Trace each scheduled site furnishing from the site or landscape plan into its specified material, finish, and anchoring method, then confirm coordination with the paving, foundation, and any nearby utility or accessible-route requirement for that exact location.
Assemble the review package
Gather the site or landscape plan showing furnishing locations, the site furnishings schedule or legend, civil and paving details, accessible-route information, and the issued site furnishings specification. Include utility and irrigation plans where a furnishing’s anchoring could conflict with buried services. Review one furnishing type and its immediate surroundings before assuming a similar symbol elsewhere shares the same condition.
WBDG publishes UFGS 12 93 00: Site Furnishings 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Item-to-symbol assignment | Site plan symbol + site furnishings schedule | Does each plan symbol (bench, bollard, planter, receptacle, or table) resolve to an identifiable schedule entry and specification selection? |
| Material and construction | Schedule material column + product clauses | Does the specified material (precast concrete, fiberglass, perforated steel, or wood with a metal frame) match the appearance and durability the location needs? |
| Finish and coating | Schedule finish notes + coating and galvanizing clauses | Are the specified galvanizing, powder-coating, or paint finish requirements assigned consistently for furnishings exposed to the same conditions? |
| Anchoring and foundation | Civil or paving detail + anchor and foundation clauses | Does the documented anchoring method (surface-mounted anchor, embedded footing, or in-ground sleeve) match the paving or soil condition shown at that location? |
| Utility and irrigation conflicts | Utility/irrigation plan + furnishing footing location | Has the furnishing’s foundation or anchor location been checked against buried utilities and irrigation lines shown on the same civil sheet? |
| Accessible clearance | Accessible-route plan + furnishing footprint | Does the furnishing’s footprint and any required clear floor space respect the accessible route width at its plan location? |
| Size and capacity | Schedule dimension + specified size options | Does the scheduled size (bench length, planter dimension, receptacle capacity) match one of the options the specification actually describes? |
| Field finish and touch-up | Field-finish clauses + delivery and installation notes | Where a factory finish could be damaged during installation, does the documentation identify the required field-finish or touch-up procedure and who performs it? |
Worked example: a bollard footing conflicts with a utility line
Illustrative example: a site plan shows a row of bollards along a plaza edge, with the specification describing an embedded concrete footing for each unit. A separately issued utility plan shows an underground conduit run crossing that same plaza edge at a depth the bollard footing detail does not address.
Overlay the bollard locations on the utility plan, flag any footing that falls within the conduit’s clearance zone, and ask the civil and landscape designers to relocate the affected units or revise the footing detail. Recheck accessible clearance for the plaza after any relocation before closing the item.
Avoid a false conflict
A furnishing schedule entry describes the product, not its buried condition at a specific location. Confirm the anchoring or footing detail against utility and paving information for the plan location being reviewed rather than assuming a typical detail applies everywhere.
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.