The panel’s load reaches its rating, while its per-phase currents are understated.
The bid set keeps the existing electrical service, and its own load figures do not show that the new equipment fits.
Coffee shop fit-out bid
A tenant fit-out bid set for a coffee shop: architectural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing drawings with their notes and schedules.
What the review compared
The review read the architectural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing sheets of a coffee shop fit-out bid set, with the notes and schedules on each. Its instructions asked for pricing ambiguities, bid gaps and overlaps, and coordination between trades.
Where the bid set disagrees
The electrical sheets keep the existing service, but the panel load reaches its rating and three equipment circuits are smaller than their loads. Notes disagree on the service feeder and on who pays for roof work, and duct smoke detectors and backflow preventers are required without being shown.
What to verify next
The engineers should confirm the equipment ratings and the panel capacity before bids are compared, and the owner should settle who pays for the roof work. Code checking was enabled; every example is a question for the responsible designers.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Panel load reaches its rating
The panel demand is about its full rating, yet the schedule prints much lower per-phase currents.
Why it matters: Whether the service needs an upgrade is unknown.
What to check: Recalculate and rebalance the phases.
ElectricalThree equipment circuits are smaller than their loads
The ice maker, water heater and espresso machine sit on breakers below their listed loads.
Why it matters: Either the breakers and wire or the loads are wrong.
What to check: Size each circuit from nameplate data.
ElectricalService feeder in one note, unchanged in another
One note has the contractor provide a new service feeder; another keeps the service unchanged.
Why it matters: Some bids will carry the feeder and others not.
What to check: Delete the note or draw the feeder.
ElectricalDuct smoke detectors required but not shown
A mechanical note requires duct smoke detectors; no plan or schedule shows any.
Why it matters: Mechanical and alarm bids may both omit them.
What to check: Show each detector and its installing trade.
Mechanical · ElectricalBackflow preventers missing at the drink equipment
A note requires backflow preventers at the coffee machines and ice maker; the plans show none.
Why it matters: The plumbing bid may leave them out.
What to check: Show each device’s type, size and location.
PlumbingRoof work charged to two parties
One note bills roof alterations to the tenant; plumbing notes bill penetrations to the contractor.
Why it matters: Bids will not compare.
What to check: State who pays the landlord’s roofer.
Architectural · PlumbingRated wall board conflicts and no wall is marked
The rated partition’s board thickness conflicts with its design note, and no plan wall uses it.
Why it matters: Which walls are rated is unknown.
What to check: Mark rated walls and fix the thickness.
ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, and Architectural
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High, Medium, and Low priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority.
Drawing coordination and code checking
Code checking was enabled alongside the review of plans, schedules, details, and notes.
Findings connected to their source context
Groundbook links each finding to the sheets it came from so the responsible designer can confirm or dismiss it.
Potential impacts describe the issue type. They are not verified outcomes from this project.
Follow the information across the complete set
Groundbook reads the documents you upload and reports where they disagree, where a reference does not resolve, and where a required value is absent.
See how a full set is reviewed or how interfaces are coordinated.
- 1Map the complete set
Identify sheets, disciplines, details, schedules, and notes.
- 2Connect repeated information
Follow tags, references, and requirements wherever they reappear.
- 3Check drawings and code references
Read the detected code references alongside the drawing evidence.
- 4Return findings for verification
Organize potential issues by severity, discipline, and supporting context.
Questions for professional verification
The output supports the responsible designers as they review the source documents and decide what needs to change.
What this result means
- Groundbook surfaced potential issues for professional review.
- Severity helps prioritize which questions to investigate.
- The findings describe coordination, completeness, and code-reference questions in the uploaded set.
- Each finding includes source context for verification.
What it does not mean
- Every potential finding is a confirmed error or violation.
- The project was unsafe, unbuildable, or ultimately noncompliant.
- Groundbook replaced the responsible professionals or authority.
- A correction was made, or any cost or delay was avoided.
About this review
Is this a real review?
Based on a Groundbook review completed in October 2026. Findings are summarized.
Are these findings confirmed defects?
No. Each one is a potential issue for the responsible designer to verify against the source documents. Groundbook reports what the documents say and where they disagree. It does not make design decisions, certify compliance, or replace the authority having jurisdiction.
How long did the review take?
Turnaround runs from 20 minutes to 24 hours depending on project size.
Which codes were checked?
Code checking was enabled for this review. Groundbook detects the codes a set references, reads the codes and amendments that governments publish online, and uses licensed codes only where a license allows it.
Can I see a full report?
Yes. The sample plan review report shows all 79 findings from one review of a drawing set and its specifications, with the cited excerpts.
Continue from the case study
Explore the source-linked examples in the sample plan review report, or browse every published case study.
Give the next drawing set a connected first pass
Upload the project, choose the checks that matter, and receive structured potential findings with source context.