Equipment and performance
Match equipment tags and duties across schedules, diagrams, specifications, and controls. Check units and operating modes before treating different values as a conflict.
Drawing and specification review
Make the requirements agree
A plan, an equipment schedule, and a specification can describe the same component differently. Review them together to identify potential inconsistencies in materials, performance, quantities, and operating requirements.
Where to focus
What to bring into the review
Materials and assemblies
Compare the material or assembly described by a plan note with the relevant detail and specification. Look for project-specific selections and exceptions.
Connections and controls
Review the relationship between an equipment requirement, its utility connection, and its stated operating sequence. Ask the relevant designers to resolve missing or inconsistent information.
Addenda and governing versions
Identify references to superseded schedules or specification sections. Establish the issued package before interpreting a difference between two documents.
Inside Groundbook
Include the information behind the drawing
Add the relevant specification and reference PDFs alongside the drawings. In the instructions, identify the equipment, assemblies, or requirement types you want to review and explain which issue is current.
A practical workflow
From the first pass to a decision
Define the comparison
Choose a practical scope, such as equipment requirements across mechanical plans, schedules, and specifications. Include the full referenced sections needed to understand exceptions.
Read the source context
Check that the finding links the same component and design condition. A specification may describe several permitted options while the schedule records a particular selection.
Reconcile the intended requirement
Have the responsible designer confirm the requirement and revise each affected document. Check procurement and controls information that may also depend on the decision.
From a published project review
Plans, schedules, and controls use different equipment data
Equipment tags, quantities, duties, materials, and operating sequences did not consistently reconcile across plans, diagrams, schedules, and specifications.
Read the findingDefine the scope with your team
A conflicting statement is a question to resolve, not an automatic rule about which document wins. Confirm the project’s contract documents and the responsible team’s direction when precedence or scope is involved.
Questions, answered
FAQs
Do the drawings or specifications take precedence?
There is no single answer for every project. Check the governing contract documents and obtain the appropriate project direction. Groundbook can identify a potential inconsistency; it does not decide contractual precedence.
Should we upload the entire specification book?
Include the sections needed for the stated review and any related definitions, exceptions, and referenced requirements. Avoid removing context that could explain an apparent conflict.
What if the schedule is more specific than the specification?
Check whether the schedule is a valid project selection within the specification’s permitted options. A difference in detail is not necessarily an inconsistency.
Keep exploring
Continue your review
Cross-discipline coordination
Find potential conflicts across architectural, structural, and MEP drawings. Review levels, openings, equipment, and references with linked document evidence.
ExploreDoor schedule review checklist
Check door schedules against plans, frames, hardware, specifications, and access-control information. Includes 12 review prompts, a worked example, and a free CSV.
ExploreSample plan review report
Explore nine AI review findings from published projects, plus a worked construction document review example with evidence, a response template, and closure checks.
ExploreBring your next set into focus
Set up a review or talk through your project with our team.