Home/Data Centers
Sheet 01 · Built For MEP-Heavy, Redundant, Fast-Track Builds
Data center construction QA/QC is an independent, owner-side check of the issued set for a data center or mission-critical facility build — run by reviewers who understand what makes this asset class different: MEP running 60-75% of total construction cost, roughly double standard commercial work; 2N and N+1 redundancy meaning most critical systems get built, and checked, twice; rising rack densities coupling power and cooling design; and fast-track schedules that compress the review window to weeks before procurement locks in.
$50K Exposure Guarantee · No Minimum Construction Value · 48-Hour Turnaround
Why Data Center Sets Carry More Risk
In a standard commercial building, MEP is a meaningful but secondary line item. In a data center, MEP effectively is the building — industry estimates consistently put it at 60-75% of total construction cost, versus 30-40% typical for standard commercial work. A meaningful share of those systems are built in duplicate for redundancy, on schedules compressed enough that long-lead equipment often gets ordered before the design is finished. More conflict surface, doubled on purpose, reviewed in less time.
MEP Is Most Of The Building
60-75% of construction cost, versus 30-40% for standard commercial — a conflict here sits at the center of the project, not the margins.
Redundancy Doubles The Check
2N and N+1 designs mean the primary system and its mirrored redundant path both need independent verification.
Fast-Track Compresses The Window
Long-lead gear gets ordered before the design freezes — once it's ordered against a missed conflict, there's no redline left.
Full breakdown of the MEP math, redundancy, and rack-density factors: why data centers see more coordination conflicts than any other asset class →
What Gets Checked On A Data Center Set
The issued set is read once, in full, by reviewers who've drawn these sets themselves — not a keyword search, not a single-discipline pass. On a data center set, four things get checked specifically:
PRIMARY VS. REDUNDANT PATH
Every 2N or N+1 system checked on both the primary path and its mirrored redundant path — never assumed to match.
POWER-COOLING COUPLING
Electrical and mechanical sheets cross-read for the failover math that matters above roughly 40 kW per rack.
SUBMITTAL CROSS-CHECKS
Long-lead switchgear, UPS, and cooling equipment checked against the drawn set before it's ordered against a conflict nobody caught.
SPEC-TO-DRAWING ALIGNMENT
Written notes and spec clearances read against the sheets they're paired with — the contradictions a clash-detected model can't see.
The output is a written findings report — every conflict located by sheet and detail, severity-ranked (High/Med/Low), with an estimated dollar exposure and schedule impact on each — plus a live walkthrough meeting. See the full four-step process on the homepage, or the complete step-by-step procedure and turnaround detail on what happens during a construction document audit.
Where This Sits
vs. Architect QC
DESIGN INTENT VS. OWNER'S INTEREST
The architect's QC checks the set against design intent. This review is paid by the owner and reports to no one else — run alongside QC, not instead of it. What owner-side QA/QC actually means →
vs. GC Coordination Review
PRICING THE WORK VS. FLAGGING THE RISK
The contractor's coordination review is scoped to pricing the work accurately. This review is scoped to surface exposure for the owner, in writing, before it's priced or built. GC's reading this — see why it's not an audit of your work →
vs. BIM Clash Detection
MODELED GEOMETRY VS. THE ISSUED PAPER
Clash detection catches two modeled elements overlapping — a meaningful share of what goes wrong on a dense MEP set. It doesn't catch a written note contradicting a drawn detail, or a redundant path modeled at a different level of detail than its primary counterpart. Full comparison →
Preempt Global also gets compared against clash-list and checklist software directly: see vs. RediCheck, vs. LightTable AI, and vs. CHECKSET.
Why This Matters On This Asset Class
the factors that make data centers different
A clash caught in a construction document review costs one redline and five minutes. The same conflict caught in the field averages $18,400 and a 12-day schedule slip — on a schedule that was already fast-tracked. If your set carries the MEP density and redundancy that defines a data center, that's the gap this review is built to close before procurement locks it in.
The Guarantee
If a data center construction QA/QC review doesn't surface at least $50,000 in documented cost exposure, you don't pay for it — no partial credit, no fine print, on every pricing tier. On a set this MEP-dense and this duplicated, there's always something to find, which is why it's put in writing before it's locked into a procurement order.
See Full Pricing Tiers →Before You Ask
The method is the same — an independent, owner-side check of the issued set. What's different is how much of that set is MEP: typically 60-75% of total construction cost on a data center versus 30-40% for standard commercial work, and a meaningful share of those systems are built twice for redundancy, which means more surface area for two disciplines to disagree.
Yes. Every coordination question a standard project asks once, a 2N or N+1 data center effectively asks twice — for the primary system and its mirrored redundant path, independently. A review that checks only the primary path and assumes the redundant one matches has covered half the risk in that system.
It catches a meaningful share — physical clashes between two elements that were both modeled. It doesn't catch a written note that contradicts a drawn detail, a spec clearance the drawing doesn't allow for, or a redundant path modeled at a different level of detail than its primary counterpart. This review reads the issued documents themselves, not just the model. Full comparison →
At densities above roughly 40 kW per rack, power and cooling design become tightly coupled — UPS and generator sizing has to account for the cooling system's load during a failover, not just the IT load. A coordination conflict that would be a minor field fix at lower densities becomes a thermal risk at high densities.
Fast-track delivery means design and construction overlap, and long-lead equipment is often ordered before the design is finished — disciplined programs set model-freeze dates before procurement for exactly that reason. A review needs to land before that freeze; once long-lead gear is ordered against a conflict nobody caught, there's no redline left to make. Pre-bid vs. IFC review timing →
The owner or the owner's rep, on any data center or mission-critical facility project with multiple trades sharing tight coordination. It's paid by the owner and reports to no one else — there's no minimum construction value. See the full breakdown built for owners →
Sheet 01 of 01 — Last Call
Book a 30-minute demo. Nothing's shared until the NDA is signed, and nothing's billed unless we find something worth the fee.
See the full pitch, pricing, and process on the Preempt Global homepage.
