• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Construction Documents

Codegeek

Registered User
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
717
Location
Kansas
Just out of curiosity, where in the code does it say that a code official (inspector, plan reviewer, etc.) can ask for information to be provided in a specific location within the construction documents? If an architect provides a complete set of architectural plans and specifications (which are legally part of the construction documents), then where does it say in the code that items which are covered in the specifications must be provided on the plans? For example, if door hardware is covered in the specifications and clearly notes what type of hardware is associated with each door, then why does the architect have to also include this information on the plans? Is there language in the code that says this is required or are we dealing with the "god" clause of an AHJ and someone who is either lazy or doesn't know how to read a spec book?

Thanks for your feedback.
 
I do not know the answer to your question, but is it your intention that the plan reviewer search a book spec to determine the size, fire rating, and hardware type of the doors called out in the plans?
 
JPohling said:
I do not know the answer to your question, but is it your intention that the plan reviewer search a book spec to determine the size, fire rating, and hardware type of the doors called out in the plans?
The hardware was just one example. Generally there's a door schedule provided, but the information about the door hardware is located in the specifications. Information about specific insulation types is another example. The specifications will state exactly where in the building a specific type of insulation is to be used where the plans will make a general note.

Tempered glazing is another example. Specifications will state where it is to be used so why does it also need to be noted on the plans?

I could go on but my point is if the information is in the construction documents (which include both the drawings and the specifications) then why does the designer now have to change their documents just to please a code official who cannot find the information in the specifications? If a letter is provided to the code official to explain where in the specifications the information can be found, is that not sufficient? If not, why?
 
My answer is.....If you expect a timely plan review, put the information I need in in one place as much as possible so that I do not have to go back and forth a thousand times. I would never say you need to do it like this....Just that it will speed things up....I usually find just as many issues in the specs as the plans....
 
107.2.1 Information on construction documents.

Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn upon suitable material. Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted when approved by the building official . 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 .

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. Written, graphic and pictorial documents prepared or assembled for describing the design, location and physical characteristics of the elements of a project necessary for obtaining a building permit .

The worker in the field should be able to identify from the drawings where the safety glazing needs to be installed, or which door hardware goes on which door. I have never seen a worker with a spec book in his hand but I do see them with drawings in hand
 
In the past, I have added general notes to the door schedule sheet referencing that all hardware is ADA compliant and all rated doors shall receive UL approved hardware. A set of specifications with all the pertinent information accompanies the drawings. The AHJs I usually submit to have not had an issue. I have had some comments come back questioning the threshold heights ... no biggie, I just add a quick note.

As far as other items, I include all the "usual suspects" on my cover/code sheet ... use group, occupancy, area, height, MoE items. Plus, if there is something "special" I'm trying to do I darn well make sure it is spelled out on said cover/code sheet, ie - calcs showing why that existing masonry wall is indeed equal to or better than a 2-hour rating.

Of course, a brief 60 minute meeting regarding the project with the AHJ at the very beginning always eases things.
 
When I did plan review, I made sure I referenced all of the information that was provided to me by the designer before I made my list of comments, which included referencing the specs. I also made sure that some information was available on the plans for the inspector as I used to look for it on the plans when I was an inspector.

Now working for a design firm, I see things from a different perspective. I agree, a door schedule should be on the plans and we make notes that the hardware will be accessible, panic, etc. Then the specs provide additional information beyond that.

We have no problems sending additional information after a plan review to clarify something to a reviewer/inspector. My beef is when someone is too lazy to look for the information and wants us to put it on the plans purely to make their life easier. If we've provided the information and we're asked to provide it in another location, then that adds an additional cost to the project for the client.

The same argument can apply to the code, the inspector can't look up the standards out in the field and most AHJ's don't want to spend the money buying all the standards but yet they are not in the code.

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough in my OP.
 
As a plan reviewer for the past 15 years the few times that a set of 2 inch thick specifications was submitted as part of the project I have found errors, conflicts with the plans, outdated information, pages that reference jobs that are not even in my state, ect. Well written and up to date specifications are all well and good and an important source of information on large or complicated projects. I do seem to find however that in a large part of the time that they can be used as a crutch IE: I dont have to put it on the plans, its in the specs. Then reviewing the specs I find a hodpodge of stuff from the last three decades, half of which does not apply to the project and part of the stuff that does, doesnt meet the current code. In my mind a concrete mix design rightly belongs in the specs, callout the compressive strength on the plans but dont use a page for the mix. Conversley the size, grade, and length of bolts should be on the plans, same for beam sizes and steel grades.

We see so many types and variations of projects its pretty difficult to nail down what exactly should go on the plans and what could be in the specs. When I was on the other side of the counter for 20 years if a plan reviwer wanted something on the plans I never argued, I just marked it up, had it drafted, stamped and sent back in. I found that it was less expensive to just get it done than spending staff time arguing about whether this should be here or there.

One last thing, I saw a sign years ago that I took to heart. It read, Arguing with a Plan Checker is like wrassling a Pig in the Mud, pretty soon you realize that they like it.

