GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Construction InfrastructureTop 10 Best Planning Consultancy Services of 2026
Top 10 ranking of planning consultancy services with Jacobs, Stantec, and Mott MacDonald coverage, focusing on selection criteria and tradeoffs for teams.
How we ranked these tools
Vendors set the topic, but our editors set the inclusion criteria and the evaluation framework before research starts.
Agents extract product evidence with provenance, then collect written reviews and transcribe video reviews and podcasts.
Framework: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%
Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page — this does not influence rankings. Editorial policy
Jacobs is the best planning consultancy pick for projects needing coordinated transport, flood risk, and environmental evidence that can feed planning applications and obligation packs because it consolidates the multidisciplinary work into decision-ready submissions, while RPS Group suits development teams that want policy interpretation paired with evidence assembly across the full application document set.
Editor’s top 3 picks
Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.
Jacobs
Consolidated delivery across transport, flood risk, and environmental planning evidence that feeds planning applications and obligations packages.
Best for: Fits when projects need coordinated planning policy, application support, and technical studies delivered together.
Stantec
Editor pickIntegrated delivery across planning, architecture, transportation, water, buildings, and environmental disciplines for interdependent capital programs.
Best for: Fits when public agencies or developers need one consultancy for complex, multidisciplinary growth programs.
Mott MacDonald
Editor pickEvidence package integration across transport, environmental, and land-use disciplines within a single submission workflow.
Best for: Fits when multi-disciplinary planning evidence must be coordinated for planning applications or local authority reviews.
Comparison Table
Jacobs
enterprise_vendorGlobal technical consultancy with planning, transportation, and infrastructure advisory services.
Consolidated delivery across transport, flood risk, and environmental planning evidence that feeds planning applications and obligations packages.
Jacobs delivers planning consultancy work through development management support, strategic planning, and infrastructure-led spatial planning across complex jurisdictions. The consultancy differentiates through cross-disciplinary teams that connect land-use planning with transport, flood risk, environmental permitting, and stakeholder engagement deliverables.
Jacobs also produces decision-ready documentation for planning applications and policy stages, including viability assessment inputs and consultation packages tailored to planning committee processes. For project teams needing durable governance over outputs and change control across multiple workstreams, Jacobs fits better than vendors focused only on single-document drafting.
- +Multi-disciplinary delivery that links land-use, transport, and environmental studies
- +Structured planning deliverables aligned to planning committee and decision workflows
- +Clear document production through consistent templates across application and policy stages
- +Experience with planning obligations inputs such as Section 106 and CIL
- –Engagement-style delivery can feel slower than drafting-only specialist providers
- –Coverage depth varies by geography and requires scoping for each workstream
- –Collaboration overhead increases when many consultees and agencies must be coordinated
- –Automation and API surface are limited because services center on consultancy outputs
Best for: Fits when projects need coordinated planning policy, application support, and technical studies delivered together.
Stantec
enterprise_vendorGlobal design and engineering firm with a major planning consultancy division.
Integrated delivery across planning, architecture, transportation, water, buildings, and environmental disciplines for interdependent capital programs.
Public agencies, developers, and infrastructure owners gain the most from Stantec's multidisciplinary delivery model. Planning teams can draw on transportation, water, buildings, environmental science, and digital mapping specialists within the same engagement. That structure reduces handoffs for projects where land decisions depend on infrastructure capacity or environmental constraints.
The tradeoff is coordination overhead across a large international organization, especially when local offices provide different specialist coverage. A transit-oriented district program is a strong use case because Stantec can connect station access, utilities, public-realm design, environmental constraints, and development sequencing.
- +Planning, engineering, architecture, and environmental disciplines share one delivery structure.
- +Strong coverage for transit, water, buildings, and large district programs.
- +International teams support jurisdiction-specific approvals and stakeholder processes.
- +GIS and scenario analysis support evidence-based site decisions.
- –Large multidisciplinary engagements can require substantial client-side coordination.
- –Service quality depends on the local office and assigned technical specialists.
- –Smaller assignments may not need Stantec's full discipline breadth.
Public-sector growth teams
Regional growth framework
Coordinated growth priorities
Real estate developers
Mixed-use district feasibility
Earlier investment decisions
Show 2 more scenarios
Transit authorities
Station area redevelopment
Integrated station planning
Planning and engineering teams align station access, public realm, utilities, and adjacent development requirements.
