The pole quantities cover one street’s new pedestrian poles and leave out the other’s.
The summary of quantities was checked against the civil, lighting and landscape plans whose work the pay items price.
Streetscape pay items and quantities
Civil, traffic, lighting, landscape and architectural contract plans for a streetscape corridor, with their summaries of quantities.
What the review compared
The review checked the summary of quantities item by item against the removal, grading and drainage, lighting and planting plans, counting what the plans draw and tag. Its instructions asked for cost and value-engineering opportunities, including missing scope that could cause change orders.
Where the quantities and plans part ways
Some work on the plans has no pay item at all, such as a new manhole, catch basin removals and re-erected light poles. Other items carry counts that do not follow from the plans, from pole and receptacle quantities to tree removals and structure adjustments.
What to verify next
The civil, lighting and landscape designers should recount each item from the plans, add the missing items and state pay units before the contract is advertised. Code checking was not enabled; the examples are questions for the engineer of record.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Asphalt tonnages appear swapped
The binder item names another mix, and the binder and surface tonnages look reversed.
Why it matters: Bidders price too much binder and too little surface.
What to check: Match the mix and correct both tonnages.
CivilNew manhole and sewer have no pay item
The grading plan adds a manhole and storm sewer that no quantity item pays.
Why it matters: They would be paid by change order.
What to check: Add pay items and quantities.
CivilReceptacles are priced as pedestals
The only receptacle item is ground-mount pedestals; the plans mount every receptacle on poles.
Why it matters: Bidders price devices the plans never place.
What to check: Replace the item and recount.
Electrical · CivilPedestrian pole count covers one street
Pole and base quantities match one street’s new poles and omit the cross street’s.
Why it matters: The unpriced poles would overrun at award.
What to check: Raise the quantities or revise the tags.
Electrical · CivilTree removals far exceed the trees marked
The removal items carry several times the trees marked on the removal plans.
Why it matters: The pay unit and final quantity are uncertain.
What to check: State the pay unit and recount.
Civil · LandscapeAdjustments exceed the structures marked
The quantities pay for many more structure adjustments than the grading plans mark.
Why it matters: Bidders cannot locate the extra adjustments.
What to check: Mark each structure or add a schedule.
CivilRe-erected poles have no pay item
Three existing light poles move to new foundations, but no item pays for re-erecting them.
Why it matters: The work is likely a change order.
What to check: Add an item or name the one that covers it.
Electrical · CivilReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Civil, Traffic, Electrical, and Landscape
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
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.