← Projects
Search ⌘K Projects Customers Settings EN·ES
Demo walkthrough

AI-Powered Plan Coordination

Upload construction plans. Detect coordination conflicts. Save thousands in rework.

Address
Project Type
Construction Value
Total Sheets
Disciplines Detected

Analyzing Plan Set

0%
Initializing...

PDF, Excel and RFI export are available in the full portal.

Discipline:
—
CriticalP ↔ S
1. F001 (Critical, P ↔ S): Gas Piping Sleeve Through Structural Slab Coordination
Missing Coordination·Kitchen area, first floor slab
Description
  • The gas plan P-106 shows a gas sleeve under the slab detail with note 'NATURAL GAS LINE BELOW FLOOR IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 404.6 OF THE F.F.G.C.-2017, WITH VENT TO OUTSIDE.'
  • The detail shows a PVC sleeve through the concrete slab for gas piping to the kitchen island (cook top G3 at 45,000 BTU/HR).
  • The structural ground floor plan S-3.0 shows the 8" concrete slab with reinforcement but does not indicate any sleeves or penetrations for gas piping.
  • The structural notes state 'PROVIDE SLEEVES FOR ALL PIPING PASSING THROUGH FOUNDATIONS, SLABS OR MASONRY WALLS' but no specific sleeve locations are coordinated between the gas plan and structural plan.
Cost Exposure$6,625 – $20,750
Schedule Impact14 days
Recommended Action
  1. Coordinate gas sleeve locations with structural engineer.
  2. Show sleeve locations on S-3.0 with required reinforcement around penetrations.
  3. Verify sleeve size accommodates gas pipe plus required clearances per F.F.G.C. Section 404.6.
  4. Ensure structural integrity of slab is maintained at penetration locations.
HighA ↔ SP
2. F002 (High, A ↔ SP): Window Glazing Type Mismatch: Single Pane in Energy Model vs. Low-E in Window Schedule
Specification Mismatch·Window Schedule (A-200) vs. Spec Page 119 Energy Model Input
Description
  • The plan sheet A-200 window schedule specifies all windows as 'LOW-E GLASS' with U-Factor 0.66 and SHGC 0.32.
  • However, the EnergyGauge input summary on Spec Page 119 lists all windows as 'Single (Clear)' panes with the same U-Factor 0.66 and SHGC 0.32.
  • Low-E glass and single clear glass are fundamentally different products with different solar and thermal performance characteristics.
  • The energy model inputs should accurately reflect the specified glazing type.
  • If Low-E glass is actually being installed per the architectural plans, the energy model may be using incorrect solar heat gain assumptions, potentially affecting code compliance calculations.
  • Related finding: F037.
Cost Exposure$8,000 – $25,000
Schedule Impact15 days
Recommended Action
  1. Reconcile the glazing specification between the architectural window schedule and the energy model.
  2. If Low-E glass is the intended product, update the EnergyGauge model to reflect Low-E glazing.
  3. If single clear glass is intended, update the window schedule on A-200.
  4. Verify that the chosen glazing meets Florida Energy Code requirements.
HighP ↔ SP
3. F003 (High, P ↔ SP): Gas Plan References Outdated FBC 2017 for Underground Piping
Code Violation·P-106 Gas Notes vs. Spec/General Code Compliance
Description
  • The gas plan on P-106 references 'UNDERGROUND USE POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC PIPE 402.4(22) F.B.C. 2017 FUEL GAS' for underground gas piping.
  • However, all other code references on the same sheet and throughout the project reference FBC 2020.
  • The plumbing notes on P-105 also state compliance with 'the latest edition of the Florida Building Code.'
  • This outdated code reference could result in non-compliant underground gas piping installation.
  • Related items consolidated into this finding:
  • - P-106: Two Instantaneous Water Heaters Shown but Spec Compliance Calculated for Single Unit
Cost Exposure$4,700 – $14,800
Schedule Impact3 days
Recommended Action
  1. Update the underground gas piping reference on P-106 from FBC 2017 to FBC 2020 Fuel Gas, Table 402.4 applicable section.
  2. Verify that polyethylene plastic pipe sizing and installation requirements comply with the 2020 edition.
HighE ↔ SP
4. F004 (High, E ↔ SP): Panel AIC Rating Discrepancy Between Schedule and Riser Diagram