Industrial property owners
Complex site expansion
Lower expansion risk
Environmental, civil, and permitting specialists identify constraints and sequence infrastructure decisions for phased expansion.
Best for: Fits when public agencies or developers need one consultancy for complex, multidisciplinary growth programs.
Mott MacDonald
enterprise_vendorGlobal engineering, management, and development consultancy with active planning advisory practice.
Evidence package integration across transport, environmental, and land-use disciplines within a single submission workflow.
Mott MacDonald delivers planning consultancy work that links transport, environment, and land-use constraints into development management and spatial planning submissions. The firm commonly supports scoping, evidence planning, and multi-disciplinary assessments that feed planning statements, development briefs, and design and access documentation.
Its planning teams are staffed to manage technical workflows for transport evidence, environmental impact assessment inputs, and feasibility checks across stakeholder and authority review cycles. Delivery quality is driven by consistent document control and coordination across specialist disciplines rather than by a software product layer.
- +Multi-disciplinary coordination across transport, environment, and land-use evidence
- +Clear scoping to turn policy and site constraints into submission-ready evidence packs
- +Experienced delivery teams for development management and strategic planning tasks
- +Structured document workflows that reduce cross-discipline version drift
- –Requires early inputs and responsive stakeholder scheduling to meet typical authority timelines
- –Not optimized for teams needing automated planning application document generation tools
- –Automation and API surfaces are not offered for integrating planning evidence into internal software
- –Project outcomes depend on consultant-led analysis, not on configurable self-serve models
Best for: Fits when multi-disciplinary planning evidence must be coordinated for planning applications or local authority reviews.
Savills
enterprise_vendorGlobal property consultancy with a dedicated planning advisory division.
Pre-application advice and committee-facing submission structuring that ties scheme changes directly to planning policy tests.
Savills delivers planning consultancy work that is anchored in real-world development management and planning policy practice. Its core offering centers on site appraisal, feasibility assessment, and planning statements that align proposals to local plan requirements and committee expectations.
- +Planning statements that translate policy and design considerations into decision-facing submissions
- +Integrated feasibility and viability thinking across scheme options for clearer planning risk calls
- +Coordinated supporting reports such as transport and flood risk for consistent evidence trails
- +Stakeholder engagement and pre-application advice support aimed at reducing committee friction
- –Primarily consultancy delivery with limited evidence of a documented API or automation surface
- –Governance artifacts like audit logs and RBAC controls are not a native, software-centric deliverable
- –Workflow throughput depends on engagement staffing rather than self-serve automation
- –Standardised templates can limit flexibility when authorities demand highly bespoke formats
Best for: Fits when project teams need council-ready planning packages and coordinated advisory input for complex applications.
AECOM
enterprise_vendorGlobal infrastructure consultancy with major planning, environmental, and urban development practices.
Committee-ready planning statement production that reconciles design narratives with technical assessment conclusions across disciplines.
AECOM operates as an integrated planning team with multi-disciplinary capability that supports strategic planning, masterplanning, and spatial planning packages rather than single-discipline studies. Typical delivery bundles combine design and access statement support, planning statement writing, and coordinated technical evidence for planning applications. The engagement model fits development management timelines that require cross-consistency between drawings, narratives, and assessment findings.
- +Multi-disciplinary coordination across planning, design, transport, and environmental evidence
- +Clear pathway from site appraisal to planning statement support for committee
- +Experience handling planning obligations and condition wording in negotiations
- +Workflow discipline for multi-asset masterplanning and strategic planning packages
- –Cross-team scope boundaries need governance to avoid rework
- –Turnaround depends on dependency ordering across technical evidence streams
- –Specialized deliverables can require internal stakeholder availability
- –Admin handover artifacts may lag behind iterative design changes
Best for: Fits when multi-disciplinary planning applications need tightly coordinated evidence and stakeholder-ready narratives.
RPS Group
specialistGlobal consultancy providing planning, environmental, and development advisory services.
Planning submissions support that integrates policy interpretation with evidence assembly across the full application document set.
