01: Identity and ratings
01
Existing conditions
An existing conditions record you can defend
Build an existing-conditions record your team can review: equipment photos, extracted fields, drawing comparisons and the findings that still need follow-up.
An MEP existing conditions survey documents the equipment a building contains today, as distinct from what its drawings say it should contain. The software keeps the evidence attached, so each equipment record can be checked against the source photographs and recorded review.
The drawing is a claim
A set of record drawings tells you what a design intended and, if you are fortunate, what was installed on handover day. It says nothing about the twenty years since. Chillers get replaced with whatever the budget allowed. A fit-out adds eight fan coils that never reach the archive.
Finding a gap during the site visit gives the team a chance to resolve it before it affects design.
What the record has to contain
02: Age from the serial
02
Age from the serial
03: Placement
03
Placement
04: Relationships
04
Relationships
05: Evidence
05
Evidence
06: An explicit unresolved list
06
An explicit unresolved list
Where field and design disagree
01: On the schedule, not in the field
02: In the field, on no schedule
03: Same tag, different unit
04: Tag renumbered
05: Location disagrees
| Finding | Usual cause | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| On the schedule, not in the field | Removed, or replaced under a different tag | Confirm removal before it is priced as existing |
| In the field, on no schedule | Added during a later fit-out, never drawn | Add it — this is load the design must carry |
| Same tag, different unit | Replaced in kind, often at another capacity | Verify the installed rating and retain the schedule value for comparison |
| Tag renumbered | Contractor renumbering that never reached the archive | Bind both tags so each stays traceable |
| Location disagrees | Unit moved, or the drawing was wrong | Verify the location and keep the drawing reference visible |
Surveys that get questioned
These records are read under pressure — during a claim, a value engineering exercise, or a dispute about what was known at design stage. The useful question is never what does the spreadsheet say but how do you know.
Keeping the evidence attached is what makes that answerable — which photograph a capacity came from, who confirmed a condition rating, which items were flagged uncertain at the time. The process guide covers closing a survey out properly.
Before you scope one
Why can't we just use the record drawings?
Record drawings describe what was specified and, at best, what was installed on the day the job closed out. Buildings then run for decades: units fail and get replaced with whatever was available, equipment is added during fit-outs, tags are renumbered by contractors, and almost none of it is fed back into the archive. The drawing is a claim about the building; only a field survey establishes what is there now.
What makes an existing conditions record defensible?
Traceable evidence and a clear scope. Keep source photos with equipment records, document corrections and confirmations, and state what was inaccessible or uncertain. A record supports review; it does not guarantee that every condition was found.
How are gaps handled when a survey can't be completed?
Record inaccessible areas and unreadable plates as open items with a reason and next action. Review the findings before handoff so the deliverable states the limits of the survey.
Can the survey be picked up by someone who wasn't on site?
That is the point of keeping the evidence attached. The record is not one engineer's memory and camera roll — the next person can open a unit, see the photograph the values came from, see who confirmed what, and carry on.