Trace each carpet tag into its room use, installation method, and specification clauses, then compare product and pattern assignment, seam and pattern-match layout, transitions, adhesive or installation method, and static-control requirements before treating a repeated tag as one uniform assembly.
Assemble the review package
Gather finish plans, the carpet or resilient-flooring schedule and legend, room-by-room use designations, substrate and moisture-testing data, transition and threshold details, and the issued carpeting specification. Include static-control or raised-access-floor requirements where computer or equipment rooms are involved. Review one carpet tag and room type completely before assuming a similar tag elsewhere carries the same installation method and static-control requirement.
WBDG publishes UFGS 09 68 00: Carpeting as a public guide-specification reference (accessed September 21, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Product and pattern assignment | Finish plan carpet tag + carpet schedule | Does every tagged room resolve to a defined carpet product, color, and pattern, including any accent border or inset condition? |
| Seam and pattern-match layout | Room dimensions + seam-diagram and pattern-match clauses | Is a seam layout or pattern-match direction identified for rooms wide enough to require multiple widths, consistent with the specified match requirement? |
| Substrate and moisture testing | Substrate note + substrate-preparation and moisture-testing clauses | Is the substrate identified for each area, with moisture, pH, or bond testing called out where the specification requires it before installation? |
| Installation method | Room use + installation-method clauses | Does the installation method (direct glue-down, stretch-in with pad, modular tile) match the traffic and use shown for that room, including any raised-access-floor condition? |
| Transitions and thresholds | Door and material-change detail + transition clauses | Are transitions to dissimilar flooring, thresholds, and reducer strips detailed consistently between the drawings and specification? |
| Static control | Equipment or technology room designation + static-control clauses | Where a room is designated for sensitive equipment, does the specified product and installation include the stated static-control requirement? |
| Base and trim | Finish schedule + base and edge-trim clauses | Does the specified base or edge trim match the room finish schedule at carpet-to-wall and carpet-to-dissimilar-material conditions? |
| Submittal and dye lot | Specified samples + scheduled carpet types | Do requested submittals identify every distinct carpet type and color, and does the specification address dye-lot consistency across a contiguous area? |
Worked example: one carpet tag across a mixed-use floor
Illustrative example: a finish plan applies a single carpet tag across an open office area and an adjoining server room, but the specification lists a static-control-rated product with a different installation method for equipment rooms. The shared tag on the finish plan does not distinguish which room receives the static-control product.
Confirm the intended room boundary from the equipment or technology room designation, correct the finish plan to show a distinct tag for the server room, and coordinate the static-control product and installation method with the specification before ordering. Recheck the transition detail at the room boundary before closing the item.
Avoid a false conflict
A single repeated carpet tag on a finish plan does not establish that every tagged room shares the same product, installation method, or static-control requirement; a technology or equipment room can require a distinct assembly even when drawn with the same hatch as the surrounding floor.
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.