RPS Group is a planning consultancy service provider that supports development management from early feasibility through application support. Its delivery emphasis centers on structured planning analysis and evidence packages used by project teams to defend planning policy positions.
- +Clear planning evidence development for planning applications and decision-making needs
- +Structured handling of multi-discipline inputs used in planning statement style submissions
- +Experience supporting stakeholder engagement materials tied to development proposals
- +Practical support for drafting and refinement of planning obligation narratives
- –Requires tight internal document ownership from the project team to keep outputs consistent
- –Less suited for teams seeking automation-first workflows or API-driven integration
- –Workflow timing can become dependent on external survey and data availability
- –Depth varies by local authority context and the completeness of supplied project constraints
Best for: Fits when development teams need consultancy-led planning evidence packages and coordinated submission support.
Atkins
enterprise_vendorGlobal engineering and design consultancy with planning and infrastructure advisory services.
Integrated delivery across planning, transport, flood risk, environment, and heritage evidence into one committee-ready package.
Atkins supports planning teams with development management and spatial planning delivery for complex sites, policy-heavy areas, and multi-stakeholder projects. The service depth typically includes pre-application advice, planning statements and supporting technical assessments, and scheme-to-policy coherence work for planning committee submissions.
- +Cross-discipline planning packages that connect transport, flood risk, and environment inputs
- +Document-led workflows for planning statements that reflect decision committee expectations
- +Strong support for pre-application advice and subsequent iteration of submissions
- +Experienced handling of planning obligations topics like Section 106 and CIL mechanics
- –Governance and review cycles can add time on tightly controlled stakeholders
- –Less suitable for teams needing lightweight, self-serve planning drafting support
- –Collaboration relies heavily on project team coordination across multiple technical streams
- –Document outputs can require extra internal consolidation for highly fragmented data sources
Best for: Fits when multidisciplinary planning submissions need coordinated technical evidence and decision-ready drafting.
Lichfields
specialistUK planning and development consultancy specializing in town planning advisory.
Committee-focused development management support that translates policy positions into defensible decision-maker narratives.
Lichfields is a UK planning consultancy focused on development management, planning policy, and project-specific feasibility advice. Its work covers end to end planning application support, including pre-application engagement, committee reporting, and drafting planning statements that align with local plan expectations.
- +Strong drafting of planning statements tied to local plan policy tests
- +Clear workflow for pre-application advice through committee stage reporting
- +Experience coordinating supporting technical reports for application submissions
- +Practical focus on conditions wording and planning obligation negotiations
- –Best results depend on timely client input for site facts and constraints
- –Integration for automation or API-driven workflows is not part of the service
- –Specialist coverage depth can vary by geography and project complexity
- –Requires active governance to manage large multi-consultant application packs
Best for: Fits when projects need planning policy interpretation, application assembly, and committee-ready justification across multiple technical chapters.
Iceni Projects
specialistUK planning and development consultancy covering planning, economics, and infrastructure.
Policy-aligned drafting that ties planning position to feasibility and obligation handling across submission and negotiation stages.
Iceni Projects delivers planning consultancy services focused on planning applications, policy strategy inputs, and development management support for complex land-use proposals. Delivery commonly centers on assembling planning statements and supporting technical narratives that align proposal intent to local plan policy and decision-maker expectations.
- +Structured planning statement drafting that maps proposal components to decision criteria
- +Strong support for development management style responses to committee and officer concerns
- +Feasibility-focused advice that clarifies viability implications for planning negotiations
- +Clear coordination of consultation inputs into a coherent planning narrative
- –Best suited to text-led submissions, with limited evidence of end to end technical modelling
- –Requires clear project data handover to avoid iterative clarification cycles
- –Automation and API surface is not positioned as a core part of delivery
- –Governance controls are delivery-led rather than platform-driven for audit workflows
Best for: Fits when project teams need end-to-end drafting and planning negotiation support for policy-heavy applications.
Pegasus Group
specialistUK planning, design, and environmental consultancy with pure planning focus.
Integrated multidisciplinary staffing across planning, design, environment, economics, transport and heritage under one consultancy brief.
The consultancy works across residential, commercial, energy, infrastructure and mixed-use development. Its service mix can cover early land review, feasibility, landscape, ecology, heritage, flood risk, transport and commercial inputs within one development programme. The tradeoff is coordination overhead on smaller commissions, where a narrower specialist may provide faster access to senior staff.
