Architecture and engineering RFIs, submittals and project email, 12 firms

Summary

Construction-phase records from 12 US architecture, structural, MEP and civil engineering firms: RFIs with the contractor's question and the design team's answer, submittal reviews with action codes, Bluebeam markup comments and the project email around them. RFIs and markups link to the drawing sheets and specification sections they reference, so a model can follow a field conflict from question to resolution. Defense, aerospace and secure federal projects are excluded at intake, and seals, signatures, security system layouts and personal contact details are removed.

Collected to order. We collect it from US companies for your order. Scope, volume and timing are confirmed in writing before you sign.

Pricing on request

Request scope and pricing

At a glance

Planned scope. Volume, sources and timing are confirmed in writing before you sign.

Records: 8.1Memails, RFIs, submittal reviews and markup comments
Size: 21.9 GB
Tokens, estimated: 2.5B
Years: 2014 to 2026
Firms: 12

Owner profile: 12 US architecture and consulting engineering firms, 20 to 180 staff each, Southeast, Midwest and Mountain West
Industry: Professional services
Data type: Company operations archive
Headcount: 20 to 180 staff per firm
Region: United States (Southeast, Midwest, Mountain West)
Languages: English
Formats: JSONL
Updated: 2026-10-09

Sources

System	Kind	Records
Microsoft 365 mail	Email	6.1M messages
Newforma Project Center	Projects and wiki	412K RFIs and 286K submittal reviews
Bluebeam Studio	CAD and engineering	1.3M markup comments

Good for

training agents to draft RFI responses grounded in drawings and specifications
classifying submittal review actions and predicting resubmittals
evaluating multi-document reasoning across email, RFI logs and markups
modeling coordination conflicts between structure, ductwork and fire protection

Fields

Field	Type	Description
record_id	string	Stable record id
firm_code	string	Code of the contributing firm
project_ref	string	Project code, stable across all records
discipline	enum	architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire_protection or civil
record_type	enum	rfi, submittal_review, markup or email
number	string	RFI or submittal number as logged
sheet_refs	array<string>	Drawing sheets referenced
spec_sections	array<string>	CSI MasterFormat sections referenced
question	string	Contractor question or submittal description
response	string	Design team answer or review comments
action	enum	answered, no_exceptions, make_corrections, revise_resubmit or rejected
dates	object	Opened and answered timestamps

Example record

{
  "record_id": "AE05-RFI-0144871",
  "firm_code": "AE-05",
  "project_ref": "[SITE_7]",
  "discipline": "mechanical",
  "record_type": "rfi",
  "number": "RFI-147",
  "sheet_refs": [
    "M-301",
    "S-203"
  ],
  "spec_sections": [
    "23 31 13"
  ],
  "question": "Level 3 corridor between grids C/4 and C/6. The 24x14 supply main on M-301 conflicts with the W16x31 beam on S-203. Clear space below the beam is 22 in and the insulated duct needs 26 in. Can we run two 24x8 ducts side by side instead?",
  "response": "Two 24x8 ducts are acceptable at the same total airflow. Keep 2 in clear to the sprinkler main and use a split fitting with turning vanes. Contractor to confirm AHU-3 external static pressure stays within the scheduled 2.5 in w.c. after the change. M-301 will be revised in the next bulletin.",
  "action": "answered",
  "dates": {
    "opened": "2024-05-06T13:40:00Z",
    "answered": "2024-05-09T20:15:00Z"
  }
}

One record, de-identified. Placeholders such as [PERSON_12] and [COMPANY_4] stay the same across the whole dataset, so threads still read correctly.

Licenses available

Exclusive
One buyer. Nobody else can license it during the exclusive term, usually 2 years.
Non-exclusive
Licensed to more than one buyer.
First look
One buyer gets 2 to 4 weeks to make an offer before anyone else sees the dataset.

What ships with it

Datasheet: what it is, what it is good for, verified size, sources, years, format and limits.
Provenance file: the owner shown by code, staff notice and consent status, exclusions, mapped to the EU AI Act Article 53 training-data summary and California AB 2013.
Manifest with a hash for every file.
QC report and de-identification report.
Your own copy, with unique canary records.

How it is de-identified

Default exclusions removed, files flattened to text, identifiers found in three layers and replaced with consistent placeholders, and the result measured against a 99% bar for each identifier type in each source.

The full method