Two panels’ feeders are swapped against their ratings, so one panel’s load exceeds its breaker.
The plan sheets, the project manual and five addenda describe the electrical, fire alarm and low-voltage work differently, before bids are priced.
Elementary school electrical bid scope
Multi-discipline plan sheets for a new elementary school campus, read with the project manual and five addenda, with a focus on electrical and low-voltage scope.
What the review compared
The review read the plan sheets with the project manual and five addenda, following the electrical, fire alarm and low-voltage scope. Its instructions asked for pricing ambiguities, changes made by addenda and work that no trade clearly carries.
Where the bid documents disagree
Two panels have their feeders swapped, and the data outlet and fire alarm circuit requirements differ between the specifications and the drawings. An addendum adds air unit shutdowns that the plans do not support, and a radio coverage system, fire fighter phones and sprinkler switches have no clear trade.
What to verify next
Bidders should send these questions before bid day, and the electrical engineer should answer them in an addendum that changes both the drawings and the specifications. This review did not enable code checking; the examples are questions for the responsible designers.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Two panels have their feeders swapped
The one-line feeds each panel with the other’s breaker; one panel’s load exceeds its breaker.
Why it matters: Breakers, feeders and panels cannot be priced as drawn.
What to check: Match each feeder to its panel’s bus and load.
ElectricalData outlet conduits differ from the specification
Drawing notes give each data outlet one conduit; the specification requires two and a different box.
Why it matters: The stricter requirement governs, so drawing-based bids run short.
What to check: State one conduit count and box.
ElectricalFire alarm circuit class differs
The specification requires Class A notification wiring; the risers are drawn as Class B.
Why it matters: Speaker and strobe cable cannot be priced.
What to check: Set the class and revise the specification or risers.
ElectricalAir units have no fire alarm shutdown relays
Addendum schedules require alarm shutdown of four air units; the plans draw smoke detectors instead.
Why it matters: Fire alarm bids would omit four relays.
What to check: Add the relays to plans and risers.
Electrical · MechanicalEmergency responder radio assigned to no trade
A general note requires radio coverage; no electrical sheet, specification or addendum assigns it.
Why it matters: Several trades may price it, or none.
What to check: Confirm the scope or carry an allowance.
Electrical · Low voltage · ArchitecturalFire fighter phones specified but not drawn
The fire alarm specification includes phones and handsets; no fire alarm drawing shows a jack.
Why it matters: The most expensive reading prevails for bidding.
What to check: Show the system or delete it.
ElectricalTwo answers on who furnishes sprinkler switches
The fire alarm specification gives flow and tamper switches to its own trade and to sprinklers.
Why it matters: Switches may be priced twice or not at all.
What to check: Name one furnishing trade in every section.
Electrical · Fire protectionReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Electrical, Low voltage, Mechanical, Fire protection, and Architectural
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High, Medium, and Low priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority.
Coordination and completeness within the set
This review checked the documents against one another. No code check was enabled.
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 coordination and completeness
Compare the documents and identify missing or conflicting information.
- 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 and completeness 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.
Was a code check included?
No code check was enabled for this review. It covered coordination and completeness within the set. Code checking is available: Groundbook reads the building codes that governments publish online and uses licensed codes only where a license allows it. You can upload a copy you’re licensed to use.
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.