In US AEC workflows, Issued for Construction (IFC) drawings are widely treated as the final checkpoint – the moment when design uncertainty ends and construction certainty begins.That belief is one of the most expensive misconceptions in modern project delivery.
Across commercial, healthcare, data center, education, and mixed – use projects, many of the RFIs, field conflicts, and schedule disruptions blamed on construction actually originate before ground is broken. They are embedded inside IFC sets that were issued without true coordination closure, constructability validation, or QA / QC accountability.
This blog examines why IFC drawings are often not construction – ready, how IFC has quietly become a risk – transfer milestone instead of a quality milestone, and what disciplined teams do differently to protect projects before construction begins.
What IFC Was Meant to Represent - and What It Actually Means Today
Historically, IFC drawings were intended to signal:
- Design intent is complete
- Systems are coordinated
- Construction can proceed with confidence
In practice, IFC now often means something far narrower:
- Contractual submission requirements were met
- Models are sufficiently detailed to issue
- Remaining issues are assumed manageable in the field
The shift from quality confirmation to schedule compliance is subtle – but devastating.
IFC does not inherently certify coordination, constructability, or risk removal.
It simply marks the moment when design responsibility begins to transition downstream.
Why IFC Has Become a Risk - Transfer Point
As project schedules compress and design phases overlap, IFC is frequently issued under pressure. When that happens, unresolved issues are not eliminated – they are deferred.
At IFC:
- Designers release control over coordination outcomes
- Contractors inherit incomplete decisions
- Field teams become the final problem solvers
From that moment on, every unresolved design assumption carries real cost.
This is why many projects experience:
- RFIs immediately after IFC
- Trade – driven rerouting and compromises
- Early schedule erosion before inspections even begin
The failure is not construction execution.
It is upstream verification.
The Hidden Gaps Inside Many IFC Sets
1. Coordination That Was Visual, Not Verified
Many IFC models look coordinated in 3D views, but critical validations are missing:
- Installation clearances
- Maintenance access zones
- Code – required working spaces
- Equipment replacement paths
These issues don’t always register as geometric clashes – but they fail during construction.
2. Clash Detection Treated as a Final Step
On many projects, clash detection happens:
- Late in DD
- Once or twice before IFC
- Without clear resolution ownership
Late clashes force rushed decisions that prioritize “making it fit” over system performance, access, and constructability.
3. Discipline-Level QA /QC Without Cross-Discipline Accountability
Mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, and architectural models may each pass internal checks.
What’s missing:
- Cross – discipline QA / QC sign-off
- Whole – system validation
- Ownership of shared spaces
Individually approved models can still fail collectively.
4. Constructability Assumed, Not Tested
Many IFC sets reflect design intent, not build intent.
Common gaps include:
- Unrealistic routing tolerances
- Ignored prefabrication constraints
- No sequencing validation
- Field access conflicts
These issues only surface when trades attempt installation.
Why RFIs Spike Immediately After IFC
RFIs are often framed as construction-phase clarification tools. In reality, early RFIs are symptoms of upstream gaps.
When IFC is issued without coordination closure:
- Contractors discover conflicts that design teams never resolved
- Trades are forced to question basic assumptions
- RFIs become the coordination mechanism
This is the most expensive point in the project lifecycle to coordinate.
The Cost Curve of Late Coordination
Fixing a coordination issue:
- During schematic or early DD → negligible cost
- Before IFC → manageable design effort
- After IFC → rework, RFIs, and schedule impact
- In the field → exponential cost increase
IFC without verification doesn’t save time.
It shifts cost downstream – where it multiplies.
The Core Misunderstanding: IFC ≠ Construction Readiness
Construction readiness requires more than drawing issuance.
It requires:
- Verified spatial coordination
- Constructability validation
- Clear ownership of system conflicts
- Formal QA/QC closure
IFC is a documentation milestone, not a risk – elimination milestone.
Treating it otherwise guarantees downstream disruption.
What a Construction - Ready IFC Process Actually Looks Like
Early and Continuous Coordination
High – performing teams don’t wait until late DD:
- Coordination begins early
- Clashes are resolved continuously
- System priorities are defined upfront
Constructability - Focused Model Reviews
- Installation feasibility
- Access and maintenance
- Trade sequencing
- Prefabrication readiness
Formal QA/QC Gates Before IFC
IFC is only issued after:
- Discipline – level QA / QC completion
- Cross – discipline coordination sign – off
- Independent verification where required
This transforms IFC from a risk handoff into a confidence checkpoint.
Why Many Firms Struggle to Achieve This
Even firms that understand the risk face constraints:
- BIM teams are overloaded
- Senior coordinators are pulled into firefighting
- Timelines compress
- Hiring experienced QA / QC resources is slow
As pressure rises, verification is often sacrificed to meet deadlines.
How eLogicTech Helps Make IFC Truly Construction - Ready
eLogicTech Solutions works with US AEC firms as a QA / QC – driven extension of in-house BIM teams, supporting projects before IFC risk is transferred.
Typical support includes:
- Independent BIM QA/QC audits
- MEP and multi – discipline coordination verification
- Pre – IFC clash validation with resolution ownership
- Constructability – focused model reviews
The goal is not to delay IFC.
It is to issue IFC with confidence.
Final Takeaway
“Issued for Construction” is a milestone — not a guarantee of field readiness.
Drawings become truly construction-ready only when coordination is resolved, constructability is pressure-tested, and QA ownership is fully closed before release.
Projects don’t fail because IFC was issued.
They fail when IFC is issued under deadline pressure without full verification.
For growing U.S. AEC firms facing staffing gaps and delivery strain, that risk compounds quickly.
eLogicTech operates as a QA-driven extension of in-house BIM teams — validating coordination, closing constructability gaps, and ensuring models are field-ready before they move downstream. Because once IFC reaches the site, corrections become costs.
