// Plan Review for Civil Engineering
QualRivu brings disciplined Plan Review to municipalities and civil engineering firms across Canada. The AI reads the drawings. Deterministic code measures, computes and cites. Your licensed engineer or designated reviewer holds every determination.
Next: productA 40-sheet set is flagged in less than 10 minutes.
// Product
The AI pass is one step. Standards intake, workflow, deterministic verification, collaboration and release are the rest - all in the browser, designed to raise submission quality and cut review times.
The AI turns manuals, bylaws and specs into reusable audit rules: a living library of your jurisdiction's requirements.
Deviations from bylaws and standards are flagged as markups on your drawings, every finding engineer-verified before sign-off.
Counts, spacing, clearance and curve values are computed, not read off the sheet; the code's verdict replaces the AI's. Every citation resolves to your standards library.
Sheet references and section cuts resolve to their details; a structure or pipe drawn across sheets reconciles to one rim, invert, size and material. Mismatches surface as findings, not surprises.
Full-resolution sheets, with measurement tools that snap to the drawing's CAD vectors - real linework, not a pixel estimate.
Defined roles, assigned drawings, review status tracked in one submission-to-decision pipeline; dashboards roll up the team's progress. A transparent, traceable record holds every action.
Work the same drawing with live cursors, or on your own. Built for iPads and tablets: lose connection mid-sheet and markups queue on the device, syncing on reconnect.
Ask the AI about anything on the drawing; answers cite the exact standards section, and where a sheet cross-references details, the AI reads those too.
Drawings, audit records and project data stay in Canada (Azure Canada Central), application and database alongside. No AI training on your data; encrypted in transit and at rest. Built for FIPPA and PIPEDA, SOC 2 on the roadmap. Dedicated deployments can use your own servers or cloud.
// How It Works
From defining your standards to releasing the decision: four steps that replace weeks of back-and-forth.
A submission arrives as an attachment. Comments come back as a marked-up PDF. Questions live in reply-all threads. Three weeks later, nobody can say which version was reviewed, or whether comment #14 was resolved.
One place, one version: reviewers, submitters and PMs work the same sheets; roles decide who can flag, resolve or approve. Questions attach to their markup. Every item carries a disposition, so review state is a fact you read, not a thread you reconstruct.
The AI converts engineering manuals into structured audit rules: a digital library of your jurisdiction's requirements.
Upload the set. QualRivu reads what is printed, measures what is drawn, computes each verdict in code and pins a markup where it applies, with the clause checked and the action required.
Your team works the same drawing, together or on their own time. Verify findings with measurement tools; accept, reject or discuss each one; then clear the Design Checklist for what the AI missed. The reviewer holds every determination.
Export drawings with markups to PDF, readable as comments in any PDF reader. Release as Revisions Required, Approved or Rejected; markups land on the submitter's drawings and the record is read-only.
Download the sample review drawing Desktop · findings in your PDF reader's Comments pane · PDF 1.4 MB
Download the phone edition Drawings with numbered pins, then every finding listed · PDF 1.5 MB
// Why it holds up
Pointing a capable AI model at a drawing produces a demo, not a review tool. Two failure modes we engineered out:
What happens
A vertical curve is annotated K=4.1, and the model cites "section 4.1" - a sanitary sewer clause - because the number looks like one. Nothing looks wrong until someone opens the standard.
How it's handled
Every citation must resolve to a real section of the jurisdiction’s standards before it is shown, in the right discipline: a road finding cannot carry a sanitary clause.
What happens
A note reading “REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EX. HYDRANT” mentions a hydrant, and the model counts one. Six mentions become six hydrants where the drawing shows two.
How it's handled
Counts are reconciled against the drawing's CAD layers, where each hydrant has an exact position; prose can confirm attributes, never invent a feature. Sheets without those layers mark counts as model-only.
What happens
A resurfacing sheet is sent the watermain, storm and sanitary details on every model call - trenches it does not cut. Irrelevant references add cost and invite irrelevant findings.
How it's handled
Which reference sheets accompany a drawing depends on what it actually does. A pavement-restoration sheet gets the utility details because it repairs a trench; a resurfacing sheet does not.
What happens
A standards library states three minimum widths for a cycling facility: painted, one-way protected, two-way protected. A drawing naming none could be judged against any; picking one is a coin-flip.
How it's handled
Where the drawing does not say which sub-type applies, the check uses the most lenient limit, so it can only fail a design that fails under every reading - and the finding says what the reviewer must confirm.
None of this was fixed by a better model. Each case is a decision the model does not get to make.
Next: who we are// About
QualRivu was founded to fix one of the most persistent bottlenecks in Canadian infrastructure: the design review process. What should take days routinely takes months, stalling projects and adding cost for municipalities and developers alike.
We are building the review layer between a submitted drawing set and a signed decision: the standards a jurisdiction actually enforces, the arithmetic that proves compliance, and the record of who decided what.
The Founding Team
Alex is a transformation and program delivery leader with nearly two decades of experience running complex initiatives for global enterprises, raising operational performance through technology-enabled innovation. Working on large-scale, mission-critical projects exposed a clear industry opportunity: using AI to make engineering reviews faster, more consistent and more accurate, while reducing risk and cost.
At QualRivu, Alex brings deep expertise in quality management and process improvement, with a practical understanding of how AI can enhance, rather than replace, engineering judgment.
George is a civil engineer with 20 years of experience in municipal infrastructure planning, design review and project delivery. That means following work from the first plan to the finished street, and knowing where problems tend to hide along the way.
At QualRivu, George brings that perspective to how the product is built. Years of assessing submissions against local standards show what a reviewer needs: the right requirements for each drawing, clear findings to act on, and a record of who checked what. The platform puts those essentials first, helping engineers find issues faster while keeping a qualified professional in charge of every decision.
Andreas is a technology and product leader with more than a decade of experience delivering digital transformation across enterprise software, utilities and mining. His background spans data analytics, cloud platforms, smart infrastructure and complex programs, with a focus on translating operational challenges into practical solutions.
At QualRivu, Andreas brings that range to modernizing design review, applying AI to help municipalities and engineering firms reduce manual effort, strengthen collaboration and make the process more consistent and traceable, while keeping professional judgment central to every decision.
// FAQ
The questions municipalities and consultants ask first.
// Contact
Book a 30-minute demo and see QualRivu run on your team's real workflow.