Approved But Not Buildable – Hidden Risks in IFC Drawings

Issue 03 | Insights from the Field by Akeel Shaikh

💬 “The drawings are approved — we’re good to go.”

You’ve probably heard that sentence at some point before the site mobilizes. The consultant releases the IFC (Issued for Construction) package, the team breathes a sigh of relief, and the contractor begins to gear up for execution.

But here’s the problem:

Not every “approved” drawing is ready to build from.

And when that assumption goes unchecked, the price is often paid later — in the form of rework, delays, cost blowouts, and frustrated stakeholders.

📎 What IFC Really Means — and What It Doesn’t

By definition, IFC drawings are those approved for execution by the consultant or engineer. They represent the latest coordinated set of design documents intended for on-site implementation.

But in practice, I’ve seen too many IFC sets that are:

• Missing final authority markups

• Not reflecting as-built tie-in levels

• Containing outdated architectural backgrounds

• Lacking construction-level details or dimensions

• Approved in haste to meet tender or program deadlines

This creates a false sense of security — where the document is stamped “IFC,” but the content still carries risk.

🔎 Common Gaps in IFC Sets That Lead to Problems

Let’s break down the most frequent issues that emerge after construction starts — all from “approved” drawings:

1. Service Clashes (Civil vs. MEP vs. Landscape)

On paper, everything fits. On site, the stormwater pipe is running through an electrical trench, or the palm tree rootball conflicts with a telecom duct.

Root cause? No final coordination check before IFC release.

2. Incorrect or Unverified Levels

In infrastructure and landscape projects, I’ve personally seen level mismatches between hardscape and adjacent plot entrances, manholes that don’t match pipe invert levels, or ramps with non-compliant slopes.

These are not design errors — they’re coordination gaps that should’ve been resolved before issuing IFC.

3. Missing Authority Revisions

A drawing may show “Approved by ADM” in a table, but the actual markups aren’t incorporated into the IFC issue. Site teams build to what’s shown — and later get flagged by authorities.

This leads to avoidable demolitions, delays in inspections, and strained consultant-client relationships.

4. Incomplete Sections and Details

Elevations look great, but sections are generic or lifted from another project. Site teams are left guessing — and guessing is no way to build.

A lack of constructive detailing means the burden shifts to the contractor to “figure it out.”

🧱 Real-World Consequences

In one instance I witnessed, an entire streetscape zone was completed based on the IFC hardscape layout — only to find out that the adjacent building levels had changed post-approval.

The result?

• 450+ meters of kerbstone and interlock had to be broken and reinstalled

• Surface drainage realigned

• A new EOT submitted (which turned into a dispute)

• Frustration on both sides — and no one taking ownership

All of this could’ve been avoided if the design team had conducted a pre-construction coordination session with the contractor before site work began.

✅ What Smart Teams Do — Before Building

A drawing set is only as good as its ability to translate into actual construction. Here’s how strong project teams reduce risk, even when the drawings are “approved”:

🔹 Pre-Construction Drawing Review

Invite site engineers, foremen, and subcontractors to review the IFC set before mobilization. Their practical eye will catch what design teams miss.

🔹 Mark-up and Clash Workshops

Don’t wait for problems to arise in excavation. Hold coordination sessions to walk through services, elevation transitions, and zoning overlaps.

Use the session to redline what’s unclear — and push for consultant clarifications early.

🔹 Authority Comment Confirmation

Always cross-check whether authority approval markups are reflected in the final IFC issue. Don’t rely on the stamp — rely on the content.

🔹 Issue-Based Communication

Flag inconsistencies via formal RFIs — even if you think they’ll be resolved on site. Paper trails matter when disputes come later.

📋 IFC Readiness: A Simple Site-Side Checklist

Before your team lifts the first shovel, ask:

✅ Are all services coordinated in 3D or at least overlaid in 2D? ✅ Do levels match the approved setting-out and adjacent plots? ✅ Are architectural references up to date with final approvals? ✅ Have authority markups been fully implemented, not just listed? ✅ Are construction details (sections, dimensions, notes) clear and buildable?

If the answer is “no” to more than one — you’re not ready.

🧭 Final Thoughts

An IFC drawing is a milestone, not a finish line. The real work starts when teams question, coordinate, and confirm what’s been “approved.”

Many project losses I’ve seen didn’t start on site. They started when teams assumed a stamp meant certainty.

If we build our projects on better review — not just better approval — we protect time, budget, and trust across the board.

📩 If you've encountered similar drawing mismatches, I'd love to hear how your teams addressed them. Let's keep building smarter — from the ground up.

🟢 #InsightsFromTheField #IFCDrawings #ConstructionExecution #UAEProjects #LandscapeDelivery #InfrastructureProjects #ClashCoordination #ProjectLeadership #AkeelShaikh #BuildableDesigns