Start with the opening drawing note of the issued Section 31 62 13.26: confirm that the foundation plan shows every pressure-injected footing as a single or in a cluster with its configuration, that battered footings give their angle, that each footing carries its design load, and that the test footings are located unless the section lets the contracting officer direct them. Then check what the note leaves out but the section still needs: the bearing stratum and tip elevation, the cutoff elevation, and, for a lump sum bid, the number, capacity, size, and length the bid article prices; whether the shaft is cased or uncased and how single and paired cased footings are braced at the top; and how the shaft connects to the cap. Then confirm who sets the terminal criteria, and that the concrete, load test, and payment articles kept match the shaft type and the tests the contract pays for.
Assemble the review package
Gather the foundation plan with footing marks, clusters, and test footings, the footing schedule or general notes with design loads, uplift, lateral loads, and bending moments, the batter angles and directions, the bearing stratum and tip or base elevations, and the cutoff elevations, the pile cap, grade beam, and slab details with the shaft embedment, dowels, and the bracing of single and paired footings, the typical footing detail with the shaft type, casing diameter, and reinforcement, the geotechnical report with boring logs, standard penetration test results, groundwater, and the soil description the bearing formula’s constant depends on, the grading plan with the elevation to which earthwork is completed before installation, the existing structures and utilities near the work, and the issued Section 31 62 13.26 with Sections 03 30 00, 01 45 35, and 01 33 29. Follow one footing from its expanded base, up its shaft, into the cap before assuming the others match.
WBDG publishes UFGS 31 62 13.26: Pressure-Injected Footings as a public guide-specification reference (accessed November 11, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Footing plan, clusters, batter, loads, and elevations | Opening drawing note (plan of singles and clusters with cluster configurations, batter angle, design loads, test footing locations) + Basis of Bid note (number, capacity, locations, and tip and cutoff elevations shown on the drawings for lump sum) + Lump Sum Payment bracket and Table 1 (location, number, size, bearing capacity, length, maximum bending moment and shear force) + Production Acceptance Criteria (safe bearing capacity, minimum tip elevation or depth) + Tolerance (batter angle limit) + foundation plan, schedule, and general notes | Does every footing mark resolve to a design load and a cluster configuration, do battered footings give an angle and a direction within the section’s batter limit, are the tip or minimum depth and the cutoff elevations shown, since the drawing note does not ask for them but the bid note and the acceptance criteria rely on them, and where Table 1 is kept for a lump sum bid, do its size, capacity, length, moment, and shear entries match the schedule? |
| Contractor design, designer, and who sets the terminal criteria | Description (design, furnish, install, and test) + Qualifications (specialty installer; designer registered in the project state) + Design Calculations (bracketed; sealed calculations and quality control test program) + Contractor’s Geotechnical Consultant Documentation (bracketed) + Production Acceptance Criteria (the Contractor’s Geotechnical Consultant determines the terminal driving criteria) + General Requirements bracket (the Contracting Officer specifies the penetration elevation and final driving energy from the load tests) | Since the section makes the contractor the designer, are the loads, moments, and uplift the design must carry all on the drawings rather than left to assumption, is the Design Calculations article kept, and has the specifier settled who sets the terminal criteria, since Production Acceptance Criteria gives them to the Contractor’s Geotechnical Consultant, whose own article is bracketed and can be deleted, while the General Requirements bracket gives the penetration elevation and final energy to the Contracting Officer? |
| Expanded base, drive tube, and the bearing formula | Base note (drive tube diameter and hammer energy by load range) + Base article (drive tube diameter bracket, concrete or gravel plug, pre-boring, drive to a granular stratum, plug expelled, concrete kept above the tube bottom) + Production Acceptance Criteria (capacity written in kN or kips; formula returning metric tons or tons) + K-value note and table (constant from a load test, or from a soil description and SPT blow count) + Pressure Injected Footing Records (blows for the last base batch) + boring logs | Do the boring logs identify a granular stratum suitable for an expanded base at each footing location, at the tip elevations the drawings show, is the drive tube diameter bracket filled to suit the design loads, is the formula constant taken from a load test or tied to a soil description the geotechnical report actually uses, and has the specifier reconciled the units, since the acceptance capacity is written as a force while the formula returns metric tons or tons? |
