Trace each fence and gate segment into its fabric, post type, and specified security classification, then compare post spacing at direction changes, gate operation, and grounding at powered hardware before treating a continuous fence line as one uniform assembly.
Assemble the review package
Gather the civil or site plan showing the fence and gate layout, the fence schedule or legend, grading information along the fence line, the project’s site-security criteria, and the issued chain link fences and gates specification. Identify any segment intended for high-security use separately, since it can call for a distinct specification section rather than an edited version of the standard one.
WBDG publishes UFGS 32 31 13: Chain Link Fences and Gates as a public guide-specification reference (accessed September 23, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Fence line and height assignment | Site plan fence line + fence schedule or system description | Does every reviewed segment resolve to a defined fabric, height, and post type, rather than a single line weight standing in for the whole perimeter? |
| Security classification | Site-security plan + specified fence section | Where the project’s security criteria call for a high-security condition, does the schedule reference the high-security fence and gate section rather than the standard section for that segment? |
| Post type at direction changes | Site plan corners and terminations + line, end, corner, and pull post clauses | Are corner, end, and pull post locations identified at the actual direction changes and gate openings shown on the site plan? |
| Gate opening and operation | Site access plan + gate type and hardware clauses | Does the specified gate type (swing, slide, manual, or operated) match the vehicle or pedestrian use and opening width shown for that location? |
| Grade and post height | Civil grading plan + post height and setting clauses | Does the specified post height and setting depth account for the actual grade change along the fence line, rather than a single height applied to sloped and level ground alike? |
| Grounding at powered hardware | Electrical plan + grounding clauses | Where a gate has powered operators or access-control hardware, is a grounding and bonding path identified consistent with the electrical drawings? |
| Fabric and coating selection | Elevation or finish note + fabric and coating clauses | Does the specified fabric gauge, coating, and color match what is shown for that segment, distinguishing a coated decorative run from a utilitarian one? |
| Submittal scope | Specified certificates of compliance + scheduled fence and gate types | Do requested submittals cover every distinct fence, gate, and hardware type shown, not only a representative section of the perimeter? |
Worked example: one fence tag across a security boundary
Illustrative example: a site plan shows a continuous perimeter fence line, and the fence schedule tags the entire run with the standard chain link fence and gate section. Partway along that line, the site-security plan marks a secured equipment yard where the project’s security criteria call for the high-security fence and gate section instead, but the fence schedule does not distinguish the two segments.
Identify the actual security boundary from the site-security plan, confirm which segment needs the high-security section, and correct the fence schedule before ordering fabric and hardware. Recheck gate hardware and grounding at the transition between the two segments before closing the item.
Avoid a false conflict
A continuous line on a site plan does not establish uniform fence and gate requirements along its length; security classification, post type at direction changes, and grade condition can each call for a different assembly even where the drawn line weight looks the same.
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.