Have a great day you all.

Cliff
 
Nine times out of ten I have found most of the spec s book form or sheet form are boiler plate and CYA

And they do not relate to the project on hand

I have worked for several design firms that the project manager just used the last set he got through the las building department
 
Interesting :) IBC 107.1 states that "The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction...". Virginia has such a statute, and specific requirements for the RDP to follow. I suppose if an RDP insisted that the information I requested to see on the plans was in the spec book, I could accept the spec book if the RDP complied with the requirements of the statute, which basically means that the RDP will provide an original seal, signature, and date on every one of the pages contained within the spec book. I don't know many that would choose that route considering what is contained within a spec book. And, no, I would not permit only specific pages to be sealed. If the entire spec book is going to be submitted for review, then the RDP will be responsible for the entire spec book. That leeds to another point, I do not believe that the design community would appreciate the additional time it would take for plan reviewers to look over spec books, nor would anyone take kindly to having multiple rejection comments based on the spec book. Can you imagine?
 
Our state law says only one stamp on spec book.....

rgrace said:
Interesting :) IBC 107.1 states that "The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction...". Virginia has such a statute, and specific requirements for the RDP to follow. I suppose if an RDP insisted that the information I requested to see on the plans was in the spec book, I could accept the spec book if the RDP complied with the requirements of the statute, which basically means that the RDP will provide an original seal, signature, and date on every one of the pages contained within the spec book. I don't know many that would choose that route considering what is contained within a spec book. And, no, I would not permit only specific pages to be sealed. If the entire spec book is going to be submitted for review, then the RDP will be responsible for the entire spec book. That leeds to another point, I do not believe that the design community would appreciate the additional time it would take for plan reviewers to look over spec books, nor would anyone take kindly to having multiple rejection comments based on the spec book. Can you imagine?
 
Since hardware is near and dear to my heart, I'll throw in my 2 cents' worth. From the plans/specs standpoint, information should be in one place, not both. If there is a hardware schedule on the plans, and another hardware schedule in the specification, there will be conflicts. The level of hardware information in the specification is typically very detailed, but often the hardware spec is not completed until very late in the construction documents period. If the plans examiner is looking at the plans and specs earlier in the process, the information may not be there.

I took an NFPA CFPE class a few weeks ago and I asked the instructor and the inspectors in the room whether they actually look at the hardware sets. I didn't get the impression that they would usually look at the detailed information - it's gibberish to most people. Some things can be covered by general notes from the plans examiner - fire doors having suitable hardware, accessibility standards, etc. The hardware item that I would try to verify as a plans examiner is whether there is panic hardware where it is required. Whether or not that information is in the construction docs when you review them is questionable.

So my question for you is...if the information is not present, would you note which doors need panic hardware / fire exit hardware? Or ask the architect to tell you where they will be specified/installed?

Keep in mind that the requirements for panic hardware changed in the 2006 IBC (http://idighardware.com/2011/05/new-occupant-load-requirements-for-panic-hardware/), and the requirements for panic hardware on electrical rooms changed in the 2014 NEC (http://idighardware.com/2013/09/decoded-panic-hardware-on-electrical-rooms/).
 
One of my biggest duties in the private sector is to check all of our projects for code compliance before they go out for building permit. I find stuff all the time that needs to be corrected. Again, I'll go back to where does the code say it must be on the plans if the specifications are part of the construction documents that are required by 107.1? We do work in all 50 states and internationally and have been doing work for our biggest client for over 20 years. Yes, there are things that need to be tweaked on the plans and the specifications as the code changes. However, after 20+ years, most of the bugs have been worked out. We have four full time specification writers on our staff so we do a pretty thorough job on providing the necessary information in the specs. I just don't understand why a designer has to provide information above and beyond what is required when the code is a minimum?
 
See MT's post #5...if you don't put it on the plans, I am going to during my review (for easier reference during inspections).....which makes the review take longer but hopefully makes the inspections more efficient

Codegeek said:
One of my biggest duties in the private sector is to check all of our projects for code compliance before they go out for building permit. I find stuff all the time that needs to be corrected. Again, I'll go back to where does the code say it must be on the plans if the specifications are part of the construction documents that are required by 107.1? We do work in all 50 states and internationally and have been doing work for our biggest client for over 20 years. Yes, there are things that need to be tweaked on the plans and the specifications as the code changes. However, after 20+ years, most of the bugs have been worked out. We have four full time specification writers on our staff so we do a pretty thorough job on providing the necessary information in the specs. I just don't understand why a designer has to provide information above and beyond what is required when the code is a minimum?
 
steveray said:
See MT's post #5...if you don't put it on the plans, I am going to during my review (for easier reference during inspections).....which makes the review take longer but hopefully makes the inspections more efficient
And as I said in a previous post (#8), I understand making some information more accessible to the inspector as I asked for it as a plans examiner as well. Bottom line it comes down to dealing with plan reviewers that are too lazy to flip a few pages to find the information. How does one overcome that?
 