Specification Mismatch·E-106 Panel Schedules vs Riser Diagram
Description
  • On plan sheet E-106, the panel schedules for both Panel A and Panel B list 'AIC: 10,000' in the schedule headers.
  • However, the electrical riser diagram on the same sheet specifies both panels as '22K AIC' and the main disconnect as '22K AIC'.
  • This internal inconsistency means the AIC interrupting rating is contradictory within the same drawing set - 10,000 AIC vs 22,000 AIC - which has significant safety implications for fault current protection.
Cost Exposure$8,000 – $25,000
Schedule Impact14 days
Recommended Action
  1. Perform a short circuit current calculation to determine the actual available fault current and reconcile the AIC ratings.
  2. All panel schedules and riser diagrams must show consistent and adequate AIC ratings.
  3. Update the panel schedule headers to match the riser diagram (22K AIC) if that is the correct value.
HighA ↔ SP
5. F005 (High, A ↔ SP): Second Floor South Interior Setback Average Appears Non-Compliant
Code Violation·Site Plan A-101 Zoning Data Table
Description
  • The site plan on A-101 shows the required South Interior Setback Average for the second floor is 20'-0", but the proposed dimension is listed as only 10.08' (shown as 10.8' in one table instance and 10.08' in another).
  • This is approximately half of the required 20'-0" setback average.
  • This appears to be a significant zoning code violation for the H30B / RS-2 zoning district that could prevent permit approval or require building redesign.
Cost Exposure$8,000 – $25,000
Schedule Impact60 days
Recommended Action
  1. Verify the second floor south interior setback average calculation with the local zoning authority (Town of Surfside).
  2. If the 20'-0" average is indeed required, the second floor plan must be revised to comply, or a variance must be obtained.
  3. Clarify whether the two slightly different values (10.8' vs 10.08') represent a typo.
HighS ↔ SP
6. F006 (High, S ↔ SP): Stair Slab Calculation Shows 8" Section Height vs 7" Slab Description
Specification Mismatch·Spec Page 56 - Concrete Beam Calc for '7" Conc Slab (STAIRS)'
Description
  • The structural calculation on Spec Page 56 is titled '7" Conc Slab (STAIRS)' but the cross-section used in the analysis is 'Rectangular Section, Width = 12.0 in, Height = 8.0 in' — an 8-inch deep section.
  • This is a 1-inch discrepancy between the description (7") and the analyzed section depth (8").
  • If the plans show a 7" slab per the title, the reinforcing design based on 8" depth would be unconservative for the actual thinner section.
  • Conversely, if 8" is built, the description is misleading.
Cost Exposure$4,700 – $14,800
Schedule Impact14 days
Recommended Action
  1. Engineer of Record (PMM Consulting Engineers) must clarify whether the stair slab is 7" or 8" thick.
  2. If 7", the calculation must be re-run with the correct 7" depth to verify adequacy.
  3. Update both the calc package description and the structural plans to reflect the correct dimension.
HighM ↔ SP
7. F007 (High, M ↔ SP): Building Cavities Used as Plenums - Return Air Path Concern
Code Violation·Spec Page 124 R403.3.5 vs Plan Sheets M-101/M-102
Description
  • Spec Section R403.3.5 mandates 'Building framing cavities shall not be used as ducts or plenums.'
  • The mechanical plans show return air via door undercuts and return air filter grilles (R/A FLD) with return air grilles (RAG) but do not clearly show dedicated return ductwork for all zones.
  • The note referencing '12'X6" RAG INTO PLENUM' on M-101 suggests a plenum space may be used.
  • If the space above the ceiling or within wall cavities is being used as a return air plenum without proper construction as a plenum chamber, this would violate R403.3.5.
Cost Exposure$8,000 – $25,000
Schedule Impact18 days
Recommended Action
  1. Verify that all return air paths use dedicated ductwork or properly constructed plenum chambers per Section C403.2.9.2, not building framing cavities.
  2. Add clarifying notes to M-101 and M-102 showing return duct routing.
MediumP ↔ G
8. F008 (Medium, P ↔ G): Pool design not provided — separate consultant package; 9 coordination findings rolled up
Engineer Note·Entire plan set
Description
