Start with the deck and the slope: confirm that the deck the issued Section 07 57 13 is applied to is not lightweight concrete, that the structural drawings, not the foam, provide the slope to drain, and that the owner has accepted the maintenance and inspection the opening note requires before SPF is selected. Then check that the foam thickness, the fire and wind listing, the coating type and its dry film thickness, the terminations, curbs, expansion joints, and drains, the walkways, and the air intake shutdown agree with the roof plan, the roof details, the mechanical drawings, and Section 07 60 00.
Assemble the review package
Gather the roof plan with roof areas, slopes, drains, overflow drains or scuppers, curbs, penetrations, expansion joints, equipment, walkways, and access points, the roof sections showing the deck and the foam thickness, the edge, eave, rake, parapet, curb, drain, expansion joint, and penetration details, the structural roof framing and deck drawings with the deck slope, deflection, and wind design criteria, a survey of the existing roof covering and its moisture condition on a reroof, the mechanical drawings with every outside-air intake, economizer, and relief opening on or near the roof, the energy compliance documents with the roof R-value and any cool roof requirement, the FM or UL listing of the proposed assembly, the owner’s maintenance agreement, and the issued Section 07 57 13 with Section 07 60 00 and the deck sections. Follow one roof area from its drain up to its high edge, and one equipment curb, before assuming the others match.
WBDG publishes UFGS 07 57 13: Sprayed Polyurethane Foam (SPF) Roofing as a public guide-specification reference (accessed November 10, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Where SPF fits: deck, reroof, and maintenance | Opening scope note (repair option for leaking metal roofs and curved shapes; more maintenance, periodic thermal imaging, recoating; stakeholder agreement on maintenance costs before selection) + deck note (not on lightweight concrete or where more than light foot traffic is expected; broomed concrete) + Existing Roof Covering Surfaces note (section written for new construction; reroof preparation by the manufacturer; gravel and ballast removed) + Wood Decks note + surface preparation articles + deck drawings and existing roof survey | Has the owner recorded acceptance of the maintenance and inspection cost the opening note makes a condition of choosing SPF, do the deck drawings rule out lightweight concrete, does a wood deck meet the deflection and sheathing conditions of the wood deck note, and since the opening note offers SPF chiefly for repairing leaking metal roofs while the existing roof note says the section is written for new construction, has the specifier added the manufacturer’s reroof preparation for the existing covering, including removal of gravel or ballast and of wet material? |
| Slope to drain built into the structure | Opening note (slope to drain after deflection obtained by sloping the structural deck, not by varying the sprayed thickness) + Surface Uniformity article (limit on thickness above the minimum; no ponding; free drainage from the finished foam surface) + coating note (silicone coatings only above a stated slope) + structural framing and deck slope + roof plan drains, crickets, and saddles | Do the structural drawings slope the deck to every drain after deflection, as the note requires, rather than the roof plan relying on tapered foam, crickets, or saddles that the Surface Uniformity article’s thickness limit would not allow, where a reroof sits on an existing flat or ponding deck, has the designer said how drainage is obtained, and where the slope is lower than the coating note allows for silicone, are the silicone coating types deleted? |
| Foam thickness, R-value, and passes | Opening note (designer determines the R-value and thickness from the aged R-value and specifies or indicates the thickness; minimum thickness) + Spray Foam note and article (thickness bracket; at least two passes; thickness range per pass) + Construction Monitoring item g (a different range per lift) + Energy and Cool Roof note (R-value on the drawings or in other sections) + roof sections + energy compliance documents | Do the roof sections and the Spray Foam bracket state the same foam thickness, derived from the aged R-value the opening note names and matching the R-value in the energy compliance documents, and since the Spray Foam article and Construction Monitoring item g give different thickness ranges for each pass, has the specifier set one range, so the inspector and the applicator check the same limit? |
| Fire classification and wind uplift | Fire and Wind Uplift note (over metal deck a UL 1256 classification or FM Class 1 listing in addition to UL 790; Class A below a stated slope, Class B possibly on steeper slopes; FM wind rating recommended for foam applied directly to decks; over an existing roof the rating typically follows the existing system) + Fire and Wind Uplift brackets + no ASCE 7 or design wind speed in the section + structural wind criteria + FM or UL listing | Is one fire and wind bracket kept and filled in, does the listed assembly match the deck, any existing roof covering, the foam, and the coating on the roof sections, on a reroof, is the wind rating of the existing roof system documented, and since the section cites no ASCE 7 and no design wind speed, do the structural drawings give the uplift pressures, corner and perimeter zones included, that the chosen FM rating must meet? |
| Coating type, colors, and dry film thickness | Protective Coating note and Selection Guidance Table (silicone Types A and B on steeper slopes; urethane Type CB alone or with a Type CF finish on any slope; table printed again in the body) + Type A, B, CB, and CF property tables + Coating Color (layers in distinguishable colors; finish color) + Minimum DFT note and table + Solar Reflectance and Energy articles + Intermediate Coat paragraph | Is the coating bracket edited to the types the slopes allow, is the finish color one that meets any cool roof or solar reflectance requirement kept, has the specifier used one unit system in the DFT table and the property tables, since the metric Type CB intermediate coat, the metric totals, the Type CF row, the hot and humid note, and the Type A and Type CF tensile, elongation, set, and tear values do not agree between the metric and inch-pound versions, and has the second copy of the selection table been deleted? |
