Trace each penetration and fire-rated joint into its assembly rating, the listed system referenced for it, and the specification clauses, then compare penetration type, annular space, sleeve coordination, and joint treatment before treating a general firestopping note as sufficient for every condition.
Assemble the review package
Gather the fire-rated wall and floor assembly plan, MEP drawings showing penetrating pipes, ducts, cables, and conduits, head-of-wall and floor-to-floor joint details, and the issued firestopping specification. Include the referenced listed-system documentation where available. Review one assembly and its penetrations completely before assuming a general firestopping note resolves every penetration type shown on it.
WBDG publishes UFGS 07 84 00: Firestopping as a public guide-specification reference (accessed September 21, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Assembly rating | Fire-rated wall/floor plan + assembly rating | Is the fire-resistance rating of the penetrated assembly identified where each MEP item passes through it, rather than assumed from a general life-safety plan note? |
| Penetration type and location | MEP drawing penetration + penetration schedule or legend | Does every shown penetration (pipe, duct, cable tray, conduit) resolve to an identified type and location consistent with the specification? |
| Listed system selection | Penetration type and assembly + specification listed-system reference | Is a listed firestop system referenced that matches the actual penetrating item, assembly type, and rating, rather than a generic firestopping callout? |
| Annular space | Penetration detail + listed-system annular-space criteria | Does the shown or specified clearance between the penetrating item and the opening fall within the range the referenced listed system allows? |
| Sleeve and insert coordination | MEP sleeve or core-drill note + firestopping clauses | Are sleeves, link-seals, or core-drilled openings coordinated between the MEP and firestopping documentation for the same penetration? |
| Head-of-wall and floor joints | Wall-to-structure or floor-to-floor detail + joint-system clauses | Is a fire-rated joint system identified at head-of-wall, floor, and expansion conditions separately from penetration firestopping? |
| Inspection and labeling | Specification inspection clauses + project closeout requirements | Does the package identify how completed firestopping is inspected, labeled, and documented before it is concealed by other work? |
| Submittal scope | Specified submittals + scheduled penetration and joint types | Do requested submittals include listed-system documentation for every distinct penetration and joint type shown, not only a representative sample? |
Worked example: a duct penetration without a matching listed system
Illustrative example: a mechanical drawing shows a rectangular duct penetrating a two-hour-rated shaft wall, while the firestopping specification lists systems tested for round pipe penetrations only. The general firestopping note on the architectural plan does not identify which listed system applies to the rectangular duct condition.
Identify the actual duct dimensions and assembly rating, request a listed system tested for a rectangular duct penetration at that rating, and coordinate the annular-space requirement with the mechanical detail. Recheck adjacent penetrations in the same wall for the same gap before closing the item.
Avoid a false conflict
A general firestopping note does not establish that every penetration type in an assembly has a matching listed system; round pipe, rectangular duct, cable bundle, and multi-trade penetrations commonly require different tested systems even within the same rated wall.
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.