  • Pool design is referenced in the plan set but no Pool drawings are present — this is typically a separate pool consultant package, not part of the permit set.
  • 9 coordination findings referencing Pool were rolled up here because they cannot be verified without the Pool drawings.
  • Rolled-up items: Missing Electrical Panel Schedule for Pool/Jacuzzi Equipment — No Dedicated Circuits for Pool Pump, Jacuzzi Heater; Cabana Bathroom Plumbing Without Corresponding Structural Support; Gas Piping Not Shown to BBQ/Outdoor Kitchen — Gas Appliance on Plumbing Plan Without Connection; Cabana Building Missing HVAC Design — Mechanical Plans Show No Ductwork or AC for Cabana; Peat Layer at 2'-6" to 5'-6" Depth Conflicts with Pool Shallow Foundation — Geotechnical Requires Full Removal; +4 more.
Cost Exposure$2,500 – $8,000
Schedule Impact3 days
Recommended Action
  1. Verify whether Pool drawings are issued under a separate pool consultant package.
  2. If they are, request the package and re-run coordination against the combined set.
  3. If Pool is out of scope entirely, document the exclusion in the project specifications.
MediumM ↔ A
9. F009 (Medium, M ↔ A): Bathroom Exhaust Fan Duct Routing Through Roof Not Coordinated
Missing Coordination·Second floor bathrooms and roof
Description
  • The mechanical plan M-102 shows multiple exhaust fan locations in second floor bathrooms with notes '4"Ø THRU ROOF W/ CAP & CORROSION RESISTANT BIRD SCREEN' at Bathroom #5, Bathroom #1, and the Master Bathroom.
  • The mechanical notes state 'ALL BATHROOMS CEILING EXHAUST FANS TO BE EQUIPPED WITH MOTION SENSOR AND HUMIDITY SENSOR TECHNOLOGY.'
  • The architectural roof plan A-203 does not show any roof penetration locations for these exhaust fans.
  • The structural roof plan S-5.0 shows pre-engineered wood trusses but does not indicate penetration locations.
  • Exhaust duct penetrations through the roof require coordination with roofing, flashing, and structural framing.
Cost Exposure$1,933 – $6,167
Schedule Impact5 days
Recommended Action
  1. Show exhaust fan roof penetration locations on A-203 roof plan and S-5.0 structural roof plan.
  2. Provide roof cap/flashing details.
  3. Coordinate penetration locations to avoid structural truss members.
  4. Verify exhaust termination locations meet code clearance requirements from windows, doors, and air intakes.
MediumE ↔ SP
10. F010 (Medium, E ↔ SP): Minimum Underground Conduit Cover Depth Conflict
Specification Mismatch·E-106 Electrical Notes and Special Notes
Description
  • On plan sheet E-106, there is an internal conflict regarding minimum underground conduit cover depth.
  • Electrical Note 12 states 'MINIMUM COVER SHALL BE 24 INCHES' while Special Note 6 states 'MINIMUN COVER SHALL BE 18"'.
  • These two notes on the same sheet contradict each other regarding a critical installation requirement for underground conduit burial depth.
Cost Exposure$2,500 – $8,000
Schedule Impact5 days
Recommended Action
  1. Resolve the conflicting minimum cover depth requirements.
  2. Per NEC Table 300.5, the minimum cover for PVC conduit under a building or in a trench is typically 18 inches for residential, but 24 inches under driveways/parking areas.
  3. Clarify the requirement for each condition and make the notes consistent.
MediumA ↔ SP
11. F011 (Medium, A ↔ SP): Building Square Footage Discrepancy Between Site Plan and Energy Model
Specification Mismatch·Site Plan A-101/A-102 vs. Spec Page 131 Manual J
Description
  • The site plan A-101 shows 1st Floor Under A/C as 2,541 sq.ft. (per A-102) plus second floor of 3,025 sq.ft., while the energy model Manual J calculation on Spec Page 131 uses a total conditioned area of 5,880 sq.ft. However, 2,541 + 3,025 = 5,566 sq.ft., which is 314 sq.ft. less than the 5,880 sq.ft. used in the energy calculations.
  • The first floor is listed as 3,166 sq.ft. on A-101 but only 2,541 sq.ft. is under A/C per A-102.
  • The discrepancy in conditioned area affects the accuracy of the HVAC load calculations.
Cost Exposure$2,500 – $8,000
Schedule Impact6 days
Recommended Action
  1. Reconcile the conditioned floor area between the architectural plans and the energy/HVAC calculations.
