• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Plan Review Software - a different question

Darren Emery

Darren Emery

Registered User
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
504
Location
Manhattan, Ks
I've done a bit of reading of past threads on this issue, and Bluebeam seems to be the hands down winner as far as document handling and markup goes.

How about the process and workflow side of things? I'm curious as to what system (if any) others use to track the plan review process from submittal to permit?

We have a very simple in-house built system that provides some basic workflow tracking and project status updates. This allows us to see what documents are missing regarding any submittal, and calculate average turn-around times, but that's about it. We're likely moving to an entirely new platform later this year, and one area that I think we can make progress in is plan review tracking.

Any success stories or warnings to share?
 
Our office (like many in our state) uses Municity to manage the flow. However, Municity doesn't include any tools for on-line review and comment. The only way to mark up, comment on, or even attach an "Approved" stamp to a PDF with Municity is to download the file out of Municity, open the file in Adobe Acrobat, Bluebeam, or your PDF editor of choice, add your comments and stamps, save the document somewhere outside of Municity, and then copy it back into Municity -- where it will co-exist with the original document, not replace it.

"Cumbersome" doesn't even begin to describe the process.

Supposedly, sometime in 2024 (maybe) we are going to be implementing something called DigePlan, which purports to automate on-line review and mark-up. I haven't seen even a demo of it in action, so I have no idea of how good or bad it is, or how well (or if) it integrates with Municity.
 
We just implemented DigePlan this year so we are still learning. It does not have all the tools Bluebeam does. You can't check the turning radius for accessibility and it does not provide accurate imperial measurements. It does generate a nice report and the responses from the DP. It does track the changes and revisions to the original sheet.
We use City Works and when a user uploads an attachment (plans, corrections ect.) we had no idea since it is just an intake portal for documents. City Works does not have a notification process either. However our IT was able to create a report that we can look at anytime to see what has been uploaded in real-time.
 
mtlogcabin said:
We just implemented DigePlan this year so we are still learning. It does not have all the tools Bluebeam does. You can't check the turning radius for accessibility and it does not provide accurate imperial measurements. It does generate a nice report and the responses from the DP. It does track the changes and revisions to the original sheet.
We use City Works and when a user uploads an attachment (plans, corrections ect.) we had no idea since it is just an intake portal for documents. City Works does not have a notification process either. However our IT was able to create a report that we can look at anytime to see what has been uploaded in real-time.
Click to expand...

Municity also does not notify us when an applicant uploads new documents. It's crazy, because if we go into Municity and change ANYTHING (like correcting a typo in a previous entry), Municity sends the applicant an e-mail. But when an applicant does something ... crickets.
 
I like Bluebeam for ADA and FHA plan review. I can mark up from civil to AE plans. I like that I can do to scale measurement checks and if the scale is not set I can measure and make a custom measurement that is very close to accurate, as long as something on that plan shows a clear dimension that I can back check against. Nice tool.
 
The problem with using Bluebeam is that it's a stand-alone PDF reader/editor. It's not integrated with a complete permitting and inspection tracking system such as Municity. Whether it's Bluebeam, Adobe Acrobat, Foxit Pro, or some other PDF editor, the only way for us to use a PDF editor for plan review and mark-up is to download the digital plans out of Municity, perform our plan review using a free-standing PDF editor, add our notes, comments, and "Approved" or "Denied" stamp, save the package, and them upload the file back into Municity under the permit application number. At that point, the reviewed copy of the document file will come in as a separate document, it does NOT replace the original submission. And, of course, the original submission is still a public record, so we can't legally delete it from the project record.
 
There are many permitting software that integrates with Bluebeam. How they work is that you use the permitting software for your workflow and then when you want to review the drawings, you check them out to Bluebeam through the integrated permitting software, which uses Bluebeam's API to connect. Essentially it is cloud to cloud. You make your markups in a Bluebeam created by your permitting software, and then all of your comments come back to your permitting software from Bluebeam and then populate in your deficiency report/letter. It is really pretty awesome. When you are in a Bluebeam Studio Session you don't even have to hit the save button. When the comments come back from Bluebeam, they even tell you what page the comment was on.
 
We're hoping that's how it will work. Supposedly we will be getting DigePlan, but I don't know if it will happen in this fiscal year or not until next fiscal year.
 
We use bluebeam as a standalone for plan reviews and inspections. You can easily share sessions in real time. Bluebeam is inexpensive when compared to many other options.
 
Thanks to all who have replied so far! Good discussion, and some interesting ideas. I wasn't aware that BB would integrate with other software.

Another related question to stir the pot a bit: during plan review, does the PE (plans examiner, not professional engineer, I know very few AHJs that have the later in office) use a check list of items as a basis for their review, or do they just "wing it"?
 
I wouldn't say I wing it, but I don't use checklists. Occasionally I will seek out checklists from various places to make sure my process hasn't skipped anything or somehow left out anything. I usually find I am pretty close to most checklists. I think it is a double edged sword. By using a checklist, one could tend to only follow it, and since checklists can't possibly cover every thing for every project, some things that need attention won't get it. On the other hand, if you follow your own path, you could fall into a habit of missing or forgetting about things simply because they aren't common issues. So my own path, augmented by ongoing perusal of what other people use, such as checklists. I must add that reading this forum, not just for the answers to my own questions, often provides me with opportunities for critical thinking that leads me to re-think my own process, and find answers to questions I never even knew to ask.

My company requires a QA/QC type of refresher on plan review every year. I recently completed it, and found that, though very basic, I was hitting every mark....and then some. My work also gets audited by others, so the hope is that if I am falling short, or going too far, I will get feedback.

Sorry, probably more answers than you were looking for, but it's early and I am fresh.
 
Almost my entire state uses OpenGov Permitting, Licensing and Code Enforcement for our permitting software. It was originally Viewpoint Cloud and was bought out by OpenGov a few years ago. The state had a big push to get everyone on an online permitting system so they paid for the first year to get all municipalities on that system the nice thing about that is if a contractor signs up to submit a permit in one municipality they then use the same login for any other municipality no matter where in the state they go to submit a permit. A lot of the issues I read in this forum (like other systems not letting you know when applicants upload attachments) are not issues with OpenGov PLC, and the user interface is extremely easy to customize our permit application forms and department review workshops to work exactly how we need them to. It also has customizations for being able to set conditions on certain questions on the permit form, for instance I can make a question later on in the application only pop up for the applicant depending on how they answer a previous question. As far as plan review I use Adobe Pro but OpenGov does have an integration with Bluebeam so you can open all your tools for markups right within the program itself and also has integrations where you can have a nightly upload of all property address and owner info from your municipality (such as from an excel spreadsheet provided by your tax assessors office or something) so you always have up to date property record and owner info right in the program as well as also having GIS integrations so you can have any layers or such from a GIS program (if your municipality has one) for use right in the program. The only bad thing I would say about it is it definitely isn't cheap and every module, integration or addon you get has an additional charge to it, but it is a very nice program to use.
 
We were using SmartGov, originally owned by Dude Solutions, then bought by Brightly, and very recently acquired by Granicus. I don't recommend it for large municipalities, but if you are a small, one—or two-man operation, it is certainly decent software. We are in the middle of moving from SmartGov to My Government Online (MGO) and are much happier about the move, although we are still ironing out the expected problems.

Both integrate with Bluebeam but at different levels. MGO eliminates the need to use the Bluebeam API and purchase the expensive Bluebeam Studio Prime. However, that comes with some drawbacks as the sessions in Bluebeam are not true Revu sessions, but all of your markups do come back on the PDFs. The markups don't transfer right to the deficiency report.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top