Start with what the issued Section 32 16 19 leaves to the drawings: confirm that every sidewalk has a thickness and cross slope, every curb and gutter type has a cross section, and the site and grading plans give the alignment, grades, and curb returns, and that integral curbs on concrete pavement and bridge curbs are specified elsewhere. Then compare the joint layout with the sidewalk and curb joint articles and the joints of abutting pavement, check that detectable warnings are drawn at each curb ramp the adopted accessibility standard requires and that ramp geometry is detailed from that standard, and confirm that the subgrade, base course, concrete source, curing, and testing kept in the section agree with the typical sections and the earthwork, paving, and concrete sections.
Assemble the review package
Gather the site plan with sidewalk, curb, and gutter layout and curb return radii, the grading plan with spot elevations, gutter flow lines, and cross slopes, the paving plans and pavement joint layout, the typical sections and the sidewalk, curb and gutter, entrance, and curb ramp details, the sidewalk and curb joint plan or typical jointing detail, the storm drainage plan with inlets, the site utility, lighting, and signage plans for poles, hydrants, boxes, and posts in the walk, the accessibility plans or route diagram with the governing standard named, the geotechnical report and pavement design, and the issued Section 32 16 19 with Sections 31 00 00, 32 11 23, and 03 30 00 and the concrete pavement section where curbs abut rigid paving. Follow one block of sidewalk and one curb run from a curb return to the next before assuming the rest match.
WBDG publishes UFGS 32 16 19: Concrete Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks as a public guide-specification reference (accessed November 5, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Scope, curb types, and pay items | Opening PART 1 designer note + Unit Prices, Measurement, and Payment articles + site plan, curb and sidewalk details, and bid schedule | Is every curb on the plan a separate or combination curb and gutter this section covers, with integral or monolithic curbs on concrete pavement and curbs on bridges specified in the sections that govern them, as the opening note requires, and if the unit price paragraphs are kept, does each sidewalk depth and each curb and gutter cross section on the details have its own pay item, since the section measures sidewalks by depth and curbs by cross section? |
| Sidewalk thickness, cross slope, and drainage | Formed Sidewalks article (thickness indicated) + Form Setting Sidewalks article and its bracketed transverse slope options + Thickness Evaluation article + sidewalk details, grading plan, and accessibility plans | Does every sidewalk, including walks across entrances and service drives, have a detailed thickness, is one transverse slope option kept, either as indicated or the fixed slope in brackets, does that slope agree with the grading plan spot elevations and the cross slope the project’s adopted accessibility standard allows, and where the low-side-at-curb option is kept, does the gutter or an inlet take the runoff? |
| Curb and gutter sections, returns, and flow lines | Curb and Gutter Forms, Formed Curb and Gutter, Curb and Gutter Finishing, and Concrete Finishing articles + Form Setting article (indicated alignment, grade, and dimensions) + curb details, site plan radii, and grading and storm drainage plans | Does each curb and gutter, gutter, and entrance on the plan resolve to a detailed cross section, are curb return radii and grade changes in the returns dimensioned so the forming rules for returns can be applied, do the gutter flow lines on the grading plan fall to inlets on the storm drainage plan, and are slip formed curbs allowed only where the details and alignment suit a curb machine? |
| Sidewalk joint layout | Sidewalk Joints, Sidewalk Contraction Joints, and Sidewalk Expansion Joints articles + Expansion Joint Filler and Joint Sealants articles + joint plan or typical jointing detail + site, utility, and lighting plans | Does the joint plan divide each walk into rectangular panels at the contraction joint spacing the article ties to the walk width, with a longitudinal centerline joint on walks as wide as the article names, are expansion joints drawn at sidewalk returns and opposite the expansion joints in the adjoining curb, are transverse expansion joints indicated where the walk is not against the curb, which the article leaves to the drawings, and is joint filler of the type, thickness, and width indicated drawn around poles, hydrants, boxes, building faces, and other features in the walk? |
| Curb joints against abutting pavement | Curb and Gutter Joints, Contraction Joints, Expansion Joints, and Joint Finishing articles + concrete pavement joint plan + asphalt paving plan + the concrete pavement section where used | Are curb and gutter joints drawn at right angles to the curb, with contraction and expansion joints directly opposite the joints of any abutting concrete pavement and of the same type and thickness, are expansion joints spaced within the range the article sets where the curb abuts asphalt or no pavement, is the finish of curb edges at formed joints indicated, as the Joint Finishing article expects, and is sealant shown at expansion joints and at the tops of contraction joints? |
