Frequently Asked Questions

Three deliverables, every time:

• Marked-up documents: your PDFs annotated comment by comment, so your team can act on each point directly.
• Compliance matrix: every requirement of the applicable standards and your project specification, mapped against your documentation, with a status for each.
• Pass/Fail recommendation: a clear statement of whether your pack is ready to submit, and a prioritised list of what to fix if it isn't.

A fixed fee, agreed before we start and confirmed in writing. It never changes mid-engagement unless you change the scope in writing. Tell us what you're preparing and we'll quote it, honestly, based on package size and complexity.

For context: a rejected handover pack typically costs weeks of rework and delay penalties that dwarf the review fee.

Checklists in 1–2 weeks, ITP/test pack reviews in 2–3 weeks, full handover packs in 3–4 weeks, confirmed in the engagement letter before we start. If your deadline is tighter, tell us; we will say honestly whether we can meet it rather than over-promise.

Whichever standards actually govern your system and your project: SFS 6000 for Finnish electrical installations, EN 50600 for data centre facilities, ISO 9001 for quality management, ISO 45001 for health and safety, Good Documentation Practice (ALCOA+), plus the applicable EN and BSRIA guidance, building regulations, and your own project specification. The full list we work against is on the Services page. Every finding cites the specific clause it traces to, and if a standard falls outside what we can credibly review, we say so rather than guess.

A mutual NDA is available before you share anything, and confidentiality is built into our General Terms of Business. Your documents are used solely for delivering the review, are never shared with third parties, and are deleted 90 days after the engagement closes unless you ask otherwise. See our Privacy Policy for the details.

Often yes, and it is worth checking before you send anything. Many subcontracts require the main contractor's consent before project documentation goes to a third party. If yours does, ask for that consent first; we can sign the main contractor's confidentiality terms in addition to our own mutual NDA, and we only review what you are permitted to share. Where a document set is off-limits entirely, a review can sometimes be scoped to your own templates and procedures instead.

They review it, but not for you. The main contractor's document control checks your submission against their requirements, and when it falls short, the result is a rejection on the record, a resubmission cycle, and your time. Our review happens before that, on your side of the fence: the same standards and the same specification, but the findings come to you privately while there is still time to fix them.

The same logic applies to your own QA staff. Reviewing your own company's work under project time pressure is a structural blind spot, not a skills gap. An independent reviewer has no stake in the answer and nothing else competing for their attention.

Structure, not promises. We hold no design, construction, or project-management scope on any project we review, and every enquiry is screened against a conflict-of-interest register before we accept it. If reviewing your pack would create a conflict, we decline the work. The full commitment is in our Independence Charter.

Yes, openly. Our methodology includes AI-assisted analysis for coverage and consistency, and it is part of how we deliver thorough reviews at fixed fees. Every finding is reviewed and approved by a qualified professional before release, and we retain full professional responsibility for every deliverable regardless of the tools used to prepare it.

Your documents stay inside our Google Workspace environment throughout. Nothing is processed by a public or third-party AI model, and nothing leaves that environment except the deliverable we send back to you.

Three things:

• The documents to review (PDF, Word, or Excel; native files preferred over scans).
• The project specification or employer's requirements the documents must satisfy.
• A named contact for queries during the review.

If you don't have the specification, we can review against the applicable standards alone. We'll flag that limitation clearly in the report.

Probably. Our depth is Nordic data centre projects, but the review method (standards-traced findings, compliance matrices, Pass/Fail gates) applies to documentation on any construction or regulated project. Get in touch and we'll tell you honestly whether we're the right fit.

Your team fixes the gaps and submits. If you want us to re-check the corrected documents before submission, a delta review of the revised pack is quoted separately, usually a fraction of the original fee, since we only re-examine what changed.