- +Broad in-house coverage across planning, design, environment, economics, transport and heritage
- +Strong multidisciplinary support for residential, energy and infrastructure programmes
- +Regional office network supports local authority and stakeholder engagement
- +Useful combination of strategic advice and technical project delivery
- –Broad scope can add coordination overhead on small commissions
- –Senior contact consistency may differ between offices and project teams
- –Specialist outputs depend on careful project-specific team assembly
Best for: Fits when developers need one UK consultancy coordinating planning, design, environmental and commercial workstreams.
Conclusion
After evaluating 10 planning consultancy, Jacobs stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.
Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.
How to Choose the Right Planning Consultancy
Planning consultancy work turns site facts, policy tests, and technical studies into decision-ready planning applications and negotiation packages. This guide covers Jacobs, Stantec, and Pegasus Group alongside Mott MacDonald, AECOM, RPS Group, Atkins, Savills, Lichfields, and Iceni Projects.
The sections after the individual provider reviews focus on how each consultancy delivers coordinated evidence across planning, design, and specialist inputs, plus how much delivery structure varies by geography and local resourcing. The comparison also tracks where the work stays document-led and where it runs through submission-ready evidence packs that reduce rework across planning committee or officer review rhythms.
Planning Consultancy delivery that assembles policy tests, evidence packs, and committee-ready submissions
Planning consultancy is advisory and delivery work that connects planning policy, development management interpretation, and technical studies into planning statement style chapters that match how decision-makers assess proposals. Jacobs and Mott MacDonald emphasize integrated evidence packaging across transport, flood risk, environmental planning evidence, and land-use constraints so planning applications and obligations packages stay consistent.
Stantec and AECOM concentrate on coordinated multidisciplinary delivery for interdependent capital programs where planning, architecture, transport, water, buildings, and environmental disciplines must align inside one consultancy delivery structure. Savills, Lichfields, and Iceni Projects focus more on drafting and policy interpretation workflows that translate scheme changes into decision-facing arguments, which is helpful for pre-application advice and committee-facing structuring when fast iteration on narrative and policy alignment matters.
Category capabilities that decide Planning Consultancy outcomes
Planning consultancy projects live or die on whether policy tests and technical studies get assembled into decision-ready planning statement style chapters that match committee and officer review rhythms. The most reliable consultancies treat evidence coordination as a delivery system, not as an ad hoc document handover.
This section focuses on how providers build integrated planning evidence packs across transport, flood risk, environmental inputs, and land-use constraints, then controls the dependency ordering that turns drafts into submission-ready work products.
Integrated evidence pack assembly across planning and specialist studies
Jacobs is built for consolidated delivery across transport, flood risk, and environmental planning evidence feeding planning applications and obligations packages. Mott MacDonald supports evidence package integration across transport, environmental, and land-use disciplines inside one submission workflow.
End-to-end multidisciplinary delivery structure for interdependent programs
Stantec coordinates planning, architecture, transportation, water, buildings, and environmental disciplines inside one delivery structure for complex capital programs. Pegasus Group offers one consultancy brief with in-house coverage across planning, design, environment, economics, transport, and heritage for UK residential, energy, and infrastructure programmes.
Committee-facing narrative structure that maps scheme changes to policy tests
Savills emphasizes pre-application advice and committee-facing submission structuring that ties scheme changes directly to planning policy tests. Lichfields focuses on committee-focused development management support that translates policy positions into defensible decision-maker narratives.
Planning submission support that integrates policy interpretation with evidence assembly
RPS Group handles planning submissions that integrate policy interpretation with evidence assembly across the full application document set. Atkins delivers cross-discipline planning packages that connect transport, flood risk, and environment inputs into one committee-ready evidence build.
Evidence coordination governance and client input dependencies
Jacobs can feel slower when delivery resembles engagement-style coordination instead of drafting-only specialist work, so scoping for each workstream matters. Mott MacDonald requires early inputs and responsive stakeholder scheduling to meet typical authority timelines.
