CAi Intelligence Portal
Meridian Studio — Portfolio Overview
Data through 2025
CAi active
Total projects
639
2014–2025
Total RFIs
21,618
All active projects
Total submittals
30,163
All active projects
Avg resubmit rate
10.8%
Portfolio baseline
RFI + submittal volume — 2018–2025
RFIs
Submittals
2025 submittal volume up 42% vs. 2024 — significant CA load growth. RFI volume up 28% in same period.
RFI volume by studio Click a studio to filter all views
RFI volume by project type
Resubmit rate by project type
Active projects Click to drill down
| Project | Studio | RFIs | Submittals | Resubmit | Avg resp. | Status |
|---|
SkyView — Firm-level CA intelligence
Meridian Studio — Portfolio command view
Firm → Studio → Client → Project · click any level to drill deeper
Hierarchy level
Firm
All studios active
Studios active
5
All contributing
Highest resubmit
Studio A 12.7%
Above firm avg of 10.8%
Fastest response
Studio B 6.6d
Avg RFI response time
Highest volume
Studio D 4,956
RFIs all time
Studio comparison — CA performance Click a studio row to see its projects
| Studio | Projects | RFIs | Submittals | Resubmit rate | Avg RFI resp. | Signal |
|---|
CA burden by client type — avg review days
Retail and Education clients carry the longest submittal review cycles — 18–16 days avg. Price CA services accordingly in proposals to these client types.
Resubmit rate by client type — fee exposure
Automotive and Office clients generate the highest resubmit rates — 11.8% and 11.7% — indicating higher CA coordination burden per dollar of fee.
What SkyView surfaces that no other CA platform provides
Studio A is an outlier — 12.7% resubmit rate vs. firm avg of 10.8%
Studio A's resubmit rate is 18% above the firm average. At the project level this looks like normal CA friction. At the firm level it is a pattern — likely reflecting either a specific typology concentration (Office/Corporate) or a subset of consultants that Studio A uses more frequently than other studios. SkyView makes this visible in minutes. A principal-level conversation about Studio A's submittal QA process could reduce firm-wide CA overhead.
2025 submittal volume surge (+42% vs. 2024) is outpacing RFI growth (+28%) — documentation backlog signal
When submittal volume grows faster than RFI volume, it typically indicates that more coordination packages are being generated without resolving underlying design questions. The gap between submittal and RFI growth in 2025 is the widest in the Meridian dataset — a leading indicator that RFI spikes are likely in Q1 2026 unless the submittal resubmit cycle clears faster.
Studio D has the highest project count (165) and RFI volume (4,956) but the lowest resubmit rate (10.5%)
This is the inverse of what you'd expect — high volume with controlled quality. Studio D's workflow is worth studying as a firm standard. The CA team's process for managing submittals appears to be more systematic than Studios A and C, both of which carry higher resubmit rates with lower volumes.
Total submittals
30,163
All active projects
Resubmit rate
10.8%
Revise & Resubmit actions
Avg review time
15.3 days
All active projects
Open submittals
143
Pending architect action
Key submittal signals
Submittal volume + resubmit rate by CSI division
Volume (bar) · Resubmit % (badge)
Architect action distribution
Review time by CSI division
Total RFIs
21,618
All active projects
Open RFIs
108
Awaiting response
Avg response time
8.2d
Portfolio average
High priority RFIs
4,754
22% of all RFIs
Avg RFI response time by project type
RFI volume — annual trend 2018–2025
RFI priority distribution by studio
High-priority RFIs represent 22% of total volume — significantly above industry benchmark of ~12%. This suggests either over-classification by GCs or genuine coordination urgency. Both have fee implications.
1.9×
RFI density
multiplier
Projects with elevated submittal resubmit rates generate nearly twice the RFI volume of projects with clean submittal workflows. In the Meridian dataset, projects in the top quartile for early-phase resubmissions show materially higher RFI density 4–8 weeks later. The mechanism: a returned submittal signals an unresolved document gap — and that same gap surfaces as a field RFI once construction begins.
What this signal means in practice
The 4–8 week lag is a window for intervention — not a post-mortem
When Meridian's submittal data is segmented by early-phase resubmit rate, projects in the top quartile consistently show higher RFI volume 4–8 weeks later. CAi surfaces this signal at the project level before the RFIs arrive — enabling a principal conversation while there's still time to get ahead of it. Without a platform that holds both data streams simultaneously, this signal is invisible until the damage is done.
Concrete resubmits (14.6%) are the highest-risk leading indicator in Meridian's dataset
Concrete is the highest-volume submittal division in the portfolio and carries the highest resubmit rate. Structural submittals that cycle through resubmit in early CA consistently generate MEP and envelope RFIs in subsequent months — the structural resolution creates the field conditions that trigger downstream coordination questions. Concrete resubmit rate in weeks 2–6 of CA is Meridian's strongest leading indicator of a difficult mid-phase.
This cross-signal is only visible when both data streams are held in the same architecture
Procore holds RFIs and submittals in separate modules, typically across different GC environments. Roundhouse holds both streams in a single architecture indexed to your firm. The resubmit → RFI correlation is not a hypothesis — it's a pattern that repeats consistently across Meridian's 639-project, 11-year dataset. This is the data moat. It compounds with every project added.
Sub:RFI ratio — 2018–2025
Rising ratio signals documentation volume outpacing coordination resolution — a leading indicator of RFI spikes in the following period.