| Cased or uncased shaft, and bracing of cased footings | Casings note (printed over Casings, Uncased Shaft, and Cased Shaft; delete the shaft type not used; limits on uncased shafts in soft clay or silt) + Casings article (permanent watertight steel casing) + Uncased Shaft + Cased Shaft (casing embedded in the base; sand fill washed into the annulus; sequencing radius and cure time before adjacent footings) + Cased Shaft lateral support note (single and paired cased footings braced at the top; minimum casing diameter blank) + PIF Records paragraph ([cased][uncased][reinforced] shaft) + soil profile and grade beam layout | Has the specifier kept the shaft type the typical footing detail shows and deleted the other, and where uncased shafts are kept, does the soil profile avoid the soft clay or silt the note warns about, or do the drawings provide the spacing or pre-bored holes it requires, where shafts are cased, is the minimum casing diameter filled in, and do grade beams or slabs brace single and paired cased footings at the top in the directions the lateral support note requires? |
| Concrete, slump, aggregates, and zero-slump specimens | Concrete note and article (concrete section blank; 28-day and early strengths for base and shafts; zero-slump base; slump brackets for cased and uncased shafts; mix proportioned to ACI 211.3R) + Uncased Shaft alternative (high-slump fill when reinforced full length) + Cased Shaft (one fixed slump) + Fine Aggregate and Aggregates (two sand paragraphs, different fineness modulus ranges, a grading “as delivered to the grout mixer”) + Zero-Slump Concrete Sampling + Compressive Strength Test Results (ACI 214R) + Inspection and Safety (testing agency to ASTM C1077 and E329) + general notes concrete strengths | Is the concrete section blank filled in and do the strengths on the general notes match the section, does the slump bracket kept agree with the shaft article kept, since the uncased alternative for a fully reinforced shaft calls for a high-slump fill that no Concrete bracket offers and the Cased Shaft article fixes a slump that differs from one of the cased-shaft brackets, which of the two sand paragraphs governs, since their fineness ranges differ and the second is written for grout, what governs the coarse aggregate the Concrete article sizes but no paragraph describes, and does the testing agency know the zero-slump specimen procedure the section describes? |
| Reinforcement, uplift, dowels, and the connection to the cap | Reinforcement notes (shafts reinforced only for tension, moment, or shear; battered shafts may need it for compression or lateral load; correlated section blank) + Reinforcement articles (Section 03 30 00 bracket; cage tied and centred with spacers; bracketed full-length reinforcement of battered and uncased shafts for uplift; shaft connected to the superstructure as indicated; dowels) + SD-02 Reinforcement and Dowels + pile cap, grade beam, and footing details + general notes uplift and lateral loads | Where the general notes or schedule give uplift, moment, or shear at any footing, or where footings are battered, do the footing details show the shaft reinforcement and its length, is the bracketed full-length uplift sentence kept where it applies, and do the cap and grade beam details show the dowels and embedment that connect the shaft to the superstructure “as indicated”, since the section relies on the drawings for that connection? |
| Basis of bid, payment items, and load tests | Basis of Bid note (lump sum or unit price) + Lump Sum Payment + Unit Price (NAVFAC LANT paragraph: price per unit length including mobilization and demobilization, jetting, predrilling, and build-ups) + Payment note (title “(UNIT PRICES)” over a paragraph titled PAYMENT) + Mobilization and Demobilization (separate lump sum) + compression, tensile, and lateral load test pay items + Placement bracket (no permanent footings until load tests pass) + Load Tests note and article (compression only; revise for ASTM D3689 or D3966; opening sentence a fragment) + Test Measurements + Load Test Apparatus + SD-02 and SD-06 Load Tests + test footing locations | Is one basis of bid kept, and where the NAVFAC LANT paragraph is used, has the specifier removed mobilization from the unit length price, since the Payment article pays it separately, and removed jetting and build-ups, which no article specifies, where a tensile or lateral load test pay item is kept, has the Load Tests article been revised to specify that test, as its note asks, are the test footings located on the plan or left to the contracting officer, and does the schedule allow for production footings that cannot start until the load tests pass? |