  2. Determine whether additional spaces (cabana, covered areas) are included in the 5,880 sq.ft. figure and ensure the Manual J calculation accurately reflects the actual conditioned area shown on the architectural plans.
MediumM ↔ SP
12. F012 (Medium, M ↔ SP): Missing Duct Leakage Testing Notes on Plans
Missing Coordination·Spec Pages 124 (R403.3.2, R403.3.3) vs Plan Sheets M-101 through M-103
Description
  • Specifications R403.3.2 and R403.3.3 (Spec Page 124) require mandatory duct sealing per C403.2.9.2 and duct leakage testing at 0.1 inch w.g. (25 Pa) with a written report.
  • The energy report (Spec Page 120) shows 'Prop. Leak Free' for all duct systems with specific Qn values of 0.03.
  • However, the mechanical plan sheets contain no notes regarding duct leakage testing requirements, testing procedures, or the required Qn values that must be achieved.
Cost Exposure$2,500 – $8,000
Schedule Impact4 days
Recommended Action
  1. Add duct leakage testing requirements to the mechanical plans referencing R403.3.3, including the required test pressure (25 Pa), the target Qn value (0.03 as shown in the energy report), and the requirement for a signed written test report to be submitted to the code official.
MediumM ↔ SP
13. F013 (Medium, M ↔ SP): Missing Mechanical Piping Insulation Details for Hot/Cold Water Lines
Missing Coordination·Spec Page 124 R403.4 vs Plan Sheets M-101 through M-103
Description
  • Spec Section R403.4 mandates that mechanical system piping carrying fluids above 105°F or below 55°F shall be insulated to a minimum of R-3, and R403.4.1 requires protection of piping insulation exposed to weather.
  • The mechanical plans do not show or note any domestic hot water piping insulation requirements, nor do they address piping insulation protection from weather exposure.
  • The condensate drain lines are shown but no insulation requirements for hot water distribution piping appear on the mechanical drawings.
Cost Exposure$2,500 – $8,000
Schedule Impact5 days
Recommended Action
  1. Add notes to mechanical plans specifying R-3 minimum insulation for all hot and cold water piping per R403.4, and include weather protection details per R403.4.1 for any exposed piping runs.
MediumP ↔ SP
14. F014 (Medium, P ↔ SP): Water Heater Efficiency Rating vs. Code Minimum Table Reference
Missing Coordination·P-105 Water Heater Detail vs. Spec R403.5.6.2
Description
  • Specification R403.5.6.2 requires water-heating equipment to meet minimum efficiencies of Table C404.2 in the Florida Building Code Energy Conservation Commercial Provisions.
  • The plans specify a Rheem RTGH-95XELN-2 with an energy efficiency of 0.93.
  • However, the plans do not document or reference compliance with Table C404.2 or confirm that 0.93 UEF meets the minimum threshold for gas-fired instantaneous water heaters under the applicable FBC edition.
  • Additionally, the BTU rating shown on the gas plan (199,900 BTU) differs slightly from the gas riser diagram label (199,000 BTU), creating an inconsistency.
  • Related findings: F015, F024, F030.
Cost Exposure$800 – $2,500
Schedule Impact2 days
Recommended Action
  1. Verify the Rheem RTGH-95XELN-2 efficiency rating meets or exceeds the Table C404.2 minimum for gas-fired instantaneous water heaters.
  2. Reconcile the BTU rating discrepancy between 199,000 and 199,900 BTU shown on different areas of sheet P-106.
  3. Add a compliance note referencing Table C404.2 on the plumbing plans.
MediumP ↔ SP
15. F015 (Medium, P ↔ SP): Water Heater Temperature Control Range Not Documented on Plans
Missing Coordination·P-105 Water Heater Detail vs. Spec R403.5.6.1.1
Description
  • Specification R403.5.6.1.1 requires service water-heating systems to be equipped with automatic temperature controls adjustable from 100°F to 140°F. The plumbing plans (P-105) specify the Rheem RTGH-95XELN-2 tankless water heater but do not include any note confirming the unit's temperature control range meets the 100°F–140°F requirement.
  • Related findings: F015, F024, F029.
Cost Exposure$800 – $2,500
Schedule Impact1 days
Recommended Action
  1. Add a note on P-105 or in the submittal requirements confirming that the specified water heater model provides automatic temperature controls with a range of 100°F to 140°F minimum, per R403.5.6.1.1.
