The SWPPP still assigns responsibility to a placeholder instead of a contractor.
The stormwater pollution prevention notes, the grading and utility plans and the playground details describe different work.
School site SWPPP and play areas
Civil and landscape site drawings for an elementary school site improvement: survey, site preparation, SWPPP, grading, utilities, layout and details.
What the review compared
The review read the civil and landscape site sheets together: the SWPPP plan and notes, grading and utility plans, the underground storage details, and the playground layout and details. It looked for requirements that one source carries and another contradicts or leaves out.
Where the site sheets disagree
The SWPPP narrative names no responsible contractor, bans a washout it also requires, and describes a basin and phasing the plans do not show. The stormwater storage details give two weir elevations and two stone depths, and the playground surfaces cannot be told apart.
What to verify next
The civil engineer and landscape architect should rewrite the SWPPP narrative for this site, settle the storage elevations and label each play surface before bidding. 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.
SWPPP responsibility is a placeholder
The SWPPP objective note assigns responsibility to a placeholder, not a named contractor.
Why it matters: SWPPP work may be priced twice or left out.
What to check: Name the responsible contractor.
CivilWeir has two elevations
Two sections of the control structure label its weir a foot apart.
Why it matters: A low weir changes the designed storage.
What to check: Correct the weir section to match.
CivilPlayground surfaces look the same
The legend draws two surfacing types identically, omits turf, and no plan calls out sections.
Why it matters: Bidders cannot measure each surface.
What to check: Give each type a pattern and label.
LandscapeStone depth differs by 6 inches
The chamber table sets 9 inches of stone below the chambers; the elevations leave 3.
Why it matters: Excavation and stone quantities differ.
What to check: Make the table and elevations agree.
CivilSpill note bans the required washout
One note bans truck washout on site; the SWPPP requires and locates washout facilities.
Why it matters: Contractors cannot tell whether to build them.
What to check: Send washout to the facility, or remove it.
CivilSWPPP narrative describes undrawn work
SWPPP notes describe a sediment basin, phasing and storage systems the drawings do not show.
Why it matters: Bidders may price work not drawn.
What to check: Edit the narrative to the drawn controls.
CivilFlagpole has no size
The flagpole footing is drawn deeper than its schedule, and no pole size is given.
Why it matters: Pole and footing cannot be ordered.
What to check: State the pole size and match the footing.
LandscapeReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Civil and Landscape
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.