Confirm that the scope and operating modes the section lists cover every source on the one-line, including generators, transfer switches, and ties, and that the equipment, protective devices, and names the studies must model are shown on the one-line and schedules. Then check that the sections that invoke the studies, and the arc flash label details, point to the same Section 26 05 73.
Assemble the review package
Gather the electrical one-line, the switchgear, switchboard, and panelboard schedules, the generator and transfer switch drawings, the utility or existing system information, the existing one-line and demolition drawings for renovation work, the arc flash and fault current label details, and the issued Section 26 05 73 with the sections that reference it (26 20 00, 26 23 00, and 26 24 13). Review one path from the source bus to the farthest panel in scope before assuming the rest is covered.
WBDG publishes UFGS 26 05 73: Power System Studies as a public guide-specification reference (accessed October 18, 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 of studies | Scope of Studies article + one-line | Is the starting bus and extent of the studies filled in, and does the one-line show all the equipment within that scope? |
| Modes of operation | Scope of Studies article + one-line + generator and transfer switch drawings | Do the modes of operation listed include every combination of utility, generator, and tie the one-line makes possible? |
| Available fault current | Determination of Facts article + one-line or utility data | If the specification says to use the indicated available fault current, is a value actually shown on the drawings for the source bus? |
| Protective devices shown | Power System Studies article + one-line + panel schedules | Are the fuses, breakers, and relays the designer is responsible for showing on the drawings, so the studies model the devices that will be bought? |
| Equipment names | Single Line Diagram and Arc Flash Labels articles + one-line + schedules | Does each bus and device have one unique name used the same way on the one-line, schedules, and room plans, so the model and labels can match it? |
| Existing equipment | Modeling and Field Examination articles + existing one-line | For renovation work, is the existing equipment affected by the work identified so the field examination and model can include it? |
| Sections that invoke the studies | Coordinated Power System Protection articles in Sections 26 20 00, 26 23 00, and 26 24 13 | Where those sections point to Section 26 05 73, is it in the project manual, and where it is included, are those articles retained consistently? |
| Arc flash labels and timing | Arc Flash Labels and Study report(s) articles + label details | Is the arc flash label format shown, and does the submittal schedule put the studies with the protective device submittals the section names? |
Worked example: a generator the study scope leaves out
Illustrative example: the one-line shows a standby generator feeding the main switchboard through a transfer switch, and a tie between two distribution sections. The issued Section 26 05 73 lists a single primary mode of operation, utility source with the tie open, and the generator schedule gives no data the System Analyzer could use for its contribution.
Ask the electrical engineer to list the operating modes the one-line allows, including generator operation and the closed tie, and to add the generator data or state where it will come from. Recheck the equipment names on the one-line against the schedules so the model and arc flash labels can use them.
Avoid a false conflict
A study that matches its own model can still miss equipment that is on the drawings but outside its scope. Check the scope and modes against the one-line, not against the study report.
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.