LowE ↔ SP
16. F016 (Low, E ↔ SP): Water Heater Disconnect Switch Not Shown on Plans
Missing Coordination·Spec R403.5.6.1.2 vs Plan Sheet E-106
Description
  • Specification section R403.5.6.1.2 requires 'A separate switch or a clearly marked circuit breaker shall be provided to permit the power supplied to electric service systems to be turned off.'
  • The plans show two gas instant water heaters with dedicated 20A circuits, but no separate disconnect switch is indicated on the power plans near the water heater locations.
  • While gas units require a separate valve for the main burner (also per this section), the electrical connection still requires a clearly marked circuit breaker or switch, and no coordination note addresses this.
  • Related findings: F024, F029, F030.
Cost Exposure$1,820 – $5,800
Schedule Impact3 days
Recommended Action
  1. Add a note on the power plans indicating that a clearly marked disconnect or circuit breaker is provided for each water heater per R403.5.6.1.2.
  2. For gas units, coordinate with plumbing to ensure a separate gas shutoff valve is also provided near each unit.
LowA ↔ SP
17. F017 (Low, A ↔ SP): Wall Insulation Value in Energy Model vs. Architectural Insulation Notes
Missing Coordination·Spec Page 134 Manual J vs. Plan A-200 General Notes
Description
  • The Manual J calculations on Spec Page 134 show walls as 'Concrete Blk, Hollow - Ext' with R-Value of 4.1 and U-Value of 0.15.
  • The architectural general notes on A-200 reference insulation requirements per FBC R316.1 but do not specify the wall insulation R-value.
  • Additionally, Spec Page 125 Section R403.6.2 requires ventilation air drawn from enclosed spaces to have walls insulated to minimum R-11.
  • The R-4.1 wall value in the energy model appears low and there is no coordination between the energy model wall assumptions and the architectural wall assembly specifications.
  • Related finding: F003.
Cost Exposure$800 – $2,500
Schedule Impact2 days
Recommended Action
  1. Add wall assembly details to the architectural plans specifying insulation type and R-value.
  2. Verify that the concrete block wall assembly with R-4.1 meets Florida Energy Code requirements for Climate Zone 1 (Miami).
  3. Coordinate wall insulation values between architectural details and energy calculations.
LowP ↔ E
18. F018 (Low, P ↔ E): Verify — Gas Water Heater vs Electrical Panel Schedule Conflict
Specification Mismatch·Utility/mechanical area, first floor
Description
  • The plumbing notes and details on P-105 specify a 'GAS INSTANT WATER HEATER' with recirculation pump detail.
  • The gas plan P-106 shows gas appliance schedule with G1 (Instant WH at 199,000 BTU/HR) and G2 (Instant WH at 199,000 BTU/HR).
  • However, Panel B on E-106 lists circuits B1 and B3 as 'GAS INSTANT WATER HEATER #1' and 'GAS INSTANT WATER HEATER #2' each at 180 VA on 20A/1P breakers.
  • While gas water heaters do need electrical power for ignition/controls, the 180 VA rating seems appropriate for controls only.
  • The potential conflict is that the panel schedule labels these as if they are electric water heaters when they are actually gas-fired units requiring only control power.
  • This could cause confusion during installation.
  • Additionally, the hot water recirculation pump shown on P-105 detail needs a dedicated circuit which appears to be missing from the panel schedule.
  • Quoted values could not be found on the cited sheet: 199,000 BTU on E-106; 1' on E-106; 2' on E-106 (2 appears on the sheet as inch , not ft).
  • Verify the dimensions against the drawing before relying on this finding.
Cost Exposure$800 – $2,500
Schedule Impact2 days
Recommended Action
  1. Clarify panel schedule labels to indicate these are control circuits for gas water heaters, not electric water heaters.
  2. Add a dedicated circuit for the hot water recirculation pump shown on P-105.
  3. Verify gas water heater electrical requirements match the circuit provided.
LowA ↔ S
19. F019 (Low, A ↔ S): Verify — Stair Design Delegated But Not Coordinated with Structural
Missing Coordination·Main staircase and exterior spiral stair
Description