Current projects by combined signal
Weekly intelligence report
State of portfolio — week of May 12, 2026
Meridian Studio · 639 projects · RFIs & Submittals
Portfolio verdict
WATCH
3 projects require action this week
RFIs this week
64
▲ 18%vs 54 last week
Open RFIs
108
▲ 14vs 94 last week
Open submittals
143
▲ 22vs 121 last week
Avg RFI response
8.2d
▼ 0.8dvs last week
What requires a decision today
San Francisco Fire Station — combined signal at portfolio high · call PM today
23347 - San Francisco Fire Station carries a 20.3% resubmit rate with 8 open RFIs — the highest combined CAi risk score in the active portfolio. Concrete submittals have been cycling through resubmit for 3 consecutive rounds, suggesting a structural coordination gap that hasn't been resolved at the document level. Based on Meridian's 11-year pattern, projects at this signal level see RFI volume double within 4–6 weeks without principal intervention.
Marin Training Center — 6 open RFIs, 18.9% resubmit rate, no response time on record
24575 - Marin Training Center shows an elevated resubmit rate (18.9%) and 6 open RFIs with no logged response time — suggesting either RFIs are being handled outside the platform or the GC hasn't initiated responses. Both scenarios require a principal-level check-in. Projects with no response time data in the Roundhouse system are a monitoring gap regardless of their risk level.
Concord Data Center — 11.5d avg RFI response with 9.1% resubmit — manageable but trending up
20826 - Concord Data Center has the highest logged RFI response time in the active portfolio at 11.5 days — above the 8.2-day firm mean. MEP coordination is the driver. No immediate action required, but worth a quick check on whether the tech consultant response cycle is slowing field progress.
Fee & scope intelligence
CA burden → proposal calibration
Derived from 30,163 submittals · 21,618 RFIs · 11-year Meridian baseline
Data confidence
HIGH
51,781 records · 639 projects
CA burden by project type — proposal calibration
Where actual CA burden (resubmit rate + review time) diverges from what a standard fee model would allocate, your next proposal of that type is likely underpriced.
Avg submittal review time by project type days
Retail (18.3d) and Education (15.7d) carry the longest review cycles — price these client types with a 1.2–1.3× CA multiplier on submittal review scope.
Resubmit rate by project type % of submittals returned
Automotive (11.8%) and Office (11.7%) generate the most resubmit cycles. Each resubmit cycle is an unpriced review event — 3–5 hours of architect time that a flat CA fee doesn't capture.
What the data tells you about your next proposal
Resource planning intelligence
CA workload · reviewer performance · staffing signals
Derived from reviewer-level submittal data · 11-year Meridian baseline
Reviewers tracked
11
Min. 50 submittals reviewed
Top reviewer volume
2,171
Murphy, Jessica
Highest resubmit rate
15.2%
Anderson, David
Fastest review cycle
10.2d
Cooper, Timothy
Slowest review cycle
21.0d
Zhang, Michelle
Reviewer workload & performance
Review cycle time and resubmit rate by team member. Resubmit rate reflects submittals returned under their review — it measures review quality, not just volume. Click any row for detail.
| Reviewer | Submittals reviewed | Resubmit rate | Avg review time | Workload signal |
|---|
Review volume by team member
Resubmit rate vs. review time — efficiency scatter
Upper-left = fast but high resubmit (potential QA tradeoff). Lower-right = thorough but slow (potential bottleneck). Lower-left = benchmark performance.
What the reviewer data tells you
Risk mitigation intelligence
From insight to action — Meridian Studio portfolio
CAi recommendations based on 11-year CA dataset · 2025
CAi confidence
HIGH
51,781 records · 11-year baseline
Document standards gaps — where RFI volume signals drawing quality issues
| Division | Gap identified | Recommended action | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Concrete (03) | Highest resubmit rate (14.6%) — structural connection details and mix designs returning at 1.5× portfolio rate | Require engineer-confirmed concrete submittal checklist before GC submission. Build pre-approved mix design library by project type. Structural engineer to confirm submittal readiness before filing. | Critical |
| Thermal & Moisture | Longest review cycle at 36.6 days — envelope specialist bottleneck in review process | Mandate early submittal filing for roofing/waterproofing (week 2–3 of CA, not week 6). Designate a backup envelope reviewer on all projects. Add review time allowance to CA scope for this division. | Critical |
| Openings (08) | 18.8-day avg review cycle + 9.7% resubmit — glazing coordination recurring friction point | Mandate pre-submittal coordination meeting with glazing subcontractor before shop drawings are issued. Add standard head/sill/jamb details to firm drawing standards. | High |
| Metals (05) | 19.0-day review cycle — structural steel connection schedule incomplete at CD issue | Require structural engineer to issue complete connection schedule with CDs. Flag as a contract deliverable, not a shop drawing item. | High |
| Finishes (09) | 17.4-day review cycle — finish schedules not coordinated with submittal log at CA start | Issue complete finish schedule with spec sections cross-referenced at CA kickoff. Build pre-approved product families by client type (especially Corporate and Retail). | Moderate |
Consultant performance — where your data supports a contract language conversation
Concrete contractors — 14.6% resubmit across 5,147 submittals · contractual pre-submission QA required
The concrete resubmit rate is persistent and not project-specific — it appears across typologies and studios, suggesting it's a systemic issue with how structural submittals are prepared before submission. A contractual requirement for engineer-stamped pre-submission checklist (confirming shop drawings have been checked against CDs and structural calculations) would eliminate most first-cycle concrete resubmittals.
Retail general contractors — longest submittal review cycle signals fast-track coordination failure
Retail GCs submit packages earlier in the project timeline but take longer to clear review — a pattern that reflects fast-track construction pressure combined with incomplete submittal packages. Adding a pre-submittal coordination requirement (30-minute call between architect and GC before any package over 10 items is filed) would reduce first-cycle review time on retail projects by an estimated 15–20%.