The bill of quantities measures 23 more emergency lights than the plans draw.
The electrical drawings and the bill of quantities count boards, fittings and devices for several apartment blocks, shops and parking, and the counts do not match.
Housing electrical bill of quantities
Electrical drawings for a multi-block residential development with shops and parking: supply diagrams and lighting, power and fire safety plans, read with the bill of quantities.
What the review compared
The review counted the boards, fittings, cables and devices on each electrical plan and in the supply diagrams, by block and by floor, and compared them with each item in the bill of quantities. Its instructions asked for omissions, quantity differences and unclear descriptions.
Where the bill and the drawings differ
Wall lights, shop fire detection and a second safety board appear on the drawings with no matching bill item. Elsewhere the bill counts more emergency lights than are drawn, swaps two apartment board types and measures feeders at a smaller size.
What to verify next
The electrical designer should issue the board diagrams the bill relies on and reconcile each item by block and floor before tenders are compared. Code checking was enabled; every example is a question for the responsible designer.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Board diagrams the bill relies on are missing
Bill items price board equipment from single-line diagrams that the drawings do not contain.
Why it matters: Protective devices in every board cannot be priced.
What to check: Issue a diagram for each board type.
ElectricalApartment board types are swapped
The bill swaps the quantities of two apartment board types against the plans.
Why it matters: Totals agree, but 18 boards are priced as the wrong type.
What to check: Correct the quantities per block.
ElectricalBill counts more emergency lights than drawn
The bill measures 149 maintained emergency luminaires; the plans draw 126, plus three unmeasured non-maintained units.
Why it matters: Extra units are priced and three have no price.
What to check: Recount by block and floor.
ElectricalWall lights drawn with no bill item
Plans show one wall luminaire type on every floor; no bill item measures it.
Why it matters: Dozens of fittings are left out of the price.
What to check: Add an item and confirm the tag.
ElectricalShop fire detection is drawn but not measured
Shop plans show alarm panels, detectors and call points without cable; the bill measures none.
Why it matters: Whether this work is in the contract is unclear.
What to check: Confirm scope, then draw cabling and add items.
ElectricalShop and parking feeders priced at a smaller size
The bill measures shop and parking feeders smaller than the supply diagram and plans.
Why it matters: The cable is priced below the drawn size.
What to check: Correct the cable sizes in the bill.
ElectricalSecond safety board drawn but not in the diagram
Two plans draw a second safety-circuit board; the diagram and bill have one.
Why it matters: Where half the floor’s emergency circuits start is unclear.
What to check: Confirm the board, then add or remove it.
ElectricalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Electrical
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
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.