The deduct alternate deletes the room holding the new switchboard.
The architectural sheets price a deduct alternate that the structural, electrical and other engineering sheets never mention.
School addition alternate pricing
A multi-discipline pricing set for a school addition, with code sheets, a deduct alternate and civil, structural and building-services drawings.
What the review compared
The review read the pricing set as a bidder would, looking for scope and pricing ambiguities, bid gaps and overlaps. It followed the deduct alternate through every discipline and compared code sheets, schedules and site plans that describe the same work.
Where the bids would diverge
The alternate is drawn on the architectural sheets only, so each trade would work out its own deduct and add-back. The code sheets give two construction types, and the civil and electrical site plans route the new power and gas service differently.
What to verify next
The architect and engineers should issue alternate notes for every discipline, settle the construction type and align the site utility routes before bids are due. 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 construction types on two code sheets
The code sheets give different construction types and fire ratings for columns and roof.
Why it matters: Fireproofing and rated walls cannot be priced.
What to check: State one type, one rating set and one wall design.
ArchitecturalAlternate exterior wall is undefined
The alternate makes a corridor wall exterior with no foundation, window types or door entry.
Why it matters: Bidders price the add-back work differently.
What to check: Issue the wall’s foundation, section and elevation.
Architectural · StructuralAlternate deletes the switchboard room
The alternate removes the room holding the new switchboard; no electrical sheet shows its replacement.
Why it matters: Electrical bidders cannot price it.
What to check: Show the alternate electrical room and feeder.
Electrical · ArchitecturalEngineering sheets never show the alternate
Plumbing, mechanical, fire protection and civil sheets do not mention the alternate.
Why it matters: Each trade will price its share differently.
What to check: List what each trade deletes and adds.
Plumbing · Mechanical · Fire Protection · CivilRoof drain note contradicts its plan
The alternate says drain count is unchanged; its roof plan adds one drain and moves others.
Why it matters: The deduct credit may be overstated.
What to check: List the added and moved drains.
Architectural · PlumbingPrimary feed comes from two streets
Civil and electrical site plans bring the new primary feed from different streets.
Why it matters: Raceway and trenching cannot be priced.
What to check: Agree the route with the utility and match both plans.
Electrical · CivilExterior doors have two materials
An exterior door pair is aluminum on the elevation and hollow metal in the schedule.
Why it matters: It may be priced twice or not at all.
What to check: State one material on both sheets.
ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Structural, Civil, 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.
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.