Trace each scheduled fixture into its plan location, mounting height, connection type, and flow-rate basis, then compare accessible clearances and water-conservation labeling against the specification. Resolve mismatches by fixture and room rather than assuming one schedule entry describes every similar-looking fixture.
Assemble the review package
Gather the plumbing fixture schedule, floor plans showing fixture locations and clearances, the accessibility plan or notes, toilet-room elevations, and the issued plumbing specification. Include the accessible-route and clear-floor-space information for the rooms being reviewed. Start with one toilet room or fixture group rather than assuming every fixture sharing a schedule tag serves the same type of room.
WBDG publishes UFGS 22 00 00: Plumbing, General Purpose as a public guide-specification reference (accessed September 27, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Fixture-to-tag assignment | Plan fixture tag + fixture schedule | Does each plan fixture resolve to a schedule entry with an identifiable type, mount, and manufacturer basis? Record tags left undefined. |
| Mounting height | Toilet-room elevation + fixture mounting clauses | Does the specified rim or seat height match the elevation shown, including the separate wheelchair-accessible height where that fixture applies? |
| Material and finish | Fixture schedule + material clauses | Do vitreous china, stainless steel, or other named material and finish selections match between drawing notes and the specification for the same fixture? |
| Flow rate and labeling basis | Schedule flow-rate column + specification labeling requirement | Is the stated flow or flush volume tied to the labeling basis the specification requires, and does it match the fixture actually scheduled rather than a generic default? |
| Accessible clearances | Accessibility plan + fixture location | Does the plan show the clear floor space, reach range, and grab-bar coordination the accessible fixture needs, distinct from a standard fixture at the same tag? |
| Trim and connections | Fixture detail + trimmings and connection clauses | Are faucets, flush valves, traps, and supply connections identified for the fixture being reviewed, rather than assumed from a different fixture type? |
| Automatic controls | Fixture schedule + sensor-operated control clauses | Where a sensor-operated faucet or flush valve is shown, does the documented package identify the power source, battery access, and override provisions? |
| Special-use conditions | Room-use notes + healthcare, security, or industrial provisions | Are project-specific conditions — chlorine filtration, security fixtures, or healthcare requirements — assigned to the rooms that actually need them rather than left as a general note? |
Worked example: an accessible fixture without its clearance
Illustrative example: a fixture schedule lists a wall-mounted water closet at the standard seat height for a men’s restroom, and the same tag is reused at an adjacent accessible stall shown on the floor plan. The specification identifies the wheelchair-accessible seat height range separately, but the schedule does not distinguish the two fixtures, and the floor plan does not show a separate clear-floor-space dimension for the accessible stall.
Separate the two fixtures by tag, confirm the accessible stall’s intended seat height and clearance against the accessibility plan, and ask the designer to issue distinct schedule entries. Recheck the grab-bar and door-swing coordination for the corrected stall before closing the item. The published equipment-consistency finding offers a related lesson: data repeated across schedules should be checked for consistency before treating a match as confirmed.
See the published equipment and sequence finding. The illustrative scenario above is separate from that published finding.
Avoid a false conflict
A shared fixture tag does not guarantee shared mounting height or clearance; the accessible fixture in a room often needs its own entry. Do not assume flow-rate compliance from a fixture name alone — confirm the actual labeling and specified basis for the fixture being installed.
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.