On a CM or owner's rep project, the monthly pay application from the contractor lands with a schedule of values, supporting documents, lien waivers, and stored materials backup. Someone on your team has to check it before the owner pays.
That review is important, repetitive, and almost always done by hand. It is also a good example of where custom AI, built around your firm's process, beats a generic tool.
What a pay app review actually involves
A careful reviewer checks things like:
- Percent complete by line item versus what they saw in the field and in the schedule
- Math on the schedule of values, retainage, and previous payments
- Approved change orders correctly added, and unapproved ones excluded
- Stored materials backed by invoices and proof of insurance or location
- Lien waivers present for the right parties and periods
- Consistency with last month's application
Each check is straightforward. The volume is the problem. Large projects have hundreds of line items and stacks of backup.
Where the hours go
Line-by-line comparison. Lining up this month's SOV against last month's and against approved changes.
Hunting for backup. Matching stored materials claims and waivers to the right documents.
Cross-checking progress. Comparing claimed percent complete with daily reports, the schedule update, and site observations.
Writing it up. Documenting exceptions and sending comments back to the contractor.
Senior staff often end up doing this because they know what to look for. That is expensive time.
Why a generic tool is not enough
Every owner and contract has its own rules: retainage terms, stored materials requirements, waiver forms, approval workflows. Your firm also has its own review habits built from experience on past projects. A generic document tool does not know any of that.
This is where custom AI fits. The value comes from encoding your firm's checklist and your client's contract terms, then running a consistent first pass every month.
A better workflow
Write the checklist down
Most firms have a review process that lives in experienced reviewers' heads. Document it first. That is valuable on its own.
Separate mechanical checks from judgment
Math, completeness, and consistency checks are mechanical. Whether claimed progress is reasonable is judgment. Do the first part fast and spend people's time on the second.
Produce an exceptions list
The output of a first pass should be a short list of items that need a human look, each tied to a specific line or document.
Keep the history
Each month's review becomes the baseline for the next. Patterns, like a line item that is always overbilled early, become visible.
Where AI helps, and where it does not
It helps with:
- Reading the application and backup and running the mechanical checks consistently
- Comparing against last month and approved changes
- Drafting the exception list and comments for the reviewer
It does not replace:
- Field verification of progress
- Recommendations to the owner
- Disputes and negotiation with the contractor
What matters: the reviewer stays accountable. A first pass speeds review; it does not approve payment. Project documents are sensitive, so know where they are processed and stored.
How we approach it
Our Custom Products work starts by sitting with the people who do the work, mapping the process, and then building around it. Pay app review is a common example because the checklist is clear and the hours are real.
A useful next step
Time your team's next pay app review from start to finish, and note how much was mechanical checking. If it is most of it, talk to us about what a first pass could look like.
Have a workflow worth automating?
Join hundreds of AEC teams already saving hours every week.