• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Plan Review, The Balancing Act

Why "cannot be scanned"? Is it purely a legibility / resolution issue? Or are you also requiring additional properties, such as word searchability?

Glad it's working out after 4 years. We've seen significant problems in the initial implementation of paperless plan check in many communities. Most of the problems are not with the pdfs themselves, but rather the enterprise software used to route and manage workflow. Top problems:
  • Old dog / new tricks: the most experienced people in the building department do not know how to operate the plan check software. They rely on the permit coordinator, usually someone younger and tech-savvy but not development savvy, to route the plans.
  • In-house software interface looks radically different than the customer interface. As a customer, I once had to fly to New Mexico with my laptop, and sit down next to the permit tech on their desktop, to show them what I was seeing vs. what they were seeing, so that we could unravel the mystery as to why the plans appeared submitted on my screen but not on theirs.
  • File naming conventions, especially on resubmittals. Get it wrong and the plan checker will look at the old plans during backcheck instead of the corrected plans.
 
Yikes said:
Why "cannot be scanned"? Is it purely a legibility / resolution issue? Or are you also requiring additional properties, such as word searchability?

Glad it's working out after 4 years. We've seen significant problems in the initial implementation of paperless plan check in many communities. Most of the problems are not with the pdfs themselves, but rather the enterprise software used to route and manage workflow. Top problems:
  • Old dog / new tricks: the most experienced people in the building department do not know how to operate the plan check software. They rely on the permit coordinator, usually someone younger and tech-savvy but not development savvy, to route the plans.
  • In-house software interface looks radically different than the customer interface. As a customer, I once had to fly to New Mexico with my laptop, and sit down next to the permit tech on their desktop, to show them what I was seeing vs. what they were seeing, so that we could unravel the mystery as to why the plans appeared submitted on my screen but not on theirs.
  • File naming conventions, especially on resubmittals. Get it wrong and the plan checker will look at the old plans during backcheck instead of the corrected plans.
Click to expand...
It has not been an issue for us. Small issues come up, and they are easily fixed. The systems in place work well, and there is rarely, if any, confusion. Each submission is a separate version, so it can't be confused with old submittal documents. There are more software companies out there for permitting than ever before, and the bar has been raised significantly. The amount of human error has been significantly reduced, turnaround time is quicker, and access to information couldn't be easier. Times have changed. I chose to change with them. Ask my staff.
 
tmurray said:
In many jurisdictions, you get to talk to the permit clerk.

Not the plan reviewer/inspector/building official.
Click to expand...
Or submit on line, no personal contact. And pretty soon, all inquires will be with AI. I suspect it won't be too long before inspection is by robots. (Won't management be thrilled by that!)

Not a good thing for society IMHO. I suspect I'll still be able to walk into the one man department here, hand him hardcopy, and walk out with permission to start, at least for as long as I'm walking at all.
 
Inspector Gadget said:
Our office does that. The requirements for a suitable set of plans are laid out clearly on our website, and also shows in a popup box on the online form.

And *still* we reject a good half of the plans that come in because they're simply not good enough. So when we reject an application, we will tell the applicant what needs to be done, and in a good third of the re-submissions, it's evident the client hasn't read the feedback, doesn't understand, or doesn't care.



I sort of agree, with the proviso that I know a lot of *builders* are visual learners, so I will create graphics. I grow less understanding of professionals who submit drawings missing basic details like fire separations, etc.
Click to expand...

In your attempt to be helpful be careful that you do not impose a requirement not imposed by the code.
 
jar546 said:
We are 100% paperless and do not accept anything over the counter and have not for almost 4 years. No one has complained. It is easier for everyone.
Click to expand...

What is your legal basis for refusing to accept hard copy documents?
 
jar546 said:
It has not been an issue for us. Small issues come up, and they are easily fixed. The systems in place work well, and there is rarely, if any, confusion. Each submission is a separate version, so it can't be confused with old submittal documents. There are more software companies out there for permitting than ever before, and the bar has been raised significantly. The amount of human error has been significantly reduced, turnaround time is quicker, and access to information couldn't be easier. Times have changed. I chose to change with them. Ask my staff.
Click to expand...
Glad it is working out for you. Sounds like you office leadership has embraced their responsibility for system implementation.
 
Last edited:
jar546 said:
You are forgiven. We've done that for YEARS, using a seven-page, detailed checklist with explanations, and yet no compliance in the clear majority of the cases. Heck, we can't even get the contractors and design professionals to properly name the files correctly, even though before they upload a single file, there are large red font letters telling them how to name the files. Do you know what it is like to have 10,000 files named A-1.pdf?
Click to expand...

