• 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

Boiler plated plans

The specifications are just as much a part of the construction documents as the drawings. If the checker cannot find something it is always permissible to ask where the information is provided but it is not appropriate for him to say where or how the information is presented.

Realize that many plan checkers insist that information be shown on the plans and will not look in the specifications. What they are saying is that they are only interested in compliance with a subset of the code requirements that they are personally concerned about. I expect compliance with all of the code requirements and if I had to denote all of these requirements on the drawings the drawings would be impossible to read.

I appreciate that the plan checker may focus on only certain aspects of code compliance but the design professional is still required to address all of the code requirements.

If you want all of the information on the drawings with no specifications then adopt a building code that is short enough that this is possible. If not get real and deal with specifications.

Section 1704.5 in the 2012 IBC deals with structural observation. Structural Observation is not an inspection. Are we talking about the 2009 IBC and masonry construction?
 
mtlogcabin said:
If by documents you mean the construction drawings I agree. If by document you mean buried in the spec book somewhere the I humbly disagree. I do not have time to read all portions of a spec book.
Click to expand...
Legally, the construction documents are the construction documents. They may include a project manual, or not. Either you are in a position to review the plans thoroughly, or you aren't. These are not code compliance issues, and the design professional has no control over them.

If one wants to know why there are boilerplated plans, ridiculous demands by plans examiners are a contributing factor.
 
It is the specs that prevail over the drawings in the case of omissions, errors and conflicts.
 
brudgers said:
If one wants to know why there are boilerplated plans, ridiculous demands by plans examiners are a contributing factor.
Click to expand...
I once had a plan check engineer demand that I include a note on the drawings even though it had NOTHING to do with the project, didn't provide any clarification to the project, and didn't have anything to do with code compliance. His response when I told him there was no reason to add them was "Just add note, Alan ... just add note." Eventually I just added the note to get our permit - since he was also the acting CBO at the time.
 
It is a good idea to clarify this in the construction documents but the specifications do not govern over the plans unless the contract documents says so.

My preference is to state that in the event of a conflict the contractor will notify the designer who will resolve the conflict. I then say that the Contractor will be responsible for the cost associated with either option. The reason for this is that I do not always know in advance where I will make a mistake.
 
Yankee said:
It is the specs that prevail over the drawings in the case of omissions, errors and conflicts.
Click to expand...
That is CSI BS. the documents are complimentary.

That stated, there are some firms that keynote their drawings. The keynotes reference the specifications.

But remember the two documents serve separate and yet complimentary purposes. Which is to describe the work to be performed.
 
It's interesting that I posted something with some meat to it (arguably), and people disagree with nothing in return to back up their opinion.
 
Yankee said:
It's interesting that I posted something with some meat to it (arguably), and people disagree with nothing in return to back up their opinion.
Click to expand...
It comes down to the contract, etc.

I will bring you something to nibble on from two different sources.

1. AIA. (their pdf's are locked, otherwise I would have cut and past the information)

A201-1997 General Condition of Owner/Contractor Agreement

A1.2 Correlation and Intent of the Construction Documents.

you can read this section here http://www.aia.org/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aias076835.pdf

This states the Construction Documents are Complimentary. The Construction Documents are comprised of the Drawings and the Specifications

2. Mark Fridlander, Attorney

Friedlander, Mark C.

Architecture 544 - Spring 2012 | schiffhardin.com

Day 6, Feb 13. The Zip File contains a 2 hour audio file. Start at about 19 minutes 30 seconds and listen for about the next 15 minutes.

Again, CSI is about specification. They like to have people see them as being THE thing. It helps to promote job security, etc. I don't want to dismiss this part of the Construction Documents or their importance in the industry. It is just necessary to understand how the parts comprise the whole. And that the drawings at times offers more specificity than the specification.
 
mtlogcabin said:
My pet peeve is when a DP references a UL or GA number for a fire resistive assembly and does not put the detail on the drawings or the fastener requirements. The installer in the field needs the info on his working drawings not buried on a website somwhere.
Click to expand...
yes, I agree. This always causes problems at inspection time.
 
lunatick said:
It comes down to the contract, etc.I will bring you something to nibble on from two different sources.

