A guaranteed maximum price is a number attached to a specific version of the drawings. The document review checklist that protects that number has to check something a standard bid-set checklist doesn't: not just whether the 100% CD set is internally complete, but whether it still matches the set the GMP was actually priced against.
Most document review checklists are written for a lump-sum bid: is the set complete, coordinated, and consistent enough for a subcontractor to price it once and build to it. A GMP project runs on a different clock. The guaranteed maximum price is typically locked earlier — commonly somewhere in the 60–80% construction documents range on private work, sometimes later depending on delivery method — against a set that is, by definition, not finished. Everything drawn or specified between that point and 100% CDs either falls inside the number that was already guaranteed or it doesn't, and the difference between those two outcomes is exactly what a GMP-specific review has to catch.
Why a GMP set needs a different checklist, not just an earlier one
A standard document review checklist asks whether the final set is coordinated. A GMP set carries an extra layer: the final set has to be reconciled against an earlier set — the one the number was actually built on. If that reconciliation doesn't happen as a distinct, documented step, two different sets end up governing the same project. The contractor is holding a price based on one version of the drawings; the field is holding a different, more developed version. Nobody notices until a change order surfaces the gap, and by then the disagreement is no longer about what the drawings say — it's about whose set of drawings was ever binding.
The GMP amendment itself typically lists the drawings and specifications it's based on by sheet number and date. That list is the actual scope of the guarantee — anything drawn after those dates has to be checked against it individually, not assumed to be included.
1. Reconcile the 100% CD set against the drawings the GMP was actually priced on
Before anything else, confirm which sheet set and revision dates the GMP amendment references. AIA's guaranteed maximum price structure — most commonly documented through A102 (owner-contractor) or A133 (CM as constructor) — ties the guarantee to a specific, enumerated set of documents, not to "the drawings" generically. A document review at 100% CDs has to start by pulling that list and checking every sheet that's changed since against it: added scope, revised details, or specification changes that weren't part of what the number covered.
2. Separate design development from scope creep, sheet by sheet
Not every change between GMP-setting and 100% CDs is a problem — design development between 70% and 100% CDs is normal and expected. What matters is classifying each change correctly. A detail that got more resolved without changing what it shows is development. A detail that adds a new assembly, a new material, or a scope item that wasn't implied at the GMP stage is a change that belongs in the change-order log, not silently absorbed into the guaranteed number. Treating scope creep as development is how a GMP stops meaning what it was supposed to mean.
3. Check contingency against what actually got resolved, not what's left unresolved
A GMP typically carries a contingency line meant to absorb the normal resolution of undeveloped areas as the design finishes. A document review at 100% CDs should check whether that contingency is being drawn down against genuine design development, or against decisions that were already supposed to be resolved at the GMP-setting stage and simply weren't. The latter is a sign the GMP was locked against an incomplete design, not a normal design timeline — a distinction the contractor has every incentive not to volunteer and the owner has every reason to want confirmed independently.
4. Confirm exclusions and allowances haven't quietly expanded
Every GMP carries a list of exclusions and allowance items — scope priced as a placeholder rather than a firm number, or scope explicitly carved out of the guarantee. As the design resolves toward 100% CDs, allowance items are supposed to convert into firm, drawn scope. A document review should check whether that conversion actually happened cleanly, or whether the drawn detail for an allowance item now includes scope beyond what the allowance description covered — which shifts cost outside the number without anyone formally acknowledging it moved.
5. Run the standard coordination pass — it still applies in full
None of the GMP-specific checks above replace a normal cross-discipline coordination review. The 100% CD set still needs every discipline checked against every other discipline, specs checked against drawings section by section, and the addenda log reconciled against actual sheet revisions — the same baseline items covered in a document review checklist for a bid-ready set. A GMP set that's internally coordinated but not reconciled against its own price basis is still exposed; a GMP set that's reconciled against its price basis but internally uncoordinated is exposed a different way. Both checks have to happen, and neither substitutes for the other.
6. Document every change as included, excluded, or unresolved — don't leave a fourth category
The output of a GMP document review shouldn't be a general finding that the set "looks complete." It should be a specific disposition for every material change between the GMP-setting set and the 100% CD set: covered by the guarantee, formally excluded and change-ordered, or still unresolved and flagged before the set issues. An unresolved item that ships inside the 100% CD set without a disposition is the exact gap that turns into a change-order dispute later — the point isn't to eliminate every judgment call, it's to make sure none of them are silent.
What this checklist protects that a standard review doesn't
A standard document review checklist protects the buildability of the set. A GMP-specific pass protects the number attached to it — which is a separate, and for the owner, often more expensive, kind of exposure. As covered in where coordination-error costs actually come from, the majority of change-order dollars trace back to conflicts that existed in the documents before construction started. On a GMP project, that same category of conflict has an added wrinkle: it's not just a cost the owner didn't expect, it's a cost the contract explicitly said was already covered.
Key takeaways
- A GMP locks a price to a specific, enumerated set of drawings and specs — not to "the drawings" in general. Confirm exactly what that list includes before reviewing anything else.
- Design development between GMP-setting and 100% CDs is normal; unlogged scope creep is not. Every change needs a disposition, not an assumption.
- Contingency drawdown should track normal design resolution. If it's absorbing decisions that should already have been made, the GMP was locked early against an incomplete design.
- Allowance and exclusion items need to be checked at 100% CDs to confirm they converted into drawn scope without expanding beyond what was priced.
- A GMP-specific review doesn't replace a standard cross-discipline coordination pass — both are needed, and they catch different kinds of exposure.
Frequently Asked Questions
When is a GMP typically set relative to construction documents?
It varies by project and delivery method, but private projects commonly set a GMP somewhere in the 60–80% construction documents range, with some proposals held until closer to 90% depending on complexity and risk tolerance. Federal and public work often pushes the GMP later, closer to 75% CDs or beyond, before locking it ahead of 100%.
Who is contractually responsible for reconciling the 100% CD set against the GMP basis documents?
The GMP amendment itself — typically AIA A102 or A133 — assigns that responsibility structurally, but it doesn't happen automatically just because the contract language exists. An independent document review at 100% CDs is how an owner confirms the reconciliation actually happened, sheet by sheet, rather than taking the contractor's word that nothing moved outside the guarantee.
Does a GMP eliminate the risk of coordination conflicts in the drawings?
No. A GMP guarantees a price, not a coordinated set. The drawings underneath a GMP contract are just as exposed to cross-discipline conflicts as drawings under any other delivery method — the guarantee only determines who's contractually on the hook for the cost, not whether the conflict gets caught before it reaches the field.
What happens if scope creep gets absorbed into the GMP without being logged as a change?
It becomes effectively invisible until something forces it to the surface — usually a change order dispute or a contingency drawdown that doesn't match what anyone can point to in the design record. At that point, resolving it is a negotiation about what was "supposed to be included," which is a much weaker position for an owner than having a documented disposition for every change as it happened.
Is a GMP-specific document review different from the review used to set the GMP in the first place?
Yes. The review that supports setting the GMP checks whether the set at that point in design is developed enough to price responsibly. The 100% CD review checks something different: whether the finished set still matches what was priced, and whether everything that changed in between has a clear, documented disposition.