Plan Review, The Balancing Act

[Yankee Chronicler]

If it is not on the plans the guy/gal in the field will more than likely not have been made aware of a specific requirement within the spec book.

There's a good reason why what is included in the specs should NOT also be put on the drawings. Even a medium-size project may be in the architect's office for several months, and changes are made all the way through the design development and working drawings phases of the architect's side of the project. The basic rule for good firms is that information should be shown ONCE, so that when it's changed -- it's changed. If the same information is repeated multiple times, scattered among various drawings and in the specifications, there's too much chance that a change won't get picked up in one of the places where the information is conveyed.

 

[Paul Sweet]

I remember seeing a cartoon long ago that showed a porta-potty on a job site with a voice coming from inside it:

"Oh no, we're out of specs!"

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I was wondering if they do not have which method per the IEBC on the plans do you just reject the plan right away without looking at the rest of the plans. I am thinking about doing that. It could be a waste of time but now I review by the prescriptive method on the first review and then ask for which method they are using to be on the plans.

 

[Mark K]

On most medium to large projects specs are provided. If not I may require them if there is information I need that should be in a specification. On most, the spec books are between 1,000 and 2,000 pages. I identify and book mark the information I think I will need, usually before I start looking at the plans, then do it again as I review the plans. For most of the information I think I need to determine code compliance, if it is in the specs but not on the plans I simply make note of it. Sometimes, a violation occurs in the field that prompts my re-involvement where the contractor or inspector says the info wasn't on the plan. I point them to the spec book, which typically neither entity has seen. I often find inconsistencies between the specs and the plans.

However, some information I do request to be on the plans. Doors and hardware are an example of this. I always check the specs, and review them for code and plan consistency, and will make comments that point to the specs in that case. Occasionally I get resistance when I ask for information to be duplicated on the plans. My response is that if they really don't want to, I can't make them, but that when the inspector needs to verify something and can't because nobody on sight has access to, or is willing to look through a 1,000 page book to find the answer, the job may be delayed until someone finds the information. So far, in every case the DP provides the information, even if it is just pasting the spec pages onto a blank page. It only takes them a few seconds nowadays.

For most things, I let the specs stand, but for issues I think will cause that type of situation I encourage some information to be put on the plans.

In my entire career I can't recall any inspector, or the contractor that is on site for the inspection having access to the specs in the field. A few times I might see them in the job trailer, covered in dust. And even if the specs were available, having the time or inclination to leaf through them is a luxury not available to most. So I try to make it easy on everyone by trying to get the information they need to succeed in their hands as easily as possible. I have never met continued resistance when I explain that.

Now, getting anyone to look at the plans....whole 'nother story.

 

[Mark K]

Mentions of the size of the project manual ignore the fact that the manual and specifications are structured so that it is relatively easy to find the needed information.

Since the Contractor is contractually bound to comply with the specifications a contractor who decides not to look at the specifications is stupid.

 

[Sifu]

I don't disagree, but in my experience the "contractor" who should be looking at them is often not on site, and not immediately available to provide the information when needed. So if an inspection identifies information needed but not provided on a plan it can result in delays. Because of this I try to anticipate those particular areas and provide what might be needed on the plans. I would rather there be more information than needed on the plans, than there be less than needed. Again, if it is in the specs and I have been able to determine code compliance, it is not a hill I will die on, just something most have appreciated.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I was wondering if they do not have which method per the IEBC on the plans do you just reject the plan right away without looking at the rest of the plans. I am thinking about doing that. It could be a waste of time but now I review by the prescriptive method on the first review and then ask for which method they are using to be on the plans.

I did a few under the IEBC where I defaulted to the prescriptive method because the applicant didn't state what method they were using. Naturally, they were using the work area method. But the code doesn't say that the prescriptive method is the default unless another method is chosen. The code says the applicant is to state which method they are using to achieve compliance. So I very quickly started just kicking them back if they don't tell me what method they're using.

