Bypass door hardware @ Adaptable units

[Mr. Inspector]

I guess it will break the bank to put plastic accessible handles on the closet doors.

 

[Chnelson]

Q1: It depends. An electrician and plumber, for example, know what is code as to the installation of their respective systems, but they are not required to review the documents to determine whether the electrical engineer or plumbing engineer properly sized the wires or pipes for the design loads or demands. A glazer typically knows that Cat II safety glass is required within doors, even if the contract documents do not show it.

Q2: The problem here is that the doors are not required to be ADA-compliant, so there is no need to inform the architect of the "issue" since there technically is no "issue"--the developer/owner is making it an issue. There is no way for a contractor or subcontractor to foretell that such an issue will occur.

Q3: This depends on what is required in the contract documents. Some architects hate submittals and reduce them down to the bare minimum. Just because a submittal is required or not, does not relieve the contractor from complying with the contract documents. If the contract documents call for one type of pull and the contractor changed it thinking the specified pull was wrong for the situation, the contractor would be liable for any costs to correct it to comply with the contract documents. If the contractor provided what was on the contract documents and the owner wants to change it, then the cost is on the owner. If the contractor submitted the pull per the contract documents before ordering them and preparing the doors for them (which they should), and the architect reviewed and approved it, it would be difficult for the owner to make a claim that it was the wrong pull.

Ron, yes, material was included in the submittal package per the hardware sets provided by the Architect. The submittals were approved, at which point the hardware was purchased. When the doors were ordered, ahead of any changes, they were prepped to receive the approved hardware.

 

[Chnelson]

1126A.6 is part of Section 1126A, which is in Div. III - "Building Features". This is for areas outside of the dwelling unit, or as 1126A.1 puts it, for "doorways which provide access to common use areas or multifamily dwellings".

Once you are inside the dwelling unit, Division IV "Dwelling Unit Features" takes over, including section 1132A for doors.
1132A.2 says "interior doors intended for user passage and secondary exterior doors shall comply with THIS section" - - more proof that 1126A is not applicable inside a dwelling unit.
Furthermore, as per post #3, a shallow clothes closet (less than 4' deep, which is the designed wheelchair depth) is not intended for "passage", so even section 1132A.2 doesn't apply in that particular situation. It gets treated like the door on a kitchen cabinet in CBC 11A - - no hardware required.
So yes, inside the dwelling unit, cup hardware has risen to the required level of accommodation, because no accommodation is required by applicable codes or regulations.

To answer your question, "what good is it to provide a door if you can't open it?", their are plenty of people who can pull or drag a sliding closet door with their fingers, whether with a cup pull or even with no pull at all. At home, I have a bedroom closet with sliding doors and no pulls at all. The hardware glides are so smooth that the minor friction of your palm or fingers on the door face is enough to slide it open.
You might ask, "but what about the tenant that has no fingers, using a closet door that does not glide so easily?". See the FHA answer in post #5: that tenant can always make their own post-construction "reasonable accommodation" request to the owner.

Remember, the problem in the original post is that the owner is claiming the contractor is on the hook to provide ADA pulls for free because the code or other applicable regulations require it, even though the plans didn't call for it. I challenge anyone to cite anywhere in the scope of CBC 11A or FHA where a regulation applicable to privately funded housing requires (not merely "recommends") accessible door pulls on non-passage clothes closets inside a private covered multifamily dwelling unit.
I can't find it.

Can you?

I totally forgot the other issue that the developer/builder is trying to jam down our throats - same project in California, plans called for flush doors at the laundry closets/rooms, no mention of required ventilation through the doors, no call for louvered doors. Our submittal package matched what the plans and specs called for and were approved, flush doors at the laundry closets/rooms. The owner changed them to louvers and we submitted a change order as louvered doors cost more than the flush doors. Now that the project is complete the owner is rejecting the change order for the louver doors on the basis that we should have checked the Mechanical plans and noticed that venting out of the doors would be necessary. Our response is that we have no expertise in reading and/or interpreting ventilation requirements in the Mechanical plans. Further, we have done several projects where louvered doors are not used/required at laundry closets/rooms so it is not an 'automatic' that laundry closets/rooms always get louvered doors. Based on the replies regarding the bypass hardware question it would seem that we followed standard/accepted protocol in providing what the plans called for.

 

[ADAguy]

"C" I take it you are architects? The dryer is gas?
If so, the responsibility is with you to be aware of these things, no?
Licensing board would find this to be a standard of care issue.

 

[Chnelson]

"C" I take it you are architects? The dryer is gas?
If so, the responsibility is with you to be aware of these things, no?
Licensing board would find this to be a standard of care issue.

No, we are not the Architect on the project. We are a subcontractor and were awarded the door/hardware package and that's what we do, doors and hardware.

 

[e hilton]

"C" I take it you are architects?

I think he is the GC and the customer is being an ass. Trying to get something fof nothing.

 

[e hilton]

I guess it will break the bank to put plastic accessible handles on the closet doors.

First, its not their place to install handles for free, regardless of cost. And if they use inexpensive handles they will be getting warranty calls for the next year as they break. And if they capitulate and install plastic handles, thd customer is going to jump on that, say "see, you admit you should have installed handles" ... and then reject them as being wrong and demand better quality.

 

[ADAguy]

There in lies the initial issue, a sub to a GC. It appears the GC did not do his dilligence on this item.

 

[Paul Sweet]

It sounds like a lot of people didn't do due diligence.

Unfortunately you-know-what flows downhill, and the sub or supplier is usually at the bottom of the heap and least able to do anything about it.

 

[Yikes]

I totally forgot the other issue that the developer/builder is trying to jam down our throats - same project in California, plans called for flush doors at the laundry closets/rooms, no mention of required ventilation through the doors, no call for louvered doors. Our submittal package matched what the plans and specs called for and were approved, flush doors at the laundry closets/rooms. The owner changed them to louvers and we submitted a change order as louvered doors cost more than the flush doors. Now that the project is complete the owner is rejecting the change order for the louver doors on the basis that we should have checked the Mechanical plans and noticed that venting out of the doors would be necessary. Our response is that we have no expertise in reading and/or interpreting ventilation requirements in the Mechanical plans. Further, we have done several projects where louvered doors are not used/required at laundry closets/rooms so it is not an 'automatic' that laundry closets/rooms always get louvered doors. Based on the replies regarding the bypass hardware question it would seem that we followed standard/accepted protocol in providing what the plans called for.

Your response is correct.

Also, not that you need any further justification, but FWIW, a typical 4" diameter residential duct has a little under 13 sq. in. of net free area.
A 1/2" undercut on a 32" wide flush door has 16 sq. in of net free area. The air supply could have been achieved with a simple undercut on the flush door, instead of louvers.

 

[Paul Sweet]

A residential dryer typically exhausts around 200 CFM. You would need at least a 1" undercut to transfer that much air.

Did the mechanical drawings show a symbol for louvered or undercut doors? It is good practice to check the mechanical drawings for this.