How to choose a Planning Consultancy based on delivery mechanics and workstream coordination
Teams should pick a consultancy based on whether delivery is organized around coordinated evidence packs or around consultancy-led drafting and policy interpretation. The right choice depends on how many technical studies must feed a single planning statement and how tightly the work must align to decision workflows.
The steps below use two decision forks that split consultancies by delivery philosophy. One fork targets evidence-pack integration depth and dependency ordering, and the other targets how much the provider relies on client-side ownership and structured inputs.
Select evidence-pack integration depth when multiple technical studies must feed one submission
Choose Jacobs when transport, flood risk, and environmental planning evidence must be consolidated into planning applications and obligations packages without mismatched chapters. Choose Mott MacDonald when transport, environmental, and land-use evidence must be coordinated inside one submission workflow with scoping that turns policy and site constraints into submission-ready evidence packs.
Choose a single delivery structure for interdependent capital programs
Pick Stantec when planning must run with architecture, transportation, water, buildings, and environmental disciplines under one delivery structure for large district programs. Pick AECOM when the priority is tightly coordinated planning applications that reconcile design narratives with technical assessment conclusions across disciplines.
Match committee-facing structuring needs to drafting orientation
Choose Savills when pre-application advice and committee-facing structuring must translate policy and design considerations into decision-facing planning statement submissions. Choose Lichfields when policy interpretation must be turned into committee-ready justification across multiple technical chapters with a clear workflow from pre-application advice through committee stage reporting.
Confirm who owns document consistency when multi-discipline inputs are routed through planning statements
Choose RPS Group when development teams can provide tight internal document ownership to keep outputs consistent across the planning evidence set. Choose Atkins when decision-ready committee packages depend on cross-discipline evidence alignment but accept that governance and review cycles can add time for tightly controlled stakeholders.
Check whether the provider is automation-first versus document-led delivery
Choose consultancies that explicitly avoid automation-first positioning when planning work must stay text-led with structured planning statement drafting and negotiation support. Choose Iceni Projects when policy-aligned drafting must map proposal components to decision criteria with strong development management style responses, while planning for limited end-to-end technical modelling.
Plan for coordination overhead when scope spans many in-house disciplines
Choose Pegasus Group when one UK consultancy must coordinate planning, design, environment, economics, transport, and heritage under one brief across residential, energy, and infrastructure programmes. Avoid it for small commissions when broad scope can add coordination overhead, and when senior contact consistency may differ between offices and project teams.
Who should buy Planning Consultancy services and what each buyer needs
Project teams should buy planning consultancy services when decision-makers require policy-tested narratives and evidence packs that connect scheme design to technical studies. The right buyers tend to have cross-disciplinary workstreams or tight committee submission timelines where evidence ordering drives rework costs.
These segments map common planning consultancy buying situations to specific provider delivery patterns and limitations.
Developers coordinating planning applications plus obligation packages across multiple disciplines
Jacobs fits when planning applications and obligations packages need consolidated delivery that links land-use, transport, and environmental studies into consistent submission outputs. Mott MacDonald fits when evidence-package integration across transport, environmental, and land-use disciplines must be coordinated inside one submission workflow.
Public agencies running complex growth programs with interdependent capital works
Stantec fits when one consultancy delivery structure must coordinate planning, architecture, transportation, water, buildings, and environmental disciplines. This configuration reduces split-resourcing risk because multiple disciplines share one delivery structure rather than separate consultants.
Teams preparing pre-application advice and committee-ready submissions that must withstand policy tests
Savills fits when policy tests must be directly tied to scheme changes through planning statement style submissions for council-facing decisions. Lichfields fits when policy positions must become defensible decision-maker narratives across multiple technical chapters with a clear workflow from pre-application advice through committee reporting.
Development management teams assembling full application document sets from multi-discipline inputs
RPS Group fits when planning evidence development must integrate policy interpretation with evidence assembly across the full application document set. Atkins fits when committee-ready drafting must connect transport, flood risk, and environment inputs into a single coordinated evidence build.
UK projects that require one consultancy coordinating planning, design, environment, and commercial workstreams
Pegasus Group fits when in-house multidisciplinary staffing must coordinate planning, design, environment, economics, transport, and heritage under one consultancy brief for residential, energy, and infrastructure programmes. Buyer teams should expect coordination overhead on small commissions and possible variation in senior contact consistency.
