01
RFI and submittal triage
An agent reads an incoming RFI against the drawing set and spec sections, drafts a sourced response, and routes anything ambiguous to the project engineer.
Agentic AI in construction & engineering
Agents that work inside field and design operations .
We build agents that read RFIs, drawings, specs, and daily field reports, then draft the response, report, or change-order impact a project engineer would otherwise assemble by hand. Every draft carries its sources and routes to a reviewer before it touches a contract or a schedule.
Trusted by operators
-
+11.76% orders from day 1 of the Australian launchThree-agent product advisor guiding customers through print-order configuration.
Read case study -
Supply chain intelligence agents reducing manual coordination overhead.
-
37 kernels ported from CUDA to Intel GaudiProduction AI workloads moved to new hardware for on-prem LLM deployment.
-
AI agent implementation for a global automotive enterprise.
-
2 hrs → 3 min to generate a workflowText-to-workflow agents building validated node graphs inside the platform.
Read case study -
0 hallucinations across 329+ validation scenariosHIPAA-compliant agentic RAG over proprietary clinical triage guidelines.
Read case study
Why agentic AI
Most construction firms have automated data entry, not decisions
The volume is not anecdotal. Navigant Construction Forum examined 1,362 projects carrying 1,083,807 requests for information and found an average of 796 RFIs per project, with a median of 9.7 days to a response, closer to ten days on longer projects (2013, the most rigorous public dataset on RFI cycle time we could find). A single commercial project generates thousands of RFIs, submittals and daily field reports, most of it unstructured text, drawings and photos that no rule-based system was built to read. Put a chatbot on top of that repository and it will still miss a spec conflict or a schedule slip. An agent reads across drawings, specs and field data, takes a first-pass action such as drafting the RFI response, flagging the clash or sizing the schedule impact, then escalates to a project engineer or PM before anything touches a contract.
every recommendation traces to a source document
Use cases
Where agents earn trust in construction and engineering operations
Workflows with a defined source document, a clear decision boundary, and a reviewer already in the loop.
02
Design clash and constructibility review
Cross-references structural, MEP, and architectural drawings to flag conflicts before they reach the field, for an engineer to confirm.
03
Daily field report synthesis
Turns superintendent notes, photos, and crew logs into a structured daily report and flags schedule-risk language for review.
04
Change-order impact drafting
Estimates the cost and schedule impact of a proposed change against the current schedule and cost code, then drafts the change order for PM sign-off.
Delivery path
From workflow audit to a production coordination agent
TriStorm keeps document complexity and engineering aligned — integration risk surfaced before full build commitment.
Map workflow and document flow
We audit the target workflow (RFI routing, submittal review, or field reporting) along with the drawing sets, specs, and systems it touches, then rank use cases by decision impact and document complexity.
- Workflow audit
- Document & systems map
- Prioritised use case
Build and validate the agent
We build against your real drawing sets, specs, and historical RFIs, with an evaluation suite scored against past decisions before a draft ever reaches a project engineer.
- Working prototype
- Evaluation suite
- Escalation rules
Deploy with monitoring
Production rollout integrated with your existing scheduling and document systems, with full audit logging and a runbook so your PMs and engineers run the system independently.
- Production deployment
- Audit trail & monitoring
- Operator runbook
The cost of manual document review
Where engineering and field workflows lose days today
We have not yet shipped a production agent inside a construction firm. The figures below come from adjacent engagements (Synera in engineering software and Schmitt-Thompson in clinical content), and they show the two mechanisms a submittal or RFI workflow depends on: generating a validated output instead of a first draft, and cross-checking every claim against a named source document. Every figure links to the case study behind it.
Agents do not approve change orders or sign off on submittals. They compress the retrieval and cross-checking that sits before every engineering decision, and leave the decision (and the audit trail) with the project engineer.
To assemble one validated engineering workflow by hand
2 hrs
Adjacent, not a construction firm — engineers spent hours on setup that carried no engineering judgement.
0 hallucinations
Hallucination events across 329+ validated scenarios
Adjacent, not a construction firm — Nurse-triage guidance where a wrong recommendation is a patient-safety event — staged retrieval and validation rather than one model answering in a single pass.
Client results
Proof from adjacent engineering and document-validation deployments
No published construction engagement yet. These are the closest available proof for the mechanism — validated generation instead of a first draft, and every claim cross-checked against a named source document.