| Tolerance, heave, sequence, survey, records, and neighbours | Tolerance (plan location for singles and clusters, plumb, batter, heave monitoring and notification) + Damaged, Mislocated, or Out of Alignment note and article (actual load re-checked; replacement footings) + Cased Shaft sequencing + As-Driven Survey (after each group; holds “placing concrete”) + PIF Records paragraph (a description of the footing) and Pressure Injected Footing Records (base volume, final blows, elevations of adjacent footings before and after) + Protection of Existing Structures, Vibration Control, Noise Control (paid per vibration monitoring point), Preconstruction Condition Survey, and Instrumentation notes and articles (no submittal items for their reports) + seismic special inspection note (locations on the drawings) + Section 01 45 35 | Do the cap and grade beam details leave room for a footing installed at the edge of the plan tolerance, are the existing structures and utilities within reach of the work located for the condition survey and monitoring, with the project document the protection article refers to actually issued, has the specifier added submittal items for the survey, instrumentation, and consultant submissions those articles require, corrected the Sound Monitoring measurement, and made clear that the as-driven survey holds the cap concrete, and where seismic special inspection is kept, are its locations shown, as the note asks? |
Worked example: two capacities, no named consultant, and a high-slump shaft the concrete article never offers
Illustrative example: a vehicle maintenance shop on loose to medium sand over a dense sand layer is founded on pressure-injected footings, with single footings under canopy columns, three-footing clusters under the main frames, and battered footings behind a loading dock wall, next to an occupied hangar. The foundation plan gives each cluster a design load, but the footing schedule on the general notes sheet, issued in a later revision, gives a different capacity for the same cluster marks, and neither sheet gives tip or cutoff elevations. The issued Section 31 62 13.26 keeps the Contractor’s Geotechnical Consultant in Production Acceptance Criteria but deletes the article that defines the consultant, keeps both the uncased and cased shaft paragraphs, and keeps the uncased alternative with a high-slump fill while the Concrete bracket kept is zero-slump for uncased shafts. It keeps the NAVFAC LANT unit price paragraph with mobilization inside the unit length price beside the separate mobilization lump sum, and a tensile load test pay item although the Load Tests article covers compression only. The canopy footings are cased, with grade beams in one direction only, and the vibration and condition survey articles are kept with no hangar shown on the plan.
Ask the structural engineer to confirm which schedule governs the cluster capacities and to correct the other, to add the bearing stratum, tip, and cutoff elevations, the batter directions, and the shaft type and reinforcement on the typical footing detail, and to brace the single cased canopy footings in the second direction or reinforce them for the lateral load. Ask the specifier to restore the Contractor’s Geotechnical Consultant article or name who sets the terminal criteria, to delete the shaft paragraph not used and align the slump brackets with the one kept, to take mobilization out of the unit length price, and to add a tensile load test article or delete the pay item. Ask the contracting officer to have the hangar located on the plan for the condition survey and vibration monitoring, and to add submittal items for the survey and monitoring reports.
See the published structural revision finding. The illustrative scenario above is separate from that published finding.
Avoid a false conflict
Section 31 62 13.26 covers pressure-injected footings, an expanded concrete base rammed into a granular stratum with a cased or uncased shaft above it, which the contractor designs, installs, and tests. Driven steel casings filled with concrete follow Section 31 62 13.13 or its USACE edition 31 62 23.13 and the cast-in-place concrete pile guide, augered cast-in-place piles follow Section 31 63 16 and drilled shafts Section 31 63 29, each with its own guide, the concrete and reinforcement the section relies on follow Section 03 30 00 and the concrete guide, special inspection follows Section 01 45 35, and sustainability reporting follows Section 01 33 29, so check those before calling a requirement missing. Some of the section’s own wording needs resolving before it is compared with the drawings: the terminal criteria are given to a consultant whose article is optional and, by a bracket, to the contracting officer; the acceptance capacity and the formula use different units; the paragraph titled PIF Records describes the footing and the records sit under Inspection and Safety; two sand paragraphs disagree and one is written for grout, with no coarse aggregate paragraph; the shaft articles call for slumps the Concrete brackets do not match; the LANT unit price includes mobilization the Payment article pays separately and prices jetting and build-ups no article specifies; tensile and lateral load tests are paid but not specified; sound monitoring is paid per vibration point; the survey and monitoring reports have no submittal items; the sustainability list names fly ash, slag, silica fume, and tendon steel the section never specifies; and the as-driven survey holds “placing concrete” after the footings are already cast. Ask the specifier which wording the project intends before treating a difference as a design conflict.
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.