jar546
Forum Coordinator
I've been thinking about this one for a while now but after some recent thread topics, I figured it's time. Architects and engineers are human, just like contractors, inspectors and plans examiners. We all make mistakes, we all miss things. None of us live in Perfect World and the last time I checked, I still can't afford a ticket there. There are a lot of reasons why Registered Design Professionals (RDPs) should go through the municipal plan review process, even though it may be flawed.
First and foremost. As stated before we are all human and make mistakes. It is always good to have a fresh set of eyes on the plan and specs. Many firms have draftsmen doing the work and a quality QC review is sometimes lacking. RDPs have a vested interest in their client and have a tendency to try to push the rules as far as they can in order to accommodate their clients. I am NOT saying that RDPS are unscrupulous but that they are not as objective because of the flow of the money, aka "don't bite the hand that feeds you." It takes a lot of training and experience to get to the level of RDP and I have worked with some fantastic, knowledgeable ones and of course some that I still wonder how they ever got a license. I get complaints from contractors that think that some of the required inspection are "BS" and a waste of time, effort and money. I remind them that not all contractors are like them and until you walk in the shoes of an inspector and see the disparity of code compliance and construction quality on like jobs, they will not understand. What one person routinely passes, there is another contractor that fails miserably. This is also true for RDPs. I have some that really shine, have fantastic, detailed, code compliant drawings and others that quite frankly just plain, well,..you know what I mean. Although I am a bit harsh here with the reality of the situations with RDPs, the same can be said about plans examiners.
As plans examiners most of us are held to a minimum standard for reviewing documents that is set by our state, county, or even municipality. We should know what is and isn't required and what we need to see in order to ensure that the job is planned to the minimum code standards. This does not always happen. There are still areas of the country that have no competency based requirements for plans examiners and many are thrust into the position with little to no training or experience. In addition, some are overwhelmed by having to review all disciplines and not just the one they are best suited for. We also have to overbearing, chest thumping examiners that want what they want too. Finding common ground is important to create a good balance between the code requirements and submissions is really the key along with good communication.
Another factor that the RDPs don't seem to always grasp is the quality of the contractors that will be carrying out the design. Unfortunately we see a lot of the problems in the field that the RDPs do not as most never see the jobsite. Often when a contractor fails an inspection, they point to the plans and say "but it's not shown on the plans" even though it may still be a requirement. On another side, whenever we ask for more information on the plans we are told that we are holding up the job and creating additional costs. This is a no-win situation for the AHJ. On one end the contractor uses the plans for an excuse and on the other, plans have more information to eliminate those excuses. As always, this is a balancing act but in the end, plan review is always a necessity, no matter how good you think your plans are.
What are some common items that you write up on RDP submitted plans as an examiner? Please share below:
First and foremost. As stated before we are all human and make mistakes. It is always good to have a fresh set of eyes on the plan and specs. Many firms have draftsmen doing the work and a quality QC review is sometimes lacking. RDPs have a vested interest in their client and have a tendency to try to push the rules as far as they can in order to accommodate their clients. I am NOT saying that RDPS are unscrupulous but that they are not as objective because of the flow of the money, aka "don't bite the hand that feeds you." It takes a lot of training and experience to get to the level of RDP and I have worked with some fantastic, knowledgeable ones and of course some that I still wonder how they ever got a license. I get complaints from contractors that think that some of the required inspection are "BS" and a waste of time, effort and money. I remind them that not all contractors are like them and until you walk in the shoes of an inspector and see the disparity of code compliance and construction quality on like jobs, they will not understand. What one person routinely passes, there is another contractor that fails miserably. This is also true for RDPs. I have some that really shine, have fantastic, detailed, code compliant drawings and others that quite frankly just plain, well,..you know what I mean. Although I am a bit harsh here with the reality of the situations with RDPs, the same can be said about plans examiners.
As plans examiners most of us are held to a minimum standard for reviewing documents that is set by our state, county, or even municipality. We should know what is and isn't required and what we need to see in order to ensure that the job is planned to the minimum code standards. This does not always happen. There are still areas of the country that have no competency based requirements for plans examiners and many are thrust into the position with little to no training or experience. In addition, some are overwhelmed by having to review all disciplines and not just the one they are best suited for. We also have to overbearing, chest thumping examiners that want what they want too. Finding common ground is important to create a good balance between the code requirements and submissions is really the key along with good communication.
Another factor that the RDPs don't seem to always grasp is the quality of the contractors that will be carrying out the design. Unfortunately we see a lot of the problems in the field that the RDPs do not as most never see the jobsite. Often when a contractor fails an inspection, they point to the plans and say "but it's not shown on the plans" even though it may still be a requirement. On another side, whenever we ask for more information on the plans we are told that we are holding up the job and creating additional costs. This is a no-win situation for the AHJ. On one end the contractor uses the plans for an excuse and on the other, plans have more information to eliminate those excuses. As always, this is a balancing act but in the end, plan review is always a necessity, no matter how good you think your plans are.
What are some common items that you write up on RDP submitted plans as an examiner? Please share below:
Last edited by a moderator: