Map each concrete element to its drawing notes and applicable specification clauses, then compare mix designations, finishes, joints, and embedded interfaces. Record mismatches by location so the structural engineer and specification writer can resolve the same condition.
Assemble the review package
Collect structural general notes, foundation and slab plans, concrete schedules, architectural finish plans, joint details, and the issued concrete specification. Include referenced waterproofing, flooring, and equipment-base information when those interfaces are in scope. Start with one slab zone or pour rather than merging every concrete requirement in the project into a single comparison.
WBDG publishes UFGS 03 30 00: Cast-In-Place Concrete as a public guide-specification reference (accessed September 16, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Element and mix | Concrete schedule + specification mix table | Does each footing, wall, slab, or topping point to an identifiable mix requirement? Record elements with no clear assignment. |
| Strength basis | Structural notes + mix criteria | Do compared strengths use the same units, test age, and element scope? Refer any actual difference to the engineer rather than selecting the larger number. |
| Exposure and material | Element location + specification selections | Can the reviewer identify which selected durability and material criteria apply to the element? Flag unedited alternatives or conflicting assignments. |
| Finish and tolerance | Room finish plan + slab finish clauses | Does the finish designation match the intended exposed surface or floor covering? Record where tolerances are specified without a clear location. |
| Joints | Slab joint plan + joint requirements | Are joint types, locations, and referenced treatments identifiable together? Separate construction, isolation, and other joint descriptions. |
| Embeds and recesses | Concrete details + equipment and opening plans | Do required embeds, pits, and recesses appear in the receiving concrete information? Check separate schedules before reporting an omission. |
| Curing and coverings | Curing clauses + flooring installation information | Is there a documented compatibility basis for curing materials and later adhesives or coatings? Assign unresolved compatibility questions to the relevant parties. |
| Testing scope | Concrete notes + quality-control clauses | Do inspection and test references describe the same work and identify who provides the records? Do not invent a test frequency absent from the project documents. |
Worked example: a slab finish that does not match the room
Illustrative example: a structural note assigns one finish to the entire ground-floor slab, while an architectural finish plan shows an exposed finish in the lobby and resilient flooring in adjacent rooms. The specification contains different preparation requirements for those uses. A blanket instruction to apply the general slab finish leaves the location-specific work unclear.
Mark the room boundaries, record the finish tags and exact clauses, and ask the designers to issue an area-by-area finish assignment. Check the response against curing and floor-covering requirements before closing the question. The published sump-opening finding offers a related lesson: a condition shown by one discipline must be traced into the concrete information that receives it.
See the published sump-opening finding. The illustrative scenario above is separate from that published finding.
Avoid a false conflict
Two different mix designations are not automatically a conflict: they may serve different elements or exposure conditions. Conversely, a single repeated general note does not establish that every slab finish is coordinated. Preserve the location, test age, and units in the review record.
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.