I will also comment on deficiencies that will be deficiencies under any method, such as not declaring the area of the building, not declaring the construction type, not declaring the occupancy classification(s), lack of a site plan -- the basics. Beyond that -- we have enough work to review that I don't feel any compulsion to waste office time reviewing a set of drawings that are so clueless the design professional can't get through chapter one of the code correctly.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I don't disagree, but in my experience the "contractor" who should be looking at them is often not on site, and not immediately available to provide the information when needed. So if an inspection identifies information needed but not provided on a plan it can result in delays. Because of this I try to anticipate those particular areas and provide what might be needed on the plans. I would rather there be more information than needed on the plans, than there be less than needed. Again, if it is in the specs and I have been able to determine code compliance, it is not a hill I will die on, just something most have appreciated.

I respectfully submit that (a) you have no right or authority to demand that information already in the specifications portion of the construction documents be repeated on the drawings; and (b) you are potentially setting yourself up to be sued by either an owner or a design professional for interfering in their contract and requiring extra work on the part of the design professional that is not required by law. The code requires that an approved copy of the "construction documents" be maintained at the site of the work. If there are specs and they are not on the site -- that's a violation you can cite.

 

[Mark K]

I respectfully submit that (a) you have no right or authority to demand that information already in the specifications portion of the construction documents be repeated on the drawings; and (b) you are potentially setting yourself up to be sued by either an owner or a design professional for interfering in their contract and requiring extra work on the part of the design professional that is not required by law. The code requires that an approved copy of the "construction documents" be maintained at the site of the work. If there are specs and they are not on the site -- that's a violation you can cite.

Well said.

When information in the specifications is repeated on the drawings you are creating potential conflicts in how the contractor interprets what is required. Since contractors are not stupid they will use these conflicts to justify a change order

 

[Sifu]

no right or authority to demand that information

Who said "demand"? I simply try to make sure, within reason, that everyone has what they need to be successful. Requesting for a door and hardware schedule to be on the plans doesn't seem that offensive.

Post # 47: "However, some information I do request to be on the plans"
"My response is that if they really don't want to, I can't make them"
" I encourage some information to be put on the plans."

 

[Paul Sweet]

The more information on the drawings the better. I worked for a state agency before retiring. Drawings of older buildings were usually kept, but very few specs were.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The more information on the drawings the better. I worked for a state agency before retiring. Drawings of older buildings were usually kept, but very few specs were.

I don't dispute this. That said, the code calls for "construction documents" and, by definition, the specifications are construction documents. The architecture and engineering professions, along with the CSI, have been preaching for decades that duplicating information in the construction documents leads to conflicting information, which causes delays and increases costs.

So, Sifu, you don't "demand" that information already in the specifications portion of the construction documents be added to the drawings, you only "request" it. What's your response if the design professionals reply, "No, our office's practice is to show information only once, in the most logical location. We avoid repetition to alleviate conflicts and confusion. The information you requested is already set forth in section xx-xx-xx of the specifications."

 

[jar546]

The more information on the drawings the better. I worked for a state agency before retiring. Drawings of older buildings were usually kept, but very few specs were.

I absolutely agree, however if there is a spec book provided to the building department that has all if the information they are asking for, that's all they need. I don't think it is appropriate or necessary to ask for more information on the plans that is already covered in the spec book, shop drawings or submittals. All of it can be used collectively to to plan review and perform inspections.

This leads to another issue. Inspectors need to be aware that there is a spec book on the jobsite and they have to review it.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

If I did not do the plan review and no one at the site knows of a spec book, as an inspector I won't know.

 

[Sifu]

I don't dispute this. That said, the code calls for "construction documents" and, by definition, the specifications are construction documents. The architecture and engineering professions, along with the CSI, have been preaching for decades that duplicating information in the construction documents leads to conflicting information, which causes delays and increases costs.

So, Sifu, you don't "demand" that information already in the specifications portion of the construction documents be added to the drawings, you only "request" it. What's your response if the design professionals reply, "No, our office's practice is to show information only once, in the most logical location. We avoid repetition to alleviate conflicts and confusion. The information you requested is already set forth in section xx-xx-xx of the specifications."

I tell them why I want it. They see the logic, and provide it. I don't think anyone has ever refused. If they did, and someone failed an inspection because of it, I would smirk relentlessly. As I mentioned, a few have questioned the need for doors and hardware, when I tell them why I think they realize that the average contractor in the field, and maybe the above average inspector will never lay eyes on the specs, so if a door comes into question, it may be better to have it on the plans. Doors are usually the only issue I have asked for, at least that I can recall. It is rare that the DP doesn't provide them on the plans.