I just kicked back a plan that failed to show fire separations on two different pages.
"Yeah, but A-1 showed them?"

Yeah, but two others did NOT and I am willing to bet that if I don't ensure internal consistency, the builder will choose the depicted assembly that involves the least expense and work.

Nuh-uh. Resubmit.
 
Mark K said:
What is your legal basis for refusing to accept hard copy documents?
Click to expand...

What's the legal basis for having to accept hard copy documents? I just (re) read our documents for our region, and nothing says we have to accept paper.

We have a digital system. We can scan your paper document if you haven't got a scanner.

I haven't accepted a paper plan for a non-residential building for five years.
 
Mark K said:
In your attempt to be helpful be careful that you do not impose a requirement not imposed by the code.
Click to expand...

Our laws seem to be a bit different. Code doesn't indicate the manner in which information is presented for review; however the provincial regulations require, for a permit:
1705349913631.png

So if I can't figure out what you're building, re-submit better plans.

1705349966797.png

So I had a plan this morning. Simple garage. No details on the lintels over a garage door and person-door. I rejected the plan, requesting same.... Not going to put a permit into the system if the client hasn't got those details. I need to determine compliance with snowloads, etc.
 
Mr. Inspector said:
Back to spec book. Sometimes they just have the brand name and catalog number of an item like a lock set or wiring cable. I don't think it's my job as a plan reviewer to look it up online to see what it is.
Click to expand...

As an architect and a building official, I disagree with you. Allow me to use door hardware as an example.

Let's assume that a miracle occurs and I receive a decent set of drawings and specifications for a small educational building. Exit doors from the corridors must, by code, be equipped with panic bars. Doors from the individual classrooms to the corridors must have locksets (or passage sets, but that's unlikely) that are always unlocked from the egress (classroom) side). The architect has provided a door schedule in the drawings that calls out a hardware set by number for each door. The hardware specification calls out a make and model of lockset in each hardware set.

The make and model listed in the hardware set is panic bar hardware. To verify that, I have to look it up. How else can I know? Even if the architect includes a note "Panic Hardware" either in the door schedule or in the specification for that hardware set -- how can I know he specified an actual, conforming panic bar if I don't look it up?

Same thing for the classroom door locksets. The hardware set in the specification calls out the lockset by make and model number (which may or may not incorporate the lock function) and the ANSI/BHMA function number. The function number is what tells me whether or not the lock is suitable for use as a classroom lock. The only way I can verify whether or not the classroom locks have been properly specified is to look it up (unless I happen to have memorized the ANSI/BHMA function list -- I'm good, but I'm not that good). I am of the opinion that I have to check this. Even if there is a note in the door schedule or in the hardware specs that these are "Classroom" locks -- how do I know there wasn't a typo, or that the hardware spec wasn't copied and pasted from an office building project and someone just added in "Classroom lock" without knowing or bothering to actually change the spec to a classroom function instead of an "office" function?

Probably at least once a month I catch door hardware that isn't correct for the application by looking up the specified hardware on the manufacturer's web site.
 
Last edited:
Mark K said:
In your attempt to be helpful be careful that you do not impose a requirement not imposed by the code.
Click to expand...
The code gives us time limits and sets minimum standards. Administrative procedures are at the discretion of the municipality based on staffing levels and software systems in place. Municipalities don't write the building codes but reserve the right to run the business of permitting how they see fit within the confines of the laws that govern administration, which is not everything.
 
jar546 said:
The code gives us time limits and sets minimum standards. Administrative procedures are at the discretion of the municipality based on staffing levels and software systems in place. Municipalities don't write the building codes but reserve the right to run the business of permitting how they see fit within the confines of the laws that govern administration, which is not everything.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that you are not perfect but that still does not allow you to modify the code in attempt to be helpful.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
As an architect and a building official, I disagree with you. Allow me to use door hardware as an example.

Let's assume that a miracle occurs and I receive a decent set of drawings and specifications for a small educational building. Exit doors from the corridors must, by code, be equipped with panic bars. Doors from the individual classrooms to the corridors must have locksets (or passage sets, but that's unlikely) that are always unlocked from the egress (classroom) side). The architect has provided a door schedule in the drawings that calls out a hardware set by number for each door. The hardware specification calls out a make and model of lockset in each hardware set.

The make and model listed in the hardware set is panic bar hardware. To verify that, I have to look it up. How else can I know? Even if the architect includes a note "Panic Hardware" either in the door schedule or in the specification for that hardware set -- how can I know he specified an actual, conforming panic bar if I don't look it up?