With most of the folks on this forum, maybe my concerns don't affect you since most of you get what it means to be a good code official. I was extremely frustrated yesterday after two projects in particular, the code officials wanted additional information on the plans which was clearly provided for hence my post.

When I have to cite code to a code official that should already know the code, it's very frustrating. Especially when the code official wants fireblocking on a noncombustible building because they think the gypsum ceiling is creating a concealed combustible location. I'm still trying to figure that one out.

My apologies if I made no sense and rambled about nothing.
 
It will always be a plan by plan and reviewer by reviewer basis....If I bring something up, it is typically because it is something that has been or continues to be a problem....

Example: Residential deck plan, looks good, spans are not even close to any limit, good rails, etc....Issue permit, inspection time...all DF non-treated lumber....I did not ask grade and species of lumber...Guess what I ask for on EVERY plan now....
 
"Especially when the code official wants fireblocking on a noncombustible building because they think the gypsum ceiling is creating a concealed combustible location."

Fiberglass insulation?

717.2.1.2 Unfaced fiberglass. Unfaced fiberglass batt insulation used as fireblocking shall fill the entire cross section of the wall cavity to a minimum height of 16 inches (406 mm) measured vertically. When piping, conduit or similar obstructions are encountered, the insulation shall be packed tightly around the obstruction.
 
i always review the spec book for additional information such as door and window schedules, HVAC specs, and a myriad of other info. We send the specs out with the approved plans. If the contractor doesn't have the spec books I tell them they need to locate them and call for another inspection. And yes, some are just boiler plate and if they don't have the info I need I have them priovide it before approving the plans. I don't require them to put door schedules on the plans if they correctly identify all the doors, hardware and glazing.
 
I can certainly see both ends and since I have a biased opinion as a plan reviewer I will offer an opinion.

Spec books are nice but in my experience are loaded with contractual information vs specifications that are directly referred to by the drawings. Like posted above it is often loaded with inaccurate information left over from the previous job and boiler plate. Now I am not saying that they all suck but more often than not, they are not as helpful as they can be when set up in an organized manner and the drawings refer to the specific pages. If we knew for a fact that contractors would keep a copy on the job site and actually read it, we would be more inclined to be more accepting of it.

When we perform an inspection and a contractor fails, in many cases the excuse is "It was not in the prints." It may not be on the prints, but then we show it to the in the spec book or explain that it is a code requirement and not every single little thing is in the prints. The question is always where do we draw the line with required information on construction documents. It is very frustrating when projects are delayed due to failed inspections as a result of a lack of essential information on the prints which then causes us unnecessary phone calls and work. The more information on the prints, the faster the plan review will be and the less chance of a failed inspection. I am not sure that the RDP is concerned about failed inspections as long as their plans are approved.

Some examples:

If we don't flag missing tactile signs on the prints, most of the time they are never installed.

When UL rated assemblies are specified but not the specifications or drawings, the contractor does not know how to carry it out in many instances and we don't know which version for inspection.

The statement "….per code" should not be allowed to be typed by RDPs and should never be on the prints. What code and what spec's?

Flashing details. That's all I got to say about that.

How about that list of special inspections. Where is that? We need it.

Basically, we need as much information as possible on the prints because we know at the very least the prints will be on the job site. If you can type it into a spec book, you can copy and paste to your drawings. Not every single thing but a lot of things, especially a door hardware schedule which should be on the same page as the door schedule which we expect to see on the drawings and not only in a spec book.

Again, my opinion only.
 
Definitely on these....

"When UL rated assemblies are specified but not the specifications or drawings, the contractor does not know how to carry it out in many instances and we don't know which version for inspection."

And I would add designations for fire wall or barrier or partition not just 2hr rated (it matters)….Same for smoke

"The statement "….per code" should not be allowed to be typed by RDPs and should never be on the prints. What code and what spec's?" Amen

Flashing details. That's all I got to say about that."

The tactile signs I usually tell them we can go over it on a pre-CO inspection so as to not rip paint and paper off of brand new walls....Then I get "That's going to look ugly on the glass entryway"....Pretty is not my job, talk to your designer...
 
steveray said:
Fiberglass insulation?

717.2.1.2 Unfaced fiberglass. Unfaced fiberglass batt insulation used as fireblocking shall fill the entire cross section of the wall cavity to a minimum height of 16 inches (406 mm) measured vertically. When piping, conduit or similar obstructions are encountered, the insulation shall be packed tightly around the obstruction.
I sent the code official a document from the gypsum association that indicated gypsum is noncombustible according to ASTM E136. Haven't heard back from them.
 
"I have never seen a worker with a spec book in his hand but I do see them with drawings in hand"

The hardware installer only needs a hardware schedule, not a full set of plans or specs.

If you tried to put the model number (including option codes) for every piece of hardware - hinges, lockset, exit devices, closers, weatherstripping, thresholds, power transfers, kick plates, etc. etc. on the door schedule there wouldn't be any room left for the door information! The door schedule just has to have the hardware set number, and the reviewer just has to look in spec section 087100 for the hardware schedule.
 
Top