The topping on the wood-frame floors is gypsum concrete on one sheet and concrete on four others.
The architectural and structural drawings for a mixed-use building over two levels of underground parking were read for the concrete trade, and several items a concrete bid needs are missing or described two ways.
Underground parking concrete bid scope
Architectural permit drawings and structural tender drawings for a mixed-use building with wood-frame floors over a concrete podium and two levels of underground parking, read for concrete trade scope.
What the review compared
The review read the architectural permit drawings beside the structural tender drawings for the concrete trade: slab and foundation plans, floor assemblies, stair plans and sections, wall and slab band schedules and general notes. Its instructions asked for scope and pricing ambiguities, inclusions and exclusions, takeoff gaps, purchasing and fabrication requirements and conflicts between the disciplines.
Where the concrete scope is unclear
A suspended slab plan on the drawing list is not in the set, the concrete stairs are referred from each discipline to the other, and the topping on the wood-frame floors is gypsum concrete on one sheet and concrete on four. Doweled slab joints are required but not located, slab bands carry a depth the schedule does not list, one stair flight changes material between plan and section, and a plan note requires the lowest parking slab to sit above a flood level that the sections place it below.
What to verify next
Bidders should send these questions before pricing, and the architect and structural engineer should answer them in one addendum that corrects both sets and states which trade carries the topping and the stairs. This review did not enable code checking; every example is a question for the responsible designers.
8 selected examples from the review
Eight distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Listed slab plan is missing
The drawing list names a suspended slab plan; the set has no such sheet.
Why it matters: Steps, slopes and slab levels on the largest slab cannot be taken off.
What to check: Issue the sheet, or add its levels elsewhere.
Architectural · StructuralConcrete stairs have no designer
Architectural stair details refer to structural; structural notes leave stair design to others.
Why it matters: Stair waists, landings and reinforcing cannot be priced alike by every bidder.
What to check: Name the stair designer and issue stair sections.
Architectural · StructuralFloor topping is gypcrete or concrete
One sheet calls the wood-floor topping gypsum concrete; four others call it concrete.
Why it matters: It may be left out of the concrete bid or counted twice.
What to check: State one material and the trade placing it.
Architectural · StructuralSlab-on-grade dowels are not located
Notes require doweled joints at pour stops and slope changes; the plan marks none.
Why it matters: Dowels and pour breaks cannot be priced or planned.
What to check: Mark the joints and give dowel size, length and spacing.
StructuralStair flight is wood or concrete
The plan lists one flight as wood; the section draws it and its landing in concrete.
Why it matters: Bidders cannot tell whether it is concrete scope.
What to check: Choose one material and correct the other view.
ArchitecturalSlab band depth matches no schedule size
Plan labels give six slab bands a depth the band schedule does not list.
Why it matters: Their concrete volume and soffit drop cannot be fixed.
What to check: Confirm the depth and correct the plan or schedule.
StructuralLowest slab is below the noted flood level
A plan note requires the lowest slab above the flood level; sections set it lower.
Why it matters: If the note governs, slab, ramp and pits move up.
What to check: Decide which governs and issue matching levels.
Architectural · StructuralSuspended ramp top has two finishes
The section tags the ramp top as slab on grade; it spans as a suspended slab.
Why it matters: Broom finish or troweled finish under coating cannot be priced.
What to check: Tag it with the suspended slab assembly.
ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural and Structural
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 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.
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.