I had one a few weeks ago that had a rated wall section. It included "gypsum, see specification XX-XXXXX. I checked XX.XXXX, it was not mentioned. I would have been fine if it had, though I may have made a note for the inspector. Things like this aren't all that uncommon. I truly believe few plan "checkers" check specs.

 

[Mark K]

I tell them why I want it. They see the logic, and provide it. I don't think anyone has ever refused. If they did, and someone failed an inspection because of it, I would smirk relentlessly. As I mentioned, a few have questioned the need for doors and hardware, when I tell them why I think they realize that the average contractor in the field, and maybe the above average inspector will never lay eyes on the specs, so if a door comes into question, it may be better to have it on the plans. Doors are usually the only issue I have asked for, at least that I can recall. It is rare that the DP doesn't provide them on the plans.

I had one a few weeks ago that had a rated wall section. It included "gypsum, see specification XX-XXXXX. I checked XX.XXXX, it was not mentioned. I would have been fine if it had, though I may have made a note for the inspector. Things like this aren't all that uncommon. I truly believe few plan "checkers" check specs.

A plan checker abuses his position when he "REQUESTS" the information be shown on the drawings. It sounds like some of these requests are really requirements imposed by the inspector.

The design professional made a decision what to show on the drawings and in the specifications typically driven by a desire to avoid claims by the contractor. If the inspector talks to the contractor the contractor should be able to help the inspector find the information in the specifications.

When the inspector refuses to look at the specifications he is attempting to change the code an authority he does not have. Maybe some inspectors need to be told that the code considers specifications to be part of the construction documents.

 

[Mark K]

If I did not do the plan review and no one at the site knows of a spec book, as an inspector I won't know.

In my experience the general notes on the drawings usually contain a reference to the specifications

 

[Inspector Gadget]

A plan checker abuses his position when he "REQUESTS" the information be shown on the drawings. It sounds like some of these requests are really requirements imposed by the inspector.

I disagree.

If a designer specifies "two-hour fire separation" for a wall, I am firmly of the belief that I have every right to demand a section that shows me exactly how that two-hour rating will be achieved. And I do. Code requires that such things conform to one of two or three methodologies. Saying don't make it so - showing me makes it so.

Given how often builders butcher exit shafts, I require a breakout for exit shafts on every plan that requires one. Won't issue a permit without it.

 

[Mark K]

I disagree.

If a designer specifies "two-hour fire separation" for a wall, I am firmly of the belief that I have every right to demand a section that shows me exactly how that two-hour rating will be achieved. And I do. Code requires that such things conform to one of two or three methodologies. Saying don't make it so - showing me makes it so.

Given how often builders butcher exit shafts, I require a breakout for exit shafts on every plan that requires one. Won't issue a permit without it.

It is reasonable to require the design professional to show compliance with the fire rating. This information can be provided by referencing a code section and by providing information showing compliance with the reference standards in the code. Requirements not clearly stated in the code are questionable at best.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I disagree.

If a designer specifies "two-hour fire separation" for a wall, I am firmly of the belief that I have every right to demand a section that shows me exactly how that two-hour rating will be achieved. And I do. Code requires that such things conform to one of two or three methodologies. Saying don't make it so - showing me makes it so.

I agree. That's covered under IBC 107.2.1 and IRC R106.1.1

Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined by the building official.

That's a different question from requiring (or "requesting") that information already fully covered in the specifications also be added to the drawings.

I also wouldn't accept, either on the drawings or in the specs, a description of a 2-hour fire barrier that just said "2-hour wall per U.L. Design U-###." That would require the contractor to have a copy of the U.L. book on the site, or a printout of that specific U.L. Design from their web site. That's not reasonable. The drawings need to show that the 2-hour wall is 3-1/2" studs at 16" or 24" on center, 2-layers of 5/8" Type X GWB each side, joints staggered, nail or screw spacing spelled out, etc. That's what "show in detail" means.