Not sure where to start?
A 30-minute call is usually enough to find your highest-value use case
Talk directly to our founders and PhD AI engineers. We will show you real results from 30+ agentic projects and walk through how to apply them to your own RFI, submittal and field reporting workflows. Every example is something already running in production.
Independence
How we help you stay independent
Your team owns what we build. We work on open-source foundations, and the agent logic, the integrations and the evaluation harness transfer to you at the end of the engagement.
Technological sovereignty
We have delivered systems that run with no connection to a big-tech platform: sovereign AI, engineered in Europe.
Small language models
Smaller models keep token costs predictable in day-to-day operations and let the system run on your own internal or on-premise infrastructure.
Open source
We build on open-source software as contributors and as an official Pydantic implementation partner, so the stack stays inspectable and your team keeps the source.
FAQ
Agentic AI in construction and engineering, answered
How much of an engineer's time does RFI and submittal handling actually take?
The best public dataset is still Navigant Construction Forum's 2013 study of 1,362 projects covering 1,083,807 RFIs: an average of 796 RFIs per project, a median of 9.7 days to a response, and (on the estimates Navigant collected from practitioners) roughly eight hours of administrative and technical work per RFI. Those figures are over a decade old and we quote them as an order of magnitude, not a current benchmark. We would rather show you the count and cycle time from your own last three projects, which takes about a day to pull.
Where does agentic AI actually fit into a construction or engineering firm?
In workflows that already produce a paper trail and have a clear decision boundary — RFI response drafting, submittal triage, daily field report synthesis, change-order impact analysis. We do not deploy agents to issue instructions to the field or sign off on a contract change. We deploy them to read, cross-check, and draft, with a project engineer or PM as the final gate.
How is this different from a chatbot bolted onto our document management system?
A chatbot answers one question at a time from whatever it can find. An agent reasons across a drawing set, spec sections, and prior RFIs, completes a multi-step task, and escalates when it hits a conflict it cannot resolve. We have not yet shipped a production agent inside a construction firm specifically — the closest reference point is Synera, an engineering platform where a text-to-workflow agent reads design intent and assembles a complete parametric workflow — about two hours of manual node-wiring compressed to about three minutes. The underlying mechanism, reasoning across technical documents to produce a structured output, is the same one construction estimating and design-review workflows need.
What can an agent actually take a first pass at on a construction project?
Drafting an RFI response against the drawing set and spec sections. Synthesizing a superintendent's field notes and photos into a structured daily report. Estimating the cost and schedule impact of a proposed change before a PM finalizes the change order. In each case the agent produces a draft with its sources attached, not a final answer.
Can an agent catch a design clash or constructibility issue before it reaches the field?
It can flag one. Cross-referencing structural, MEP, and architectural drawings for conflicts is a pattern-matching and reasoning task well suited to an agent — it surfaces the conflict and the source pages, and an engineer confirms whether it is real. It replaces the manual page-by-page review, not the engineer's judgment.
Who is liable if the agent misreads a drawing or a spec section?
Nobody signs off on the agent's read alone. Every output carries a confidence signal and a citation back to the source document, and anything below threshold, or anything touching a contract, cost, or schedule commitment, routes to a human reviewer before it moves. The agent drafts; your team decides.
Does this respect our existing change-order and contract approval chain?
Yes. The agent drafts inside your existing approval workflow — it does not get signing authority and it does not bypass your PM, owner's rep, or contract administrator. Its job is to shorten the time between a triggering event and a reviewable draft, not to change who approves what.
What is the timeline to a working system?
A scoped Proof of Value, one workflow, your real drawings and historical RFIs, a working agent, typically lands in about three weeks. Full production rollout with monitoring and a handoff to your team follows the same TriStorm phases as any other engagement.
Does this integrate with our existing scheduling and document systems?
It integrates through your existing systems and APIs — P6, Procore, BIM 360, or whatever your document and schedule stack already is. We build against what you run, not a rip-and-replace platform, and you keep ownership of the code and the evaluation suite at handoff.
Start with one workflow
Map one RFI, submittal, or scheduling workflow worth automating
A 30-minute call identifies your document flow, integration points, and a realistic path to a working agent your project engineers will actually use.