Trace each AV-equipped room from its system description into the equipment list, then compare the excluded scope of work against the electrical and structural drawings, and confirm cybersecurity coordination and grounding before treating the AV package as coordinated.
Assemble the review package
Gather the AV drawings and equipment list, the room-by-room system description narrative, electrical plans for AV device power and floor boxes, structural backing details for wall- or ceiling-mounted equipment, and the issued audio-visual systems specification. This guide specification is intentionally general; review whether the project team edited the system description and equipment list for the actual rooms shown, rather than leaving generic placeholder language in the issued set.
WBDG publishes UFGS 27 41 00: Audio-Visual Systems as a public guide-specification reference (accessed September 26, 2026). Use your project’s issued specification and amendments for the actual comparison; the guide specification does not automatically govern your project. The checklist below is an original suggested review workflow, not a reproduction of the UFGS requirements.
Eight checks to run against the issued set
Use one record per location or system. The CSV contains the same eight prompts plus fields for source revisions, observed evidence, the review owner, the decision, and closure references.
| Check | Sources to compare | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Excluded scope of work | Specified excluded scope (cutting/patching, painting, floor boxes) + electrical and general-construction drawings | Where the AV specification excludes floor boxes, cutting and patching, or finishes, do the electrical or architectural drawings actually assign that work to another section rather than leaving it unassigned? |
| Room-by-room system description | AV drawings + specified system description narrative for each room type | Does every AV-tagged room have its own edited system description and equipment list, rather than relying on the specification’s generic conference-room example left unedited? |
| Independent system designer trigger | Project complexity + specified ANSI/INFOCOMM 2M and ANSI/BICSI 001 design requirement | Where the project needs project-specific AV design services, was that design actually produced by a qualified system designer with the specified CTS-D certification, rather than the unedited guide-specification language standing in for a design? |
| Cybersecurity coordination | AV network requirements + specified coordination with Section 25 05 11 Cybersecurity for Facility-Related Control Systems | Does the issued document set actually include a cybersecurity coordination reference for the AV network, rather than leaving that coordination point unaddressed? |
| Grounding and shielding | AV rack locations + specified rack grounding stud/bus bar and Division 26 bonding requirement | Do the electrical drawings show the grounding electrode and bonding path the AV rack’s grounding stud and bonding jumper depend on at each rack location? |
| Mounting, rigging, and seismic restraint | AV device locations + specified mounting and seismic restraint requirement | Do the structural or architectural drawings show backing and any required seismic bracing at each wall-mounted display or ceiling-hung device location shown on the AV drawings? |
| Personnel certification requirements | Specified Project Manager and Lead Installer certification list | Were the specified personnel certifications (CTS, CTS-I, CTS-D, RCDD, RTPM, PMP) actually edited to the certifications relevant to this project’s system, rather than left as the full unedited list? |
| Warranty and live-support timing | Specified warranty period and live-support technician hours + project commissioning schedule | Where live on-site support is specified around a first scheduled use date, does that date actually align with the project’s commissioning and occupancy schedule? |
Worked example: a recessed outlet without its power source
Illustrative example: the specification’s conference room description calls for a wall-mounted display with an in-wall storage box recessing a surge-protected power outlet, and the AV drawings show this arrangement in a training room. The electrical drawings do not show a dedicated receptacle at the same recessed-box location, so the AV package assumes a power source the electrical package has not actually provided.
Confirm the recessed box location against the electrical drawings, add the missing receptacle if it was not carried through, and recheck the same box location for low-voltage AV cabling pathway coordination before closing the item.
Avoid a false conflict
This specification is written as a general template; a room-specific requirement not edited into the system description or equipment list can be missed even though the general AV language is present in the issued set. Do not assume a generic paragraph was updated for the actual room without checking the drawings.
When requirements disagree, follow the project’s document-control and clarification process. Do not assume that drawings always override specifications, or the reverse. Identify the exact sources and request an authorized decision.
Close the issue across the affected documents
Record the location or tag, drawing and specification references, issue dates, observed difference, and the decision needed. Assign an owner and keep the item open until the response identifies the governing requirement. Check the revised drawings and specification references together; a response email alone may leave the issued package inconsistent.
For the overall process, use the guide to drawing and specification conflicts. Mark an inapplicable checklist row with a reason, and distinguish a verified correction from a question that still needs design information.
Where Groundbook fits
Groundbook’s drawing and specification review helps investigate potential disagreements in the documents you supply. Include the relevant specification sections and drawing references, then verify the cited evidence with the responsible reviewers before acting on a finding.