Use the current drawing issue, include the references needed for the scope, and identify supporting or superseded documents. Open representative pages to check readability. State the milestone, priority interfaces, and known exclusions in the review instructions.
Record the package you intend to review
Use the free drawing register template to record the supplied sheets, revisions, issue purpose, and inclusion decisions. Resolve missing or competing records before treating the package as a confirmed review baseline.
Start with the issued document register
Compare the files you intend to review with the drawing index or document register. Confirm the issue date and consultant revisions. If one discipline is at a different milestone, say so explicitly; that difference changes how reviewers should interpret coordination findings.
Keep sheet numbers and revision information visible. Use clear filenames that help a person identify the discipline and issue, without relying on filenames as the only record of what governs. An old schedule embedded in a current PDF can still create a real ambiguity.
Check readability at the source
Open representative plans, detail sheets, schedules, and general notes. Confirm that a person can read the small text, dimension strings, table headers, symbols, and references. Check that page edges are complete and the sheet is oriented correctly.
Use a direct PDF export from the authoring application when available. If the package contains scans, inspect their actual legibility; selectable OCR text alone does not establish that the table or symbol was interpreted correctly. Groundbook reads scanned and hand-drawn sheets as images and treats any OCR layer as a draft; see how scanned sets are reviewed. Avoid a file-size reduction that makes key information unreadable.
Check for blank, duplicated, clipped, or password-restricted pages before uploading. If a sheet is only partly legible, document that limitation and seek a better source rather than treating an absence of findings as evidence that it is correct.
Include the references needed to answer the question
A detail callout is only useful if its destination is available. Include the relevant schedules, specification sections, consultant drawings, and reports needed to interpret the chosen scope. For code-reference review, confirm and supply the applicable reference material.
- Equipment consistency: plans, schedules, diagrams, controls, and relevant specifications.
- Structural/MEP interfaces: both disciplines, related details, and opening or support information.
- Pre-permit coordination: the intended submission issue and the project’s submission checklist and supporting references.
Keep the full context around a requirement. An excerpt that omits a definition or exception can make a valid design condition look like an error.
Distinguish checked files from references
In Groundbook, identify the files you want checked and the files that provide supporting context. This distinction is especially useful when the package contains a code volume, owner standard, older issue, or background report.
If two files contain different versions of the same sheet, identify the governing issue in the review instructions. Do not assume the software can infer document precedence from a timestamp or the word “final.” For a revision-focused workflow, use the revised drawing set guide.
Write instructions that a colleague could use
Describe the milestone, the included disciplines, the interfaces to focus on, and any intentional gaps. Name project terminology that could otherwise be ambiguous, such as a building wing or a shared equipment tag convention.
Review the current structural and mechanical/plumbing issue for floor-level inconsistencies, missing sump or equipment interfaces, and mismatched equipment requirements. Use the attached specification sections as references. The older structural package is background only. Record questions that need designer confirmation.
This is an example review brief, not a promise of exhaustive coverage. Adapt it to the project and include enough source material to support the requested checks.
Keep a record of what was reviewed
Save the file list, issue dates, review instructions, and known exclusions with the team’s review record. That makes later findings and revisions easier to interpret, especially when a consultant issues a replacement file during the review.
After the review, verify source references before changing the design. If a finding comes from an unreadable table or a superseded sheet, record that cause so the next run uses a better package.