  • The architectural plans A-201 and A-202 show a main interior staircase and an exterior spiral staircase.
  • The structural plans S-3.0 and S-4.0 note 'METAL STAIR (BY OTHERS) CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SIGNED AND SEALED SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION.'
  • This delegates the stair structural design to others but creates a coordination gap: the structural plans do not show the stair opening dimensions, header beams, or slab edge reinforcement at the stair penetration through the second floor slab.
  • The architectural sections (A-400, A-401) show the stair locations but the structural slab plans need to coordinate the opening.
  • Quoted values could not be found on the cited sheet: 400, A on A-400.
  • Verify the dimensions against the drawing before relying on this finding.
Cost Exposure$800 – $2,500
Schedule Impact18 days
Recommended Action
  1. Structural engineer should provide slab opening dimensions, edge reinforcement, and header beam details at stair locations on S-3.0 and S-4.0.
  2. Coordinate stair landing elevations between architectural sections and structural slab elevations.
  3. Provide structural support requirements for the spiral stair attachment to the building.
LowA ↔ SP
20. F020 (Low, A ↔ SP): Exterior Door U-Value Discrepancy Between Energy Model and Door Schedule
Specification Mismatch·Door Schedule (A-200) vs. Spec Page 119 Energy Model
Description
  • The energy model on Spec Page 119 lists doors as 'Wood' type with U-Value of 0.46 and area of 21 sq.ft. each.
  • However, the architectural door schedule on A-200 shows most exterior doors as aluminum/glass construction (sliding doors, out-swing doors) rather than wood doors.
  • Aluminum/glass doors would have significantly different U-values than the 0.46 used for wood doors in the energy calculation.
  • Additionally, the door schedule shows varying sizes (up to 24'-0" wide sliding doors) that don't correspond to the 21 sq.ft. door areas in the energy model.
Cost Exposure$800 – $2,500
Schedule Impact7 days
Recommended Action
  1. Update the energy model to reflect the actual door types, materials, and sizes shown in the architectural door schedule.
  2. Recalculate energy compliance with correct door U-values for aluminum/glass construction doors.
LowP ↔ SP
21. F021 (Low, P ↔ SP): Water Heater Type Conflict: Tankless vs. Storage Tank Heat Trap Requirements
Specification Mismatch·P-105 Water Heater Detail vs. Spec R403.5.5
Description
  • The specification (R403.5.5) requires heat traps on storage water heaters with vertical pipe risers, including downward/upward bends of at least 3½ inches.
  • However, the plumbing plans (P-105) specify a gas instant (tankless) water heater (Rheem RTGH-95XELN-2), which is not a storage water heater.
  • The spec language about heat traps applies to storage water heaters, yet the plans show tankless units.
  • There is no reconciliation in the documents clarifying that heat trap requirements are not applicable, nor any note addressing compliance with R403.5.5 for the chosen equipment type.
  • Could not be fully confirmed against the cited sheets; verify before issuing.
  • Related findings: F015, F029, F030.
Cost Exposure$800 – $2,500
Schedule Impact1 days
Recommended Action
  1. Add a note on the plumbing plans or in the specifications clarifying that heat trap requirements per R403.5.5 are not applicable due to the use of tankless/instantaneous water heaters, or confirm with the energy compliance reviewer that no further action is needed.

Select a conflict to view its sheet

Click any conflict on the left to load the relevant sheet. Sheet images shown are demo placeholders.

FliktAssist
Hi! I can explain any finding on this set, draft the RFI wording, or point you to the sheet and detail it cites. Ask about the finding you have open.
FliktAssist
Sheet images are demo placeholders. Full PDF rendering with pan/zoom is available in the live customer portal.

Plan Conflict & Coordination Report

Professional PDF report ready for download

Flikt.AI

AI-Powered Plan Coordination

Plan Conflict & Coordination Report
Project:
Report Date: August 12, 2026
Conflicts Found:
Cost Exposure:
Flikt.AI · © 2026 · Patents Pending