Establishing secure connection…Loading editor…Preparing document…

Architectural Project Architecture Review

This template is fully customizable. Edit the text, fill out the fields, and send it for signature. Give it a try!

ARCHITECTURAL PROJECT ARCHITECTURE REVIEW AGREEMENT

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Client Name: has engaged Architect / Reviewer Name and Firm: to perform an architectural review of the Project identified above; and

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to set forth the scope, deliverables, fees, schedule and legal terms under which the architectural review services will be provided and to document acceptance of findings and any required corrective actions;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the Parties agree as set forth in this Agreement.

SCOPE OF WORK

Architect/Reviewer shall perform a professional architecture review of the project documents and site conditions as described below. The review shall evaluate compliance with the approved design program, applicable codes and standards, aesthetic and massing criteria, material selections, and coordination between architectural disciplines. Deliverables shall include a written report of findings, a list of required revisions, and recommendations for corrective action.

REVIEW TYPE AND DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

Review Type:

FINDINGS, REQUIRED REVISIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PAYMENT TERMS

The Client shall pay Architect/Reviewer the fees specified below in consideration for the services described in this Agreement. All fees are exclusive of applicable taxes and reimbursable expenses, unless otherwise stated.

TERM AND TERMINATION

This Agreement shall commence on Start Date: and shall continue until End Date: , unless earlier terminated in accordance with this section.

Either Party may terminate this Agreement for convenience upon providing written notice to the other Party not less than Notice Period (days): days prior to the intended termination date. Termination for material breach may be effective immediately if the breaching Party fails to cure within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice specifying the breach.

Upon termination, Client shall pay Architect/Reviewer for all services performed and expenses incurred through the effective date of termination in proportion to the work completed and in accordance with the payment provisions above.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Each Party acknowledges that in the performance of this Agreement it may receive or have access to confidential information of the other Party. Except as required to perform the services or as required by law, each Party shall keep all such information confidential and shall not disclose it to third parties without the prior written consent of the disclosing Party. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement for a period of three (3) years.

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

Architect/Reviewer shall perform services in a professional manner consistent with industry standards. Except for breaches of confidentiality or willful misconduct, the aggregate liability of Architect/Reviewer to Client for any claims arising out of or related to this Agreement shall not exceed the total fees paid to Architect/Reviewer under this Agreement. In no event shall either Party be liable for consequential, incidental, or punitive damages.

GOVERNING LAW

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of: without regard to conflicts of law principles.

ENTIRE AGREEMENT

This Agreement, including the Scope of Work and any attachments executed by the Parties, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, representations, and understandings, whether written or oral. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and signed by both Parties.

MISCELLANEOUS

If any provision of this Agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. The Parties acknowledge that they have read this Agreement, understand its terms, and agree to be bound by it.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ACCEPTANCE

By signing below, the authorized representatives of the Parties acknowledge acceptance of the terms of this Architectural Project Architecture Review Agreement and authorize Architect/Reviewer to proceed with the services described herein.

Client Printed Name:

By:

Date:

Architect/Reviewer Printed Name:

By:

Date:

Enter text✕

What the Architectural Project Architecture Review Is and when it's used

An Architectural Project Architecture Review is a structured assessment of design documents, drawings, and specifications that evaluates code compliance, constructability, safety, accessibility, and coordination across disciplines. It documents scope, findings, required corrections, and recommended mitigations so owners, design teams, and authorities can make informed approval and permitting decisions. Reviews span schematic through construction-document phases and are used to support permit submissions, contractor bidding, value engineering, and municipal plan checks, often attaching annotated drawings and a sign-off record.

Why an architecture review matters for project risk and delivery

A formal architecture review reduces rework, clarifies responsibilities, and records compliance evidence for permitting. It centralizes code citations, identifies coordination gaps between architectural and engineering disciplines, and creates a traceable decision log that supports downstream approvals and contractor execution.

Why an architecture review matters for project risk and delivery

Typical participants who complete and rely on the review

The review is prepared and used by multiple stakeholders involved in project design, permitting, and construction.

  • Project owners and developers — request and receive consolidated compliance findings before permit submission.
  • Design teams and architects — prepare documents, respond to comments, and certify corrections.
  • General contractors and specialty consultants — use the review to price scope and coordinate trade work.

Distribution typically extends to municipal plan reviewers, code consultants, structural and MEP engineers, and other parties who must act on listed deficiencies or confirmations.

Step-by-step: completing the architecture review form

Follow this sequence to prepare, validate, and distribute a compliant review document.

  • 01
    Gather documents: Collect latest drawings, specifications, and engineering reports.
  • 02
    Complete header: Enter project metadata, scope, and reviewer identification.
  • 03
    Document findings: List observations, code references, and required corrective actions.
  • 04
    Sign and distribute: Obtain required signatures and circulate to stakeholders and permitting authorities.

Core components to include in a professional review

A complete Architectural Project Architecture Review combines narrative findings, specific code citations, and supporting exhibits so reviewers and regulators can act decisively.

Executive summary

A concise overview of major findings and their impact on schedule, budget, and permitability; includes a short list of priority corrections and responsible parties for each item.

Code compliance matrix

Itemized list of applicable codes and standards with direct references (chapter/section) and notes on compliance status, exceptions, or requested variances.