Same thing for the classroom door locksets. The hardware set in the specification calls out the lockset by make and model number (which may or may not incorporate the lock function) and the ANSI/BHMA function number. The function number is what tells me whether or not the lock is suitable for use as a classroom lock. The only way I can verify whether or not the classroom locks have been properly specified is to look it up (unless I happen to have memorized the ANSI/BHMA function list -- I'm good, but I'm not that good). I am of the opinion that I have to check this. Even if there is a note in the door schedule or in the hardware specs that these are "Classroom" locks -- how do I know there wasn't a typo, or that the hardware spec wasn't copied and pasted from an office building project and someone just added in "Classroom lock" without knowing or bothering to actually change the spec to a classroom function instead of an "office" function?

Probably at least once a month I catch door hardware that isn't correct for the application by looking up the specified hardware on the manufacturer's web site.
Click to expand...

This would not be helpful for the inspector. It would be a lot quicker it the inspector could read it on the plans rather than looking it up online on their cell phone. The inspector might not know there is a spec book. The contractor usually does not know this too. Half of our area you cannot get online, especially in a large warehouse or many times the service is down.
 
Mr. Inspector said:
This would not be helpful for the inspector. It would be a lot quicker it the inspector could read it on the plans rather than looking it up online on their cell phone. The inspector might not know there is a spec book. The contractor usually does not know this too. Half of our area you cannot get online, especially in a large warehouse or many times the service is down.
Click to expand...

If you have contractors who don't know there is a spec book for what they're building -- with all due respect, you shouldn't be giving them building permits. The code requires that you return an approved copy of the construction documents to the applicant when you issue the permit, and that approved copy must be maintained at the site of the work. If your inspector(s) don't know that the construction documents include a spec book -- shame on them.
 
Mr. Inspector said:
This would not be helpful for the inspector. It would be a lot quicker it the inspector could read it on the plans rather than looking it up online on their cell phone. The inspector might not know there is a spec book. The contractor usually does not know this too. Half of our area you cannot get online, especially in a large warehouse or many times the service is down.
Click to expand...
Contractors can't build without the spec book and it is required to be on the jobsite. If it is not the inspection fails and you move on. You don't know what you don't know is the problem because of the bubble you've been working in.
 
Mr. Inspector said:
Back to spec book. Sometimes they just have the brand name and catalog number of an item like a lock set or wiring cable. I don't think it's my job as a plan reviewer to look it up online to see what it is.
Click to expand...
Neither the schedule, usually on the drawings, nor the spec says what features are to be included? I'd say incomplete documents. And what if they list 2 or more model numbers as equals or accept a substitute? I agree you can't pick that up. (And would never get by on a NAVFAC project.) If the only way to know what features there are is manufacturers data via a model number, it's not acceptable.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
If you have contractors who don't know there is a spec book for what they're building -- with all due respect, you shouldn't be giving them building permits. The code requires that you return an approved copy of the construction documents to the applicant when you issue the permit, and that approved copy must be maintained at the site of the work. If your inspector(s) don't know that the construction documents include a spec book -- shame on them.
Click to expand...
We have no legal right from not issuing a permit because of shame or because they screw up a lot or any other things as long as the plan review passes, zoning passes, payment is done, etc. We have no contractor licenses here too.

jar546 said:
Contractors can't build without the spec book and it is required to be on the jobsite. If it is not the inspection fails and you move on. You don't know what you don't know is the problem because of the bubble you've been working in.
Click to expand...

Yes they can. It's against code but they do it all the time. I would say at least 25% of my inspections fail because of no plans at all is on the site. The worst thing that could happen to them is a $60 reinspection fee.

If a different 3rd party did the plan review and if I did not do the review myself, I will have no idea if anything is missing from the plans like a spec book.
 
Mr. Inspector said:
This would not be helpful for the inspector. It would be a lot quicker it the inspector could read it on the plans rather than looking it up online on their cell phone. The inspector might not know there is a spec book. The contractor usually does not know this too. Half of our area you cannot get online, especially in a large warehouse or many times the service is down.
Click to expand...

Maybe the responsibilities of the inspector should be redefined.

If everything should be on the drawings then why not the structural calculations so the inspector can verify them. Admittedly there are problems with that approach but placing everything on the drawings also creates other problems.
 
Sifu said:
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.
Click to expand...
This ^^^^^ is the simplest way to sum this up...."Help us help the project be a success....."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top