| Detectable warnings and curb ramps | Detectable Warning System product and execution articles (ICC A117.1 Section 705) + References article + curb ramp details, site plan, and accessibility plans + the adopted accessibility standard | Are detectable warnings drawn at every curb ramp, blended transition, and other location the adopted accessibility standard requires, since the section installs only the systems shown on the plans, does the edited section cite the ICC A117.1 edition the project adopts, or the ADA Standards, ABA Standards, or PROWAG where they govern, and are curb ramp slopes, landings, flares, and the warning surface location detailed, since the section has no curb ramp geometry article? |
| Concrete, reinforcement, subgrade, and base | Concrete, Air Content, and Reinforcement Steel articles and their designer notes + Subgrade Preparation, Sidewalk Subgrade, Curb and Gutter Subgrade, and Maintenance of Subgrade articles and the subgrade note + typical sections, geotechnical report, and Sections 03 30 00, 31 00 00, and 32 11 23 | Is one concrete reference kept, Section 03 30 00 or ASTM C94, is the air content article edited only as its note allows where freezing and deicing are not a factor, are reinforcement details drawn wherever bars or wire reinforcement are kept, since the note says reinforcement is normally not required and its details belong on the drawings, does the subgrade section the articles name match the base course on the typical section, and is the subgrade drawn extending behind the curb, as the subgrade note says it will be indicated? |
| Curing, protection, testing, and tolerances | Curing and Protection articles and their note + Protective Coating article and note + Backfilling article + Field Quality Control, Thickness Evaluation, Surface Evaluation, and Surface Deficiencies and Corrections articles + grading plan and construction schedule | Is the contractor left a choice of curing methods, as the curing note requires to keep bidding competitive, is the protective coating kept where the placement season and deicing exposure its note describes apply, is the backfill behind walks and curbs graded to the lines and grades indicated, with turf or planting restoration specified, and do walks designed close to the accessible route slope limits leave room for the surface and thickness tolerances and the grinding limits in the deficiency articles? |
Worked example: an integral curb at a concrete drive and a ramp with no warning surface
Illustrative example: a new company operations facility has an asphalt parking lot, a concrete entrance drive, combination curb and gutter around the lot, a sidewalk along the curb to the building entrance, and two curb ramps at a marked crosswalk. The sidewalk detail gives one thickness although the walk also crosses the entrance drive, the issued Section 32 16 19 keeps both transverse slope options, the curb detail shows an integral curb where the entrance drive is concrete pavement, the joint plan spaces sidewalk expansion joints at a uniform interval that ignores the curb expansion joints, one of the two curb ramps on the site plan has no detectable warning although the curb ramp detail shows one, and light pole bases sit in the walk with no joint filler shown.
Ask the civil engineer to add a walk detail for the drive crossing, keep one transverse slope option that matches the grading plan and the adopted accessibility standard, move the integral curb at the concrete drive to the concrete pavement section, and redraw the joint plan with expansion joints opposite the curb expansion joints and filler around the pole bases. Ask the engineer to add the detectable warning at the second ramp and to confirm which accessibility standard and edition the section and the ramp details follow.
Avoid a false conflict
Section 32 16 19 covers sidewalks and separate or combination curbs and gutters. Integral or monolithic curbs on concrete pavement follow the concrete pavement section, such as UFGS 32 13 13.06 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement for Roads and Site Facilities, bridge curbs follow the bridge specifications, subgrade follows Section 31 00 00 or the base course section the curb subgrade article names, such as 32 11 23, crosswalk markings follow Section 32 17 23.16, and the concrete itself may follow Section 03 30 00, whose guide covers building and structural concrete rather than site flatwork, so check those before calling a requirement missing. The section’s only accessibility reference is ICC A117.1 Section 705 for detectable warnings, cited in its 2017 edition in the current guide section, so curb ramp slopes, landings, and cross slopes come from the standard your project adopts: the 2010 ADA Standards, the ABA Standards on federal facilities, PROWAG where an adopting rule or the owner applies it in the public right-of-way, or the ICC A117.1 edition the building code adopts. The current guide section also cites AASHTO M 182 and ASTM A615, A1064, C31, C94, C143, C171, C172, C173, C231, C309, C920, D1751, D1752, and D5893; confirm the editions your project invokes with the civil engineer.
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.