 

[Yikes]

I've had projects with 1000+ page spec books. Yes, they are part of the "contract documents". But it's not the building department's job to plan check care the entire set contract documents.


The building department should only care about that subset of contract documents called "submittal documents" (IBC 107), required to demonstrate code compliance to obtain building permit.
In that case, we typically paste those particular specs onto the drawings for plan check.

Other specs in the contract documents, such as the minimum ambient temperature when applying decorative paint on interior walls, are not the building department's business.
I do not give the building department a separate spec book.

 

[Mark K]

I've had projects with 1000+ page spec books. Yes, they are part of the "contract documents". But it's not the building department's job to plan check care the entire set contract documents.


The building department should only care about that subset of contract documents called "submittal documents" (IBC 107), required to demonstrate code compliance to obtain building permit.
In that case, we typically paste those particular specs onto the drawings for plan check.

Other specs in the contract documents, such as the minimum ambient temperature when applying decorative paint on interior walls, are not the building department's business.
I do not give the building department a separate spec book.

I do not believe that the IBC refers to "contract documents" but rather refers to construction documents.

"107.1 General. Submittal documents consisting of construction documents....."

I read this to mean that submittal documents consist of the construction documents as well as other listed items.

While the IBC does not specifically refer to the specifications the definition of "construction documents" specifically mentions written documents before it mentions drawings.

 

[jar546]

I've had projects with 1000+ page spec books. Yes, they are part of the "contract documents". But it's not the building department's job to plan check care the entire set contract documents.

It most certainly is if the information in those documents is for building code compliance. I may not care about what size tile they are using behind a water closet, but I do care about the specs that call out required valves, provide proof of energy compliance, and have the details for fire-rated products and details. It is our job to review the documents that are submitted. Contractual issues are not our problem; performance bonds, etc., we have nothing to do with, but until you go through the spec books, submittals, and shop drawings in addition to the architectural, structural & MEPs, you really can't get the entire picture of code compliance.

Small jobs typically don't have large spec books, but large jobs that are professionally designed certainly do. The permit fees for such large projects provide enough revenue for the plans examiners to take their time. Asking a design professional to put something on the drawings that are already in the specs is over governance. Sorry, but I just can't agree with you on this one.

 

[Yikes]

Jar456, I think you and I are actually in agreement.

It most certainly is if the information in those documents is for building code compliance. I may not care about what size tile they are using behind a water closet, but I do care about the specs that call out required valves, provide proof of energy compliance, and have the details for fire-rated products and details. It is our job to review the documents that are submitted. Contractual issues are not our problem; performance bonds, etc., we have nothing to do with, but until you go through the spec books, submittals, and shop drawings in addition to the architectural, structural & MEPs, you really can't get the entire picture of code compliance.

Small jobs typically don't have large spec books, but large jobs that are professionally designed certainly do. The permit fees for such large projects provide enough revenue for the plans examiners to take their time. Asking a design professional to put something on the drawings that are already in the specs is over governance. Sorry, but I just can't agree with you on this one.

Here's what I said:

The building department should only care about that subset of contract documents called "submittal documents" (IBC 107), required to demonstrate code compliance to obtain building permit.
In that case, we typically paste those particular specs onto the drawings for plan check.

Other specs in the contract documents, such as the minimum ambient temperature when applying decorative paint on interior walls, are not the building department's business.
I do not give the building department a separate spec book.

I, too, do NOT advocate duplicate information on both the plans and in a separate spec book. (Notable exceptions may include copying geotechnical report values from the the geotech report which is copied into the spec book.)

When the spec information is required to verify code compliance, it goes on the plans. In the examples you provided:

• Required valves: these are listed by brand, model# and size on a schedule on the plumbing plans.
• Proof of energy compliance: we paste the Title 24 (California) energy forms on the plans, and our details cross-reference to these forms.
• Fire ratings of wall types are detailed on the plans. Required flame spread ratings of wall finishes are shown on the plans.

In most of these cases, if a proprietary product is shown on the plans to demonstrate compliance, we add the words "or equivalent". The spec book then lists acceptable alternate manufacturers or requires the contractor to make side-by-side comparison submittals that demonstrate equivalent code performance.