Four sheets show addendum revisions that no addendum issues.
Trades get two answers on who furnishes equipment, which breakers to buy and which revised sheets belong in the bid.
Kennel facility bid set
A single-story kennel and training facility bid set spanning civil, architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, electrical and interiors sheets.
What the review compared
The review followed equipment, fixtures and systems from the architectural room sheets into the plumbing, mechanical, electrical and structural schedules. Its instructions also asked which submittals each trade would need, so each example names the item a trade cannot yet price or submit.
What bidders need to resolve
Equipment responsibility changed between an equipment list and its key notes. Revision clouds on four sheets cited an addendum that did not issue them, and the panel and equipment schedules gave different breakers and controls for the same units.
What to verify next
The design team should issue an addendum that settles the revised sheets, complete the structural design criteria and confirm the governing code editions. Code checking was enabled; the examples are questions for the responsible designers.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Clouded revisions have no issuing addendum
Four sheets carry addendum revision clouds, but the bound addendum only extends the deadline.
Why it matters: Bidders may price different sheet versions.
What to check: Issue an addendum that describes the clouded changes.
Civil · Mechanical · PlumbingEquipment responsibility conflicts
One list makes the ice machine and microwave contractor furnished; key notes make them owner furnished.
Why it matters: Equipment may be bought twice or not at all.
What to check: Assign one furnish-and-install responsibility to each item.
Architectural · ElectricalPanel schedule swaps two HVAC breakers
The panel schedule reverses the breaker sizes the equipment schedules give two HVAC units.
Why it matters: Breakers ordered from the panel schedule would suit neither unit.
What to check: Correct the panel schedule to match the equipment data.
Electrical · MechanicalKennel exhaust would stop with the lights
The electrical schedule switches the kennel exhaust fan with the lights; mechanical schedules constant operation.
Why it matters: Kennel exhaust would stop whenever the lights are off.
What to check: Confirm the control intent and align the electrical schedule.
Electrical · MechanicalSnow and seismic design values are placeholders
The structural design loads notes leave the snow loads and most seismic values as placeholders.
Why it matters: The truss designer has no snow load to design for.
What to check: Complete the design criteria before truss submittals.
StructuralStructural notes cite an older building code
The code summary lists one IBC edition; the structural notes require an edition nine years older.
Why it matters: Structural submittals could be prepared and reviewed to different editions.
What to check: Cite the adopted edition consistently.
Structural · ArchitecturalKennel wall omits required insulation
Bare masonry separates the conditioned kennels from the outdoor runs; the envelope table requires continuous insulation.
Why it matters: Bids for the wall as drawn will omit the insulation.
What to check: Add the insulation or confirm the wall’s envelope classification.
ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Plumbing, Electrical, Structural, Civil, Mechanical, and Interiors
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.