Start with the section’s design review article: confirm that the drawings show the balancing valves, manual dampers, test ports, flow measuring devices, and thermometer wells TAB needs, and that every system has the design values the TAB report forms require. Then compare the systems the section lists for duct air leakage testing, balancing, sound assessment, and seasonal performance testing with the systems actually on the drawings.
Assemble the review package
Gather the HVAC plans, equipment schedules (air handlers, fans, terminal units, pumps, coils), air and water flow values on the plans or schedules, duct and piping details showing balancing devices, the controls drawings and sequences, the domestic hot water recirculation drawings if in scope, and the issued Section 23 05 93. Review one system from source to terminal before assuming another is drawn the same way.
WBDG publishes UFGS 23 05 93: Testing, Adjusting, and Balancing for HVAC as a public guide-specification reference (accessed October 17, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Balancing devices | Design Review article + duct and piping plans + details | Are balancing valves, manual balancing dampers, and flow measuring devices drawn where each branch will need to be set? |
| Test ports and wells | Design Review article + piping details + equipment connections | Are test ports, gauge cocks, and thermometer wells shown at the coils, pumps, and equipment TAB will measure? |
| Design values | Design Review article + equipment schedules + plans | Does every air outlet, terminal unit, coil, and pump have the design flow values the TAB report forms need? |
| Systems requiring DALT | Systems Requiring DALT article + duct plans and pressure classes | Are the duct systems the section lists for air leakage testing identified on the drawings, with their pressure classes? |
| Systems requiring TAB | Systems Requiring TAB article + equipment schedules | Does the list of systems to balance match the systems on the drawings, including domestic hot water recirculation where retained? |
| Sound assessment areas | Areas Requiring Sound Assessment article + room schedule | Are the rooms the section names for sound assessment identifiable on the plans with their criteria? |
| Seasonal thermal performance | Seasonal Thermal Performance and Season 2 articles + phasing and schedule | Does the project schedule allow both seasons of testing the section retains? |
| Controls coordination | Coordination article + controls drawings and sequences | Do the controls drawings show the setpoints, sensors, and access TAB needs to work with the controls contractor? |
Worked example: terminal units with no design airflow
Illustrative example: the floor plans show variable air volume terminal units tagged by room, and the terminal unit schedule lists sizes and heating coils but no minimum or maximum airflow. The TAB section’s design review article asks for the design values needed to complete the report forms.
Ask the mechanical engineer to add the design airflows to the schedule or the plans, then recheck the coil and diffuser values that depend on them. Check the other terminal unit schedules before closing the item.
Avoid a false conflict
A balanced design on paper does not mean the drawings carry the values needed to prove it. Missing design flows or devices are document gaps, not field problems, and they are cheaper to fix before bid.
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.