Trace each locker run into its tier type, material, base condition, and specified components, then compare accessible-locker location, sloped-top and ceiling clearance, and numbering sequence for the same room before treating a repeated schedule entry as one uniform assembly.
Assemble the review package
Gather the locker room plan, the locker schedule or legend, the reflected ceiling plan or section for sloped-ceiling conditions, the accessible-locker location requirement, and the issued lockers specification. Review one locker room completely, since humidity, ceiling height, and accessible-location requirements can differ within a single room even when every locker looks the same on plan.
WBDG publishes UFGS 10 51 13: Lockers as a public guide-specification reference (accessed September 23, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Tier and type assignment | Locker plan tag + specified tier type | Does every reviewed run resolve to a defined tier type (single-tier, double-tier, double-tier Z-style) rather than a generic "lockers" note? |
| Material selection | Room-use and exposure note + specified material option | Does the specified material (galvanized steel, solid HDPE, solid plastic laminate) match the humidity and use shown for that room, such as a wet locker room adjoining showers? |
| Accessible locker location | Accessible-clearance plan + accessibility clauses | Is the required accessible locker identified at a location with the specified clear floor space, rather than assumed from the general run? |
| Base condition | Locker section + base-panel or leg clauses | Does the drawn base condition (legs or solid base panel) match the specification and the room’s cleaning or ventilation requirement? |
| Sloping tops and ceiling clearance | Reflected ceiling plan or section + sloping-top clauses | Where lockers meet a sloped ceiling or need a dust-control top, does the specified top option match the actual ceiling condition at that run? |
| Component selection | Locker schedule + specified lock, hook, and hanger-rod options | Do the specified built-in lock type, hooks, and hanger rods match what the schedule or legend shows for that locker type? |
| Numbering sequence | Room layout drawing + specified numbering system | Does the specified numbering sequence match the physical arrangement of lockers shown on the room layout, including any renumbered or added run? |
| Bench coordination | Locker room layout + specified locker bench and bench-top clauses | Where benches are shown, does the specified bench and bench-top selection match the layout and clearance in front of the locker run? |
Worked example: a flat top under a sloped ceiling
Illustrative example: a locker room plan shows a run of double-tier lockers set against a wall where the reflected ceiling plan shows a sloped ceiling condition, but the locker schedule specifies a standard flat top rather than the sloping-top option, leaving a dust-collecting gap between the locker tops and the sloped ceiling above.
Confirm the ceiling height and slope at that wall from the reflected ceiling plan, correct the locker top selection to the sloping option or adjust the layout, and recheck the numbering sequence and accessible locker location for the run after the correction.
Avoid a false conflict
Two locker runs with the same tier count and finish on a schedule do not necessarily share the same base condition, top option, or material; humidity, ceiling clearance, and accessible-location requirements can differ within a single room. Confirm the actual condition at each run before treating a repeated tag as uniform.
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.