Document contamination and its source, separate cleaning from airflow work, compare written scopes and review completion and follow-up.
Record the location, date and observable issue: material released from registers, visible contamination, pest evidence, moisture or damaged insulation. Photograph only safely accessible areas and note recent building work, filter changes or leaks. Ask a qualified provider to inspect inaccessible components rather than assuming every symptom comes from ducts.
Review the inspection findings and ask what caused the condition. EPA identifies circumstances such as substantial visible mold on hard surfaces, vermin or excessive debris released into rooms as reasons to consider cleaning. Resolve moisture and pest sources; wet or moldy internally insulated duct material may need replacement.
Ask whether airflow restriction, filter fit, duct damage or leakage is also present. These are separate diagnoses and scopes. If an actual duct pressure test is performed, keep its pressure, test type and area basis, and compare only like-for-like before/after results. Do not convert test CFM into operating leakage or energy savings.
Ask providers to list the components included, access openings, containment, protection of occupied areas, disposal, source correction and how completion will be documented. Compare itemized quotes on the same scope, including any replacement material. Ask for the rationale and product instructions before accepting chemical treatments.
Compare the completed work with the written scope and before/after records. Check that access openings are properly closed, components are reassembled and any moisture or pest correction has been addressed. Ask the provider to identify residual concerns and explain any needed replacement or follow-up assessment.
Use the actual equipment and filter instructions to plan inspections. Revisit the original symptoms and conditions after normal use, and record whether they returned. If a separate leakage or airflow correction was performed, retain comparable test results. Schedule another assessment when evidence warrants it rather than assuming a fixed cleaning interval.
Keep dated observations, locations, photos/document references and the provider’s explanation of the suspected cause. · Record the evidence supporting cleaning, source correction or replacement and the provider’s written scope. · Record completion evidence by component, outstanding corrections, provider responses and review dates.
Compare documented filter pressure drops at a common airflow with the assessed available allowance.
Use Duct leakage test record to normalize comparable measured test flows on a stated pressure and area basis.
Total the actual installed quote, deposit, chosen contingency and confirmed reimbursements; save competing quotes separately.
Use Calendar dates for documented inspection intervals or Runtime threshold for actual meter readings; save the reviewed schedule.
If design and measured room airflows are available, save an individual room balance record for the separate distribution review.
Loading your checklist…
EPA does not recommend routine duct cleaning as a universal maintenance measure. Evaluate the observed contamination, address its source and review the full proposed service scope.
EPA advises matching filtration to system capability. PNNL describes pressure-based duct testing; retain its test conditions rather than interpreting test flow as normal operating loss.
Every proposed cleaning, sealing or replacement item should point to an observed condition and an expected verification step.
Use the same location and test basis for before/after documentation so changes can be interpreted.