Compare placing drawings against the contract structural documents mark by mark, then check cover, splices, and congestion at the joints where several sets of bars meet. Record disagreements with both references. Capacity, detailing adequacy, and constructability judgements stay with the structural engineer.
Assemble a reviewable package
Collect the placing drawings and bar schedules, the contract structural drawings and general notes, the concrete specification, and any post-tensioning layout. Add the MEP drawings for the areas being reviewed, because most opening and sleeve questions only appear when both are open.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mix and material basis | General notes, specification, mix design submittal | Do stated strengths, exposure classes, and mix references agree between the drawings and the specification? |
| Bar mark identity | Placing drawings, bar schedules, contract drawings | Does each bar mark resolve to one size, grade, length, and location on both documents? |
| Cover and clearances | Detail sections, cover notes, exposure conditions | Is the required cover stated for each condition, and is it achievable with the bar arrangement shown? |
| Development and splices | Splice schedules, lap tables, general notes | Is the governing lap or development requirement cited for each bar size and condition rather than assumed? |
| Congestion at joints | Beam-column joint details, placing drawings | Can the reinforcement shown physically be placed, and is the placing sequence described where it is tight? |
| Openings and sleeves | Slab and wall opening plans, MEP drawings, added reinforcement | Does each opening appear on both the structural and the services documents with its added reinforcement detailed? |
| Embeds and anchorage | Embed plans, steel drawings, equipment anchors | Is every embed located and detailed once, with one responsible party for supply and setting? |
| Joints | Joint plans, pour sequence, waterstop details | Are construction, control, and expansion joints located and detailed, with continuity of reinforcement stated? |
| Post-tensioning | Tendon layout, stressing notes, penetration restrictions | If tendons are present, are layout, stressing sequence, and the rules for later penetrations documented? |
| Finishes and tolerances | Finish schedule, flatness notes, specification | Is the required finish and tolerance stated for each slab area, including areas receiving a separate topping? |
| Existing concrete | Survey records, demolition notes, doweling details | Which existing dimensions and reinforcement are verified, and who resolves what is assumed? |
| Revision closure | Reviewer comments, revised placing drawings, contract documents | Does every accepted change reach the placing drawings, the schedules, and the affected details? |
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
Choose a beam-column joint on a typical floor. List every bar arriving at it from the placing drawings, check each mark against its schedule, then read the cover requirement for that exposure and the lap requirement for those bar sizes. Ask whether the bars shown can physically be placed in the order implied. Then check the same joint on the services drawings for any sleeve or penetration. Congested joints are where the document questions concentrate.
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.