract). Programme pressure was real; the tender release date was anchored against a wider capital-programme milestone.

VerifIQ ran a multi-disciplinary discrepancy register on the pack. End-to-end: 38 hours. The output: 327 findings, source-quoted, severity-classed, reviewer-signed. The design team integrated the findings into their pre-tender RFI register and re-issued affected documents as Revision B.

II.

Three critical findings — in full.

Each surfaced with the verbatim sentence from the source document and the page reference. Reproduced here exactly as released to the design team.

Critical C-01 Discipline · Contract

Employer / Contracting Authority / Building Owner identity ambiguity.

The Form of Tender Schedule Part 1 names the Employer at §1.1. The BCAR documentation names a different party as Building Owner at §2.3. The Contracting Authority is not named in either, though referenced throughout. Three references to three roles, mutually inconsistent, on documents intended to bind a single legal entity.

"The Building Owner is identified as [REDACTED — different party from Form of Tender Schedule Part 1 §1.1]."BCAR Doc · §2.3 · Page 8

— Recommended action

Confirm single legal entity with Employer's Representative. Issue Form of Tender Schedule Part 1 and BCAR documentation as Revision B with consistent identity throughout. Add Contracting Authority reference to Title Block on both.

Critical C-02 Discipline · BCAR / Contract

BCAR document written for Design & Build, but the contract is PW-CF5 Employer-Designed.

The BCAR documentation includes language consistent with a Design & Build procurement route — placing design responsibility on the Builder for elements that the Employer's design team has already designed. The contract form is PW-CF5 (Employer-Designed). The BCAR documentation and contract form are mutually inconsistent on the allocation of design responsibility.

"The Builder shall complete the design of [REDACTED — element already designed by the Employer's M&E consultant]."BCAR Doc · §3.2 · Page 11

— Recommended action

Re-issue BCAR documentation aligned to PW-CF5 Employer-Designed scope. Confirm with Assigned Certifier that the Builder is not being held responsible for design completion outside the contract form's allocation. Issue as Revision B.

Critical C-03 Discipline · Contract

Date for Substantial Completion is left blank.

The Date for Substantial Completion is a required entry in the Form of Tender Schedule, Part 1, Section 4.2. Without a specified date, the Liquidated Damages mechanism set out in PW-CF5 Clause 9.5 cannot be enforced. This is a material defect in the tender pack — bidders cannot price contract programme risk and the Employer cannot enforce damages for delay.

"Date for Substantial Completion: ____________"Form of Tender · Schedule Part 1 · §4.2 · Page 12

— Recommended action

Insert Date for Substantial Completion before tender release. Confirm with Employer's Representative and re-issue Form of Tender Schedule Part 1 as Revision B.

III.

Seven high-severity findings.

A representative sample of the 38 high-severity findings. Each one reproduced with the verbatim source quote.

HighH-04M&E

Hoist brand named differently across M&E spec, RDS, and schedule.

"Hoist supplier: [REDACTED — Brand A]" (M&E spec). "Hoist supplier: [REDACTED — Brand B]" (Room Data Sheet 12). "Hoist supplier: [REDACTED — Brand C]" (Schedule of Mechanical Items).M&E Spec §11.4 · RDS 12 · Sch M.04

— Recommended action

Reconcile to single specified hoist brand across all three documents. Confirm SWL and sling-integration consistency.

HighH-09Electrical

"I.S. EN 10101" cited — this Irish Standard prefix does not exist.

"All electrical installations shall comply with I.S. EN 10101 latest edition."Elec Spec · §3.1.2 · Page 14

— Recommended action

Suspected typo for I.S. 10101:2020 (Electrical installations of buildings). Confirm with electrical engineer and re-issue Elec Spec as Revision B with correct standard reference.

HighH-12Fire

Cause-and-effect matrix referenced but not appended to pack.

"Refer to Cause-and-Effect Matrix (Appendix F) for system interlocks."Fire Strategy · §6.4 · Page 21

— Recommended action

Append Appendix F before tender release. Cause-and-effect matrix is required for bidder pricing of fire-detection, suppression, and shutdown interlocks.

HighH-18Architecture / Access

Ancillary Certificate list mismatched to design scope.

"Ancillary Certificates required: [REDACTED — list omits four specialist trades present in the design]."BCAR Doc · §5.1 · Page 18

— Recommended action

Reconcile Ancillary Certificate list with actual design scope. Confirm with Assigned Certifier prior to release.

HighH-22QS / Procurement

ITT date arithmetic does not align with stated tender period.

"Tender period: 4 weeks from ITT issue date [DATE-A] to query deadline [DATE-B]" — calculated period is 19 calendar days, not 28.ITT · Cover · Page 2

— Recommended action

Reconcile dates or amend stated period. Misalignment risks tender process challenge and bid invalidation.

HighH-29M&E

M&E specification references wrong project address.

"For installations at [REDACTED — different project address from Title Block]…"M&E Spec · Cover · Page 1

— Recommended action

Re-issue M&E spec with correct project address. Cover-page misalignment risks bid confusion and invoice misallocation.

HighH-33Architecture

Contradictory car-park scope statements.

"Car park scope: [REDACTED — Drawing schedule reads 18 spaces]" / "Car park scope: [REDACTED — Spec reads 24 spaces]."Drawings · Schedule of Spaces · vs. Arch Spec §4.2

— Recommended action

Reconcile car-park scope across drawing schedule and Architectural specification. Coordinate with civils for hardstanding extents.

IV.

What this delivered.

Numbers from the engagement. Real, anonymised, verifiable on request.

€24–270k

Variation exposure avoided

Critical defects pre-release

RFIs raised pre-tender query deadline

Items in pre-contract action checklist

Each critical finding represented a category of risk between €8k and €90k in likely contract-variation exposure if left unresolved at award. Conservatively, the engagement avoided €24k–€270k of variation exposure (5–25% of likely Contract Sum) by surfacing the issues in time for pre-tender re-issue rather than post-award RFI.

What this case study does NOT show.

Honesty about scope.

During the pilot cohort, findings outside the founder-reviewer's direct discipline are surfaced on the register but not signed as chartered-reviewed. On this 327-finding pack, that means: contract / procurement / coordination findings (the ones reproduced above) carry full reviewer sign-off; architecture / structures / M&E adequacy / fire engineering / energy findings are marked "AI-surfaced · pending chartered review · [discipline]" — they are still on your register, but with that honesty stamp.

As discipline specialists join the cohort (RIAI architect, CEng C&S, CEng MEP, FSE), each "pending" tag retires one discipline at a time. Read the full Solo Reviewer Phase policy ↗

— Next step

Your pack, read like this.

Same method, your pack. Free taster — one discipline, twenty docs, counts plus one worked finding. Then proceed at tier if it lands.

FREERun a free taster $See pricing

— Notice · Locked Disclaimer

VerifIQ is a software-based reading aid. It surfaces, in the documents' own words, what a registered professional may wish to read closely. It does not certify, sign, opine, or substitute for professional judgement. The registered designer reads our output, exercises their own judgement, verifies locally, and signs. The professional indemnity remains theirs. We carry product-quality risk only.