Sourced answers to construction field questions, in seconds

A field question has a crew standing behind it. The super hits a conflict at the wall, needs the rebar spacing or the current revision of a detail, and the answer is sitting in a spec section or an approved sheet that nobody can lay hands on fast enough. So the question becomes a phone call, the office returns it an hour later, and a crew burns the clock waiting on an answer the project already had. Construction professionals lose about five and a half hours a week just looking for project data, and that is before anyone builds to the wrong sheet.^[1]

Half of those questions are not real conflicts. They ask about details the documents already settle, and the field asks anyway because a phone call is faster than digging through six PDFs with gloves on and one bar of signal. That same instinct drives RFI volume: studies put it near 800 RFIs on a typical project, and many are the field asking about something the drawings already cover.^[2] Brad's job is the same here as it is for RFIs. Make digging faster than asking.

The question that can't wait for a callback

“What's the rebar spacing on grid C?” “Is the door schedule still on Rev C, or did Rev D supersede it?” “Did the owner sign CO 14, or are we still waiting?” The field asks these with the crew at the wall and the clock running. The answer is too often “let me get back to you,” and that wait is a crew idling on the clock, a guess that hardens into rework, or a callback that lands after the pour is already going in.

Brad closes that gap. Text the question, or email it from the trailer, and Brad reads your project's plans, specs, contracts, and change orders and answers right then. Fast enough to act on while the crew is still at the wall, not after they have moved on or framed to the wrong detail. Waiting on an answer the project already holds is non-value-adding work in the lean sense, and it is exactly the kind of waiting Brad is built to remove.^[3]

Every answer carries its source

A field answer with nothing behind it is one more opinion, and the super has heard plenty of those. So Brad does not answer bare. Ask for the spec section and Brad sends it back with the sheet number and revision it came from. Ask whether the change order is signed and Brad points to the executed CO, not a fuzzy recollection that it probably went through. When the documents genuinely disagree, Brad does not paper over it with a confident guess. It flags the conflict and shows both sources, because a discrepancy between the drawings and the spec is a person's call to make.

That citation is what turns a text into a decision the crew can build on. The super sees the detail, confirms it is the current revision, and proceeds without wondering whether he is working off a superseded sheet, because the document that settles it is sitting in the reply. It matters later, too. The most common cause of construction disputes is a party failing to understand or comply with its contract obligations, and a sourced, dated answer trail is the difference between a defensible record and a room full of people saying they think it was around April.^[4]

Over the text and email the crew already uses

Nobody on a jobsite wants a new app to fumble for with gloves on and one bar of signal. So Brad lives where the field already works: a text thread and an email inbox. The super texts the question the same way he would text the PM, and the answer comes back the same way, with the document attached. There is no rollout, no training day, and no chasing down who actually downloaded it. Anyone who can send a text can use Brad on day one, from the cab of a truck or the middle of a slab pour.

This is the part of construction that has resisted software the longest. The industry ranks near the bottom of every sector on digitization, not because the field rejects useful tools, but because most tools ask the field to change how it works first and deliver value second.^[5] Brad inverts that. It meets the crew on the channel they already use and earns its keep on the first answer.

The office stops being a switchboard

When the field can pull its own routine answers from the connected record, the PM and the architect stop relaying the same clarification a dozen times a week. The questions that still need a human get kicked up with context already attached: the current detail, the relevant CO, the prior RFI response, instead of starting cold from “remind me what we're talking about.” That is the difference between a question that gets answered today and one that joins the ball-in-court backlog.

And the answer does not vanish into a one-off text. The question, the answer, and the document behind it stay part of the project record, so the next person who asks gets the same grounded reply, and nobody in the field is left holding an undocumented call when it is time to back it up. The record assembles itself while the work happens, instead of getting reconstructed under deadline at closeout.

Where Brad stops and the licensed pro starts

Brad is document intelligence pointed at construction. It reads your project's plans, specs, contracts, and messages and answers field questions with the source attached. What it is not: a guarantee, a code ruling, or a stand-in for licensed professional judgment or your formal RFI and submittal process. It connects those documents so the field is acting from the current, verifiable picture rather than a guess, and a person still owns every call that needs one. Your project's content belongs to you, and each workspace stays walled off from every other one. If you have specific requirements about how field data is handled or retained, ask us and we will walk you through exactly how it works.

You will not stop the field from asking. You can change how fast the project answers, and whether the answer arrives with its source attached or as one more guess waiting on a callback. A field question has a crew standing behind it. Brad is how they stop standing around.