Compare each equipment tag against its utility rough-in on the plumbing and electrical documents, then check hoods against the mechanical air quantities and the fire suppression interlock. Record disagreements with both references. Health, fire, and equipment selection decisions stay with the design team and the reviewing authorities.
Assemble a reviewable package
Collect the food-service equipment plan, schedule, and rough-in drawing, the plumbing and electrical plans serving the kitchen, the mechanical plans and air-balance schedule, the hood and fire suppression drawings, the fire alarm matrix, and the architectural floor sections.
Agree which areas and which design milestone are being reviewed, and record any document you expected and did not receive. A review can only compare what it is given, so a missing sheet is a finding in its own right. The drawing register template gives you somewhere to record the governing issue before you start.
Twelve document checks
Use one worksheet row per condition rather than per sheet. Where a condition repeats, note the locations you sampled and any exception you found. The CSV adds blank fields for the project location, source issue, reviewer, decision, revised sources, and closure evidence.
| Review area | Sources to compare | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Equipment identity | Equipment plan, equipment schedule, specification | Does each equipment tag resolve to one item with the same description, size, and location in every source? |
| Utility rough-in | Equipment schedule, plumbing and electrical plans, rough-in drawing | Do the connection type, size, and location for each item agree between the food-service and the MEP documents? |
| Electrical characteristics | Equipment schedule, panel schedules, connection notes | Do voltage, phase, and load for each item match between the food-service schedule and the electrical documents? |
| Exhaust and makeup air | Hood schedule, mechanical plans, air-balance schedule | Do hood exhaust and makeup air quantities agree between the food-service and mechanical documents? |
| Hood and suppression | Hood details, fire suppression drawings, fire alarm matrix | Is each hood shown with its suppression system, and does the interlock appear in the fire alarm matrix? |
| Grease and waste | Plumbing plan, interceptor schedule, site utility plan | Can grease waste be followed from each fixture to an interceptor and on to the site connection? |
| Floor construction | Architectural sections, structural slab plan, finish schedule | Are depressions, drains, slopes, and finishes described consistently across the architectural and structural documents? |
| Walk-in coolers | Equipment plan, refrigeration drawings, structural support | Is each walk-in shown with its condensing unit location, line routing, and structural support? |
| Clearances and access | Equipment plan, manufacturer clearance data, architectural plan | Is the service and code clearance around each item achievable in the layout shown? |
| Ventilation and comfort | Mechanical plans, room-use plan, kitchen criteria | Is the ventilation strategy for the kitchen described, including transfer air and negative pressure intent? |
| Delegated and owner-supplied | Equipment schedule, responsibility matrix, contract notes | Which items are owner-supplied, which are contractor-installed, and where is that recorded? |
| Revision closure | Response, revised equipment schedule, dependent disciplines | Does the accepted change reach the equipment schedule, the rough-in drawing, and the MEP sheets affected by it? |
Record “needs clarification” when a reference is missing, and reserve “resolved” for a decision supported by documents you have read. If a row does not apply to this project, write why: a blank cell cannot tell a skipped check from a completed one.
Work one condition end to end
Take one hood. Read its exhaust and makeup air quantities on the food-service schedule, then find the same hood on the mechanical drawings and compare the numbers. Check the air-balance schedule for the room. Then find the suppression system on the fire protection drawings and its interlock in the fire alarm matrix. Finally, check the electrical connection for the hood controls. Hoods concentrate more cross-discipline questions than any other item in the kitchen.
Working one condition all the way through beats skimming every sheet, because it forces each document to answer the same question. When the answers differ, you have a finding with two references attached, which is what a designer needs in order to decide.
Close the loop
A response saying “coordinated” is the start of verification, not the end. Open the revised sheets, confirm the change, then follow it into the dependent documents: the schedule, the detail, the specification section, and the other discipline that relied on it. Record the sources you checked and the evidence that closed the question.
Where the answer is a decision rather than a correction, record the decision and who made it. The guide to prioritising findings covers how to sort what you have found once the list gets long.
Use AI for a source-linked first pass
Groundbook AI can run these comparisons across the whole set at once, returning each difference with both sheets highlighted and the supporting sources linked. It reads drawings, specifications, reports, checklists, and the building codes you upload, including scanned and hand-drawn sheets. Give the review a defined scope, then verify every cited location before turning a finding into a request.
The findings are questions for your team to settle. Design, engineering, and compliance decisions stay with the responsible professionals and the authority having jurisdiction.