Water piping is drawn over transformers, a panel and disconnect switches.
The progress set’s mechanical, plumbing and electrical sheets were checked against each other, the typical details and the codes named in the set.
Health sciences building MEP
A mechanical, plumbing and electrical progress set for a three-storey university teaching building.
What the review compared
The review laid the mechanical, plumbing and electrical plans of each room over one another and followed equipment from the schedules into the plans, riser and panel schedules. It also checked the typical details and notes against the building, mechanical, plumbing, fuel gas and energy codes named in the set.
Where the systems collide
Piping and a fan coil run over electrical equipment, fan coils sit inside exit stairs and electrical rooms, and a plant diagram describes equipment from another plant. On the electrical side, several loads have no circuits and the feeders below the main switchboard are unsized.
What to verify next
The mechanical and electrical engineers should settle equipment locations in the electrical rooms and stairs, complete the circuiting and feeders, and correct the airflow and exhaust schedules before the next issue. Code checking was enabled; the examples are questions for the engineers of record.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Water piping crosses electrical gear
Piping plans route water lines over transformers, a panel and two air handler disconnects.
Why it matters: Pipes or gear would move during construction.
What to check: Reroute the piping or relocate the disconnects.
Plumbing · Mechanical · ElectricalFan coil sits over the main switchboard
One fan coil overlaps the main switchboard and the space reserved above it.
Why it matters: The unit and its piping must move.
What to check: Relocate it clear of the working space.
Mechanical · ElectricalFan coils are inside exit stairs
Four hydronic fan coils sit inside the exit stairs, needing piping the code prohibits there.
Why it matters: Stair heating must change before permit.
What to check: Relocate the units or use pipeless equipment.
MechanicalPlant diagram shows a campus plant
The piping diagram shows chillers, cooling towers and campus loops this building does not have.
Why it matters: Bidders may price absent equipment.
What to check: Replace it with this building’s plant diagram.
MechanicalLocker rooms have no exhaust
Locker and changing rooms get supply air, but no exhaust is drawn or scheduled.
Why it matters: Required exhaust is not priced.
What to check: Add exhaust fans and ducts.
MechanicalSeveral loads have no power circuits
The elevator, fire alarm panel, dry-pipe compressor and gas water heaters appear in no panel schedule.
Why it matters: Their circuits cannot be priced or installed.
What to check: Add feeders and circuits to the schedules.
Electrical · Fire Protection · PlumbingReheat minimum airflow exceeds the energy code limit
Every reheat box is scheduled at a 50 percent minimum airflow.
Why it matters: Zones reheat beyond the energy code limit.
What to check: Reset the minimums or document the exception.
MechanicalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, and Fire Protection
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.