Check the geotechnical report first against what UFC 3-220-01 asks it to contain, then trace each recommendation into the documents that use it: risk category and liquefaction evaluation, site class, bearing and settlement basis, groundwater and dewatering, frost depth, and any expansive soil or foundation-type limits. Most findings are recommendations that never reached the structural general notes or details. AI can flag conflicts; the geotechnical engineer of record, the structural engineer, and the DoD authority decide compliance.
What does UFC 3-220-01 cover?
The digital UFC 3-220-01 adopts and modifies the 2024 IBC as the building code for DoD geotechnical engineering design, and sets minimum requirements for geotechnical engineering and design of DoD facilities worldwide. Its single chapter follows the IBC chapter order: definitions, earthquake loads, special inspections and tests, soils and foundations, and safeguards during construction. Each change is marked as an addition, deletion, replacement, or supplement to the IBC text.
WBDG’s UFC 3-220-01 page lists the criteria as active digital UFC content, first published July 2, 2026, and tells teams to refer to UFC 1-200-01 for project applicability. The digital criteria viewer labels the latest version September 30, 2026. Checked October 16, 2026. Its text bases the requirements on the 2024 IBC and UFC 1-200-01. WBDG’s change summary describes a major revision that removed the references, best practices, supplemental resources, and glossary appendices and moved explanatory content into commentary paragraphs. Contracts awarded before the reissue may invoke a superseded PDF version; record the version and date the task order names.
For soils and foundations, the UFC supplements or replaces IBC provisions on geotechnical investigations and reporting, excavation near foundations, groundwater control, load-bearing values, retaining walls, shallow and deep foundations, and expansive soils, and it adds sections on slope stability and geosynthetics. It has liquefaction potential assessed against minimum factors of safety tied to the risk category in UFC 3-301-01, and WBDG’s change summary says a value for Risk Category V was added. WBDG’s change summary for UFC 3-301-01 says that criteria’s foundation provisions were removed in favor of this UFC. The summary paragraph on WBDG’s record page describes an older code basis, so work from the digital text. See the UFC 1-200-01 guide, the IBC guide, and the ASCE 7 guide for site class.
Gather the report and the documents that use it
Collect the signed and sealed geotechnical report with its boring location plan, logs, cone penetration test data, groundwater readings, laboratory results, seismic site class and liquefaction evaluation, corrosivity results, subsurface profiles, and recommendations for site preparation, foundations, and pavement sections. Add the structural general notes, foundation plans and details, slab details, the civil grading and paving sheets, the plumbing under-slab plans, and the earthwork, dewatering, and foundation specifications.
Make a list of every recommendation the report makes. The review is largely a matter of finding each one in the drawings and specifications, or finding that it is missing.
Trace the geotechnical report into the design
| Review question | Sources to compare | Decision to record |
|---|---|---|
| Report contents | Geotechnical report, UFC reporting items | Confirm the report includes the items the UFC adds, such as site class, liquefaction potential, groundwater, corrosivity, profiles, calculations, and seal, or record what is missing. |
| Risk category and liquefaction | Geotechnical report, structural general notes, UFC 3-301-01 risk category table | Check that the liquefaction evaluation used the same risk category the structural notes state. |
| Site class and seismic data | Geotechnical report, structural earthquake design data | Confirm one site class and one source for the seismic parameters in both documents. |
| Bearing and settlement basis | Geotechnical report, foundation plan, general notes | Match allowable bearing values and settlement assumptions in the notes to the report rather than to presumptive values. |
| Groundwater and dewatering | Geotechnical report, below-grade waterproofing details, dewatering specification | Check that the stabilized groundwater level reaches the waterproofing, under-slab drainage, and temporary dewatering requirements. |
| Foundation type, frost, and expansive soil | Report recommendations, foundation and slab details, plumbing plans | Confirm footing depth cites the geotechnical frost depth, expansive soil measures are detailed, and no foundation type the UFC disallows is shown. |
Footing and slab reinforcement continue in the concrete specifications guide, structural notes in the structural drawing checklist, and site preparation in the earthwork specifications guide and the civil and site checklist. The reinforced concrete foundation case study shows foundation findings in practice.
Example: a supported slab with under-slab piping bedded in clay
Hypothetical example. The geotechnical report for a new vehicle maintenance facility finds highly expansive clay and recommends a structurally supported floor slab over a void space. The structural foundation plan follows the recommendation, but the plumbing under-floor plan shows sanitary and trench drain piping bedded directly in the subgrade, and neither the structural notes nor the plumbing details show how that piping is supported.
The geotechnical report and foundation plan call for a structurally supported slab over expansive soil, but the plumbing plan shows under-slab piping bedded in the subgrade with no support detail. Confirm how under-slab utilities are supported and coordinate the plumbing, structural, and geotechnical documents.
The geotechnical engineer and the structural engineer of record confirm the support approach, and the plumbing engineer revises the details. The finding is a missing coordination detail. It is not a soil movement analysis.
Review geotechnical criteria with Groundbook
Upload the current drawings and specifications to Groundbook, and state the edition, amendments, and review scope in your instructions. Add UFC 3-220-01 and the other UFCs the task order names from WBDG, which publishes them free, plus the model codes and standards the project uses from copies you are licensed to upload.
Compare the geotechnical report with the structural general notes, foundation plans and details, slab details, civil grading and paving sheets, plumbing under-slab plans, and earthwork, dewatering, and foundation specifications. Flag report recommendations missing from the drawings, a risk category or site class that differs between the report and the notes, bearing or settlement values that do not match, groundwater levels the details ignore, and foundation types the UFC does not permit. Use the supplied UFC 3-220-01 and cite both sources.
Groundbook links each potential finding to the report page and the sheets involved. It compares what the documents state; it does not evaluate liquefaction, bearing capacity, settlement, or slope stability.
Document review does not certify compliance with DoD criteria or replace the geotechnical engineer of record, the structural engineer, or the DoD authority having jurisdiction.