Common Planning Consultancy pitfalls that create rework or delayed submissions
Planning consultancies fail most often when buyers mismatch delivery mechanics to the workstream reality. The fastest drafting and the smoothest committees depend on evidence dependency sequencing and clear document ownership, not only on writing quality.
The pitfalls below focus on coordination and governance mismatches that show up across these consultancies.
Treating multidisciplinary evidence coordination as a drafting task
Jacobs and Mott MacDonald both frame delivery around integrating evidence packs, so buyers should scope for early inputs and workstream sequencing. Teams that only request a planning statement without coordinating transport, flood risk, and environmental evidence will trigger inconsistent chapter alignment.
Buying a large multidisciplinary program structure without allocating client-side coordination
Stantec can require substantial client-side coordination on large multidisciplinary engagements, so project teams must assign document ownership and review pathways. RPS Group likewise needs tight internal document ownership to keep outputs consistent across the full application document set.
Expecting automation-first document generation controls from consultancy-led drafting providers
Savills, Lichfields, RPS Group, and Iceni Projects focus on consultancy delivery and document-led workflows rather than a documented API or automation surface, so buyers should plan for document production through human-led drafting and review cycles. Mott MacDonald is explicit that it is not optimized for teams needing automated planning application document generation tools.
Underestimating governance and review-cycle time for tightly controlled stakeholders
Atkins notes that governance and review cycles can add time for tightly controlled stakeholders, so buyers should schedule stakeholder reviews in the critical path. Jacobs can also feel slower when delivery resembles engagement-style coordination, so scoping per workstream should be defined before evidence assembly starts.
Over-scoping a broad multidisciplinary brief on small commissions
Pegasus Group can add coordination overhead on small commissions because broad scope spans many in-house disciplines. Buyers should also manage risk where senior contact consistency differs between offices and project teams.
How analysts checked Planning Consultancy fit
Analysts gathered information by opening the original publication and copying the specific figures shown beside each relevant passage about planning consultancy services. Analysts then compared each copied figure with official documentation and changelogs, and they incorporated independent reviews when a cited comparison existed in the publication context.
Analysts also kept figures only when they matched those supporting documents. Jacobs was treated as the leading reference point because its delivery emphasis on consolidated multi-disciplinary evidence that feeds planning applications and obligations packages appeared consistently across the provider feature set used for these picks.
Frequently Asked Questions About Planning Consultancy
Which consultancy fits when transport and flood risk evidence must land in the same planning application package?
How does development management document control get handled across multi-application workstreams?
Where does coordination overhead become a real tradeoff for large, multidisciplinary consultancies?
What breaks if a consultancy cannot map planning policy position to feasibility and obligations drafting?
When should a project team prefer a policy-heavy committee narrative over a software-led workflow?
How do onboarding and scoping typically work for multi-disciplinary planning evidence and technical assessments?
Which provider is best when stakeholder engagement deliverables must stay consistent with the planning position?
How do teams avoid planning condition and negotiation churn across feasibility and design iterations?
Which consultancy approach fits when outputs must be defendable in authority review cycles with traceable decisions?
Tools reviewed
Primary sources checked during evaluation.
Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.
Funding and competing interests
This study was co-funded by several of the vendors assessed in it. No single vendor funded it. Funders could propose the market studied.
They had no role in selecting vendors, setting or weighting criteria, analysing data or drawing conclusions, and they received the same factual-accuracy check as every other vendor assessed.
Market definition, inclusion rules and criteria weights were fixed by an editor before research began and did not change afterwards. Editorial process →
- Construction InfrastructureTop 10 Best Building Consultancy Services of 2026
- Construction InfrastructureTop 10 Best Medical Equipment Planning Services of 2026
- Construction InfrastructureTop 10 Best Consulting Structural Engineering Services of 2026
- Construction InfrastructureTop 10 Best Construction Planning Software of 2026
- Business FinanceTop 10 Best Consultancy Software of 2026
Keep exploring
Comparing two specific tools?
Software Alternatives
See head-to-head software comparisons with feature breakdowns, pricing, and our recommendation for each use case.
Explore software alternatives→In this category
Construction Infrastructure alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of construction infrastructure tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare construction infrastructure tools→