1. AIA. (their pdf's are locked, otherwise I would have cut and past the information)

A201-1997 General Condition of Owner/Contractor Agreement

A1.2 Correlation and Intent of the Construction Documents.

you can read this section here http://www.aia.org/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aias076835.pdf

This states the Construction Documents are Complimentary. The Construction Documents are comprised of the Drawings and the Specifications
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
For others who don't want to skim the whole thing, Section 1.2 is particularly helpful in understanding the concept

Thanks jar
 
Yankee said:
Apparently Not.This article is more or less the way I learned it (to show what trumps what)

http://www.jurispro.com/files/documents/doc-1066204835-article-1518.pdf
Click to expand...
His position is premised upon:

In order to deal with Defective or Incomplete or Inadvertent Errors in Plans &

Specifications, owners and their architects have put in provisions in the contract usually

in the General Conditions of the contract under the heading of “Order of Precedence of

Documents”, which is listed as shown below (similar language in other contracts):

n Contract between Owner and GC

n Special Provisions

n General Provisions

n Specifications

n Details on Drawings

n Plan Drawings

This means that if the contractor has a CONFLICT between the Plan Drawings and

Details on Drawings, then the Details on Drawings prevail. If there is a conflict between

the Drawings and Details on Drawings and the Specifications, then the Specifications

will prevail. The higher “Order of Precedence of Documents” governs or prevails. It is

sort of like a poker hand where 3 of a kind beats 2 pairs, etc.
Click to expand...
That sort of language is absent from many industry standard contracts - e.g. AIA A101 and the general conditions referenced as AIA A201. In terms of AIA A101, these would be placed as Supplementary Conditions to the contract.

Now, the question as to why standard contracts do not contain a hierarchy is pretty obvious to anyone with a will to think about it.

Suppose the project requires a 90 minute door in a two hour rated wall for life safety, and these are noted on a drawing.

Suppose the project manual only specifies non-rated doors and one hour rated walls.

Life safety would be compromised if the "specs govern" hierarchy is placed in the contract.

Thus, standard contracts require the documents to be treated as a whole, with both the plans and specs given equal weight in communicating the design intent.

And that is why your statement is horse****.
 
Yankee said:
It's interesting that I posted something with some meat to it (arguably), and people disagree with nothing in return to back up their opinion.
Click to expand...
The argument against horse**** is that it is horse****.
 
From the point of view of the building official the order of precedence in the construction documents is not relevant. During plan check the building official should require any identified conflicts related to code issues be resolved. During construction any code violations should be required to be corrected.

Orders of precedence are intended to deal with whether or not the Contractor can claim an additional service in the event a conflict is identified.

That the drawings and specifications are complementary is separate from any issue about order of precedence.
 
Engineers can be forgiven for producing boilerplate plans. Architects are supposed to have an imagination.

Yahoo!
 
.....and then there are plancheckers that want every section of the code called out on the plans... as in copying and stapling a code book to the plans....sheets and sheets of notes that noone reads, including the planchecker.
 
I'm really late to the party here, but here's my 2 cents: don't confuse CONTRACT documents with APPROVED PLANS.

The AHJ-approved set of plans is juust ONE part of the overall set of CONTRACT documents. The AHJ-approved set of plans (drawings, notes, energy calcs, whatever) is the ONLY thing the building department has to check and verify.

When a set of documents lists an order of precedence in event of conflict, it is only for contractual /business reasons, NOT for code compliance reasons.

For example:

The city-stamped plans call for 3000 psi concrete. The same city-approved plans say that in event of conflict, the specs govern.

The non-city-reviewed spec book calls for 2500 psi concrete, in conflict with the city-approved plans.

The solution:

Contractor must use 3000 psi per the city approved plan. The city doesn't care what the spec book says, because it didn't review the spec book.

However, contractually speaking, the Contractor is also now entitled to a change order, because the spec that "governed" the scope of the contract told him he only needed 2500 psi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top