| Terminations, curbs, equipment, expansion joints, and drains | Preapplication Inspection notes (expansion joints at structural joints, substrate changes, and L- and T-shaped intersections, on curbs above the water line; no clamping rings on drains with SPF; equipment on curbs sealed into the roof system, with a minimum curb height and clearance under equipment) + Terminations article (foam turned up vertical surfaces; V-cut and sealant at metal eaves and rakes) + Penetrations (extra finish coat around access points and penetrations; doubled coating at drain sumps) + Flashing paragraph (Section 07 60 00 shop drawings; no SD-02 item) + details | Does the roof plan show an expansion joint on a curb at every structural joint, substrate change, and L- or T-shaped intersection the note lists, do the plumbing drain details omit the clamping ring the note says not to use, are equipment curbs detailed to the height and clearance the note sets and sealed into the foam, do the eave and rake details show the V-cut and sealant, and has a shop drawing item been added to the submittal list for the Section 07 60 00 flashing, which the Flashing paragraph makes part of this section? |
| Traffic, walkways, granules, and walkpads | Opening deck note (not where more than light foot traffic is anticipated) + Walkways note (walkways whenever heavy foot traffic is expected) + Walkways article (granule or fabric-reinforced traffic paths) + Description of Roof System note (granules only where appearance matters and for walkways) + Ceramic Granules article (listed as Mineral Granules in the submittals) + Walkpads + Traffic Area Fabric + roof plan access points, equipment, and service paths | Since the opening note rules SPF out where more than light foot traffic is anticipated while the Walkways note calls for walkways where heavy traffic is expected, has the designer confirmed that the roof sees only light maintenance traffic, are the walkways, walkpads, and traffic paths drawn from each hatch and door to each piece of equipment, is one walkway method kept, and is the granule submittal renamed to match the Ceramic Granules article? |
| Overspray, air intakes, weather, and inspection | Close Intake Vents note and bracket (shutdown decided by the designer; notice before shutdown; portable ventilation and cooling where needed) + Protection of Property and Masking + Warning Signs + Project/Site Conditions (wind screens, wind, surface temperature and dew point limits) + Daily Log + slit and core samples + Manufacturer’s Field Inspection + Visual Inspection and Moisture Scanning before the contractor’s warranty ends + warranties + mechanical drawings and site logistics plan | Do the mechanical drawings identify every intake, economizer, and relief opening the foam and coating crews must seal, has the designer decided whether ventilation shuts down and, for an occupied reroof, which rooms get portable ventilation and cooling, does the logistics plan place the warning signs, masking, and overspray shields the protection articles call for, and is the moisture scan before the contractor’s warranty ends and the periodic recoating the opening note describes written into the owner’s maintenance plan? |
Worked example: a reroof that slopes with foam, an intake left open, and a coating table in two units
Illustrative example: an occupied two-story administration building with a leaking low-slope metal roof over a steel structure is reroofed with SPF. The issued Section 07 57 13 keeps the new construction wording, the roof plan draws tapered foam crickets between the drains because the existing structure is nearly flat, and the drain details still show the clamping rings of the original roof. The coating bracket keeps every type, including silicone, although the roof slope is below what the coating note allows for silicone. The DFT table is issued in metric for a project specified in inch-pound units elsewhere, the mechanical roof plan shows two rooftop units with outside-air intakes beside the work, and the Close Intake Vents bracket is left unedited. The roof plan also shows a heavily used path to a communications antenna that technicians visit daily.
Ask the architect and the structural engineer how drainage is obtained without tapering the foam, as the opening note requires, for example by re-sloping the structure or adding crickets in another system, and ask the specifier to add the manufacturer’s preparation of the existing metal roof, since the section says it is written for new construction. Ask the architect to delete the clamping rings from the drain details, to delete the silicone types unless the slope allows them, and to issue the DFT table in the project’s unit system after reconciling the values that disagree between the two versions. Ask the mechanical engineer to list the intakes to seal and the shutdown and temporary ventilation needed for the occupied floors, and ask the designer whether daily antenna traffic is consistent with the opening note’s limit to light foot traffic, or whether that area needs a different system or a protected walkway.
See the published rooftop intake finding. The illustrative scenario above is separate from that published finding.
Avoid a false conflict
Section 07 57 13 covers sprayed polyurethane foam insulation with a fluid-applied silicone or urethane coating, granules, walkpads, and traffic fabric, applied over decks and, with the manufacturer’s preparation, over existing roof coverings. Metal flashing follows Section 07 60 00, as its Flashing paragraph says, and its opening note asks for coordination with the decking and sheet metal flashing sections, so check those before calling a requirement missing. Membrane roofing is UFGS 07 51 13 built-up, 07 52 00 modified bitumen, 07 53 23 EPDM, and 07 54 23 TPO; see those guides. The section cites no ASCE 7 and no design wind speed and relies on the FM or UL listing for wind, so check the structural wind criteria separately, and its notes point to UFC 3-110-03 Roofing, ASHRAE 90.1, and the IgCC. Its opening note sends the slope to the structure, limits SPF to light foot traffic, and makes owner acceptance of the maintenance a condition of selection. Its DFT table and its Type A and Type CF property tables do not agree between metric and inch-pound units, so confirm which version the project issues. Wind uplift, fire classification, deck capacity, the R-value, and the ventilation shutdown are decisions for the architect, the structural and mechanical engineers, and the roof consultant, and the warranty is settled between the owner and the manufacturer. The current guide section cites UL 790, UL 1256, the FM Approval Guide, ASTM D5469, D1622, D1621, D1623, D2126, D6226, D2842, D412, D624, D2697, E84, E96, and E1980, SSPC SP 6, AIHA Z88.6, and SPFA AY-104; confirm the editions your project invokes.
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.