Architectural coordination

Assessment of plan coordination with structural and MEP drawings, noting clashes, dimension conflicts, and enclosure/fire separation issues that affect constructability.

Accessibility review

Checklist and examples showing compliance or noncompliance with accessibility requirements, including path of travel, restroom layouts, and signage where relevant.

Material and finish notes

Summary of material selections and fire/smoke characteristics that may affect egress, code classification, or energy compliance.

Attachments and exhibits

Annotated drawings, photographic evidence, referenced calculations, and a revision log that supports findings and tracks subsequent changes.

Record and security items to include on the review

Encryption: TLS 1.2/1.3
Data at rest: AES-256
Audit trail: Detailed timestamps
HIPAA: BAA required
Certifications: SOC 2 Type II
FDA/21CFR: 21 CFR Part 11

Typical submission and approval workflow for the review

A consistent workflow reduces ambiguity and creates an evidentiary trail for permit decisions.

  • Upload: Submit final documents to the review platform or municipal portal.
  • Assign reviewer: Designate an architect, code consultant, or plan-check reviewer.
  • Review: Reviewer annotates drawings, records findings, and requests clarifications.
  • Finalize: Sign, date, and distribute the completed review to stakeholders and the permitting authority.

Configuring digital workflows for reviews and approvals

Set workflow parameters to match your organization’s review and archival policies.

Field Configuration
Notification Email and SMS alerts to reviewers
Signing Order Sequential or parallel signer flow
Authentication Email link, SMS code, or advanced methods
File Types PDF, DOCX, DWG accepted

Technical requirements for eSubmission and eSignature

Use platforms that support secure file formats, strong authentication, and an immutable audit trail.

  • Integrations: Salesforce | NetSuite | Procore
  • Formats: PDF | DOCX | DWG
  • Authentication: Email, SMS, MFA options

Ensure chosen tools meet your compliance requirements (HIPAA, 21 CFR Part 11 where applicable) and provide accessible exports for municipal records and long-term storage.

Typical review timelines and expected turnaround

Establish clear deadlines for each review round to minimize schedule risk and align permit submissions.

Initial review turnaround:

10 business days is typical for a full architectural review.

Response to comments:

Owners or design teams often allowed 14 calendar days to respond.

Resubmittal review:

Subsequent reviews commonly take 5–10 business days.

Permit processing:

Municipal permit timelines vary widely by jurisdiction and complexity.

Expedited requests:

May reduce review time but usually carry additional fees.

Common preparation mistakes that delay approvals

  • Submitting out-of-date drawings that do not match the file metadata, creating confusion and extra resubmittals.
  • Missing or unclear code citations, forcing reviewers to request clarifying documentation and slowing sign-off.
  • Incomplete coordination between disciplines, leading to fundamental constructability conflicts and scope changes.
  • Incorrect signatory authority or unsigned declaration pages that prevent municipal acceptance or require re-signing.

Risks and consequences of an incorrect or incomplete review

Permit delay: Schedule slips
Cost overruns: Change-order costs
Noncompliance: Regulatory rejection
Liability: Increased exposure
Rework: Design revisions
Project stoppage: Possible halts

Comparison of common eSignature vendors for architecture review workflows

Vendor selection affects unit cost, bulk sending, and compliance features; signNow is listed first per vendor comparison guidance.

signNow DocuSign Adobe Sign PandaDoc HelloSign
Starting Price $8/user/mo $15/user/mo $14/user/mo $19/user/mo $15/user/mo
Free Trial 7-day free trial Varies by vendor Varies by vendor Varies by vendor Varies by vendor
Bulk Send Yes (Premium) Yes Yes Yes No
Audit Trail Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
HIPAA Compliant Yes Yes Yes No No
Envelope Cap No cap 100 env/user/year Varies by plan Varies by plan Varies by plan

Real-world examples of architecture reviews in practice

Two brief examples show how organizations used digital reviews to improve turnaround and compliance.

Martin Properties

Martin Properties used remote review workflows to streamline permit readiness.

  • Reduced in-person handoffs and paper handling during approvals.
  • "I can process and execute all of these documents online with 100% compliance and built-in security. Whether on mobile or working offline, I can get forms back to their necessary parties efficiently."

Xerox (NetSuite Ops)

Xerox integrated review workflows with back-office systems for document consistency.

  • Improved routing and signature capture across teams.
  • "airSlate SignNow provides us with the flexibility needed to get the right signatures on the right documents, in the right formats, based on our integration with NetSuite."

Practical tips to complete reviews efficiently and accurately

Adopt these practices to reduce rework, speed municipal acceptance, and maintain defensible records.

Use consistent document naming
Standardize file names and revision numbers across all drawings and reports so reviewers and permitting staff can immediately identify the current set.
Cite specific code sections
Reference chapter and section numbers for each compliance determination to eliminate ambiguity and reduce follow-up questions.
Keep a revision log
Document changes with dates and author initials to create a clear history for inspectors and dispute resolution.
Leverage secure e-signatures
Capture signer identity, timestamp, and an audit trail to support legal validity while minimizing paper handling.

Frequently asked questions about the Architectural Project Architecture Review

Answers to common legal, procedural, and technical questions when preparing, signing, and storing the review.


Need help? Contact support

be ready to get more
Join over 28 million airSlate SignNow users