Map the specified waterproofing system to the actual substrate, extent, and adjoining materials shown in details. Trace terminations, penetrations, joints, drainage, and protection requirements before treating a membrane label as a complete installation instruction.
Assemble the review package
Use the issued waterproofing specification, below-grade or deck plans, sections, joint and penetration details, and drainage information for the selected zone. Include the product installation information available at that stage. This workflow is scoped to fluid-applied waterproofing; confirm the separate specification and detailing basis for sheet systems or other water-control layers.
WBDG publishes UFGS 07 14 00: Fluid-Applied Waterproofing as a public guide-specification reference (accessed September 16, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| System extent | Plans and section limits + specification scope | Do the documents identify the surfaces receiving this system and distinguish them from adjacent roofing, dampproofing, or other work? |
| Substrate | Assembly detail + preparation clauses | Does the specified preparation address the substrate actually shown? Record unresolved existing-surface or mixed-material conditions. |
| Layer identity | Detail notes + selected system requirements | Can the membrane, reinforcing accessories, protection, and drainage layers be identified in order? Avoid treating a single hatch as every layer. |
| Terminations | Edges and upstands + termination requirements | Does each reviewed edge have an identifiable termination and connection to the neighboring water-control layer? |
| Penetrations | Service and drain details + accessory clauses | Are sleeves, drains, and penetrations detailed for the selected system rather than left to a generic sealant note? |
| Joints | Movement-joint details + system requirements | Is the movement condition identified and tied to a compatible detail? Refer unresolved joint treatment to the designer and system provider. |
| Protection and sequence | Overburden details + installation requirements | Do the documents explain how later work relates to membrane protection and access for inspection or testing? |
| Verification | Testing clauses + area and sequencing plans | Is the specified verification method tied to a defined area and work stage? Record who reviews the result before the area is covered. |
Worked example: the membrane stops at an unexplained drain
Illustrative example: a deck section calls for fluid-applied waterproofing, but a drain detail refers only to a generic flange. The specification identifies a system, while the detail does not show the intended connection between that system and the drain assembly. A plan location for the drain does not resolve the interface.
Pair the deck section, drain detail, and selected system reference in one question. Request a coordinated connection detail and confirmation of the receiving drain component. Review protection and test access before closure, since a revised connection may change the sequence for covering the membrane.
Avoid a false conflict
Do not infer compatibility because two products are both called waterproofing. Different substrates, accessories, and adjacent layers can require different treatment. The review should request a documented basis for the actual assembly without prescribing an unverified product combination.
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.