More than twenty crossings tagged on the plans have no row in the survey’s crossing table.
The final as-built survey of a new neighborhood’s sanitary sewer was read against the record-survey requirements in the utility’s standards manual, and several records the utility needs are missing or disagree.
Sanitary sewer as-built survey
A final as-built survey of a new neighborhood’s sanitary sewer: gravity main, manholes and laterals, a force main and a lift station wet well, with plans, profiles and manhole, fitting and crossing tables, read against the utility’s standards manual.
What the review compared
The review read the final as-built survey of a new neighborhood’s sanitary sewer: the cover and surveyor’s notes, the plans and profiles of the gravity main, laterals and force main, and the manhole, fitting and crossing tables. Code checking was enabled, and the utility’s standards manual was uploaded as a reference, so the records were read against its record-survey, lining and slope requirements and the state’s surveying standards the review cited.
What the survey does not record
More than twenty crossings tagged on the plans have no row in the crossing table, some printed rows do not compute, and the force main appears only as design linework. The third manhole up from the wet well has no lined label, and the final survey is unsigned, unsealed and undated, with no statement on the utility’s accuracies. Two inverts disagree where they decide a run’s minimum slope, two turning manholes record drops below the minimum, the wet well inlet has no as-built invert, and the horizontal control uses a superseded datum adjustment.
What to verify next
The surveyor should complete the crossing table, add the surveyed force main, state the accuracies and datum, and sign and seal the set before submittal. The engineer of record should settle the lining, slope and channel drop questions and take any variance to the utility for its written decision. Examples that cite a requirement follow the utility manual and rules the review cited, and every example is a question for the responsible professionals.
8 selected examples from the review
Eight distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Crossings missing from the table
More than twenty crossings tagged on the plans have no table row, including water crossings.
Why it matters: Vertical separation there cannot be confirmed from this survey.
What to check: Add each crossing with pipes, elevations and measured separation.
CivilForce main has no as-built data
The force main stays gray design linework on every plan and profile.
Why it matters: Its route, valves and tie-in are not recorded here.
What to check: Add the surveyed force main, or name the survey covering it.
CivilManhole near the wet well not shown lined
The manual requires the last three manholes lined; the third has no lined label.
Why it matters: No record shows whether it was lined.
What to check: Confirm and label the lining, or get the utility’s written decision.
CivilFinal survey is unsigned and unsealed
The signature and date lines are blank, and the file carries no seal.
Why it matters: The cover says the survey is not valid without them.
What to check: Have the surveyor sign, seal and date the set before submittal.
CivilSurvey has no accuracy statement
The manual requires a statement that the work meets its accuracies; no sheet gives one.
Why it matters: Nothing shows the inverts and coordinates meet the utility’s tolerances.
What to check: Add the statement or list each variance.
CivilConflicting inverts decide minimum slope
Two sheets give one pipe end different as-built inverts; one puts the run below minimum slope.
Why it matters: The set’s notes say substandard slopes will not be accepted.
What to check: Recheck the field notes and print one invert everywhere.
CivilShort flow-line drops at turns
At two manholes turning flow over 45 degrees, recorded drops are below the required 0.1 foot.
Why it matters: As recorded, these channels need correcting or a written variance.
What to check: Recheck the inverts, then seek the utility’s decision.
CivilDatum uses a superseded adjustment
Horizontal control is on NAD83 (NSRS2007); the utility’s manual requires the 2011 adjustment.
Why it matters: The shift at the control monument exceeds the horizontal tolerance for mains.
What to check: Move the coordinates to NAD83 (2011), or obtain written acceptance.
CivilReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Civil
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High and Medium 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 November 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.