Commercial Plans for Metal Building USFS/USDA

[Alias]

When we initially talked about this project I handed the owner a list of what was needed at the time of submittal to start the plan review process. What I am seeing is not a complete submission as there aren't any plumbing, electrical, mechanical, or drawings for the TI. As this is a single occupancy and is being built to GSA specs, I am requiring a full set of plans to send out for review and they were made aware of this requirement.

Okay, the plans for the USFS/USDA building are here. These are for just the metal building (shell) and foundation plans. The plan according to the owner is for the foundation and metal building to be erected and come back and pour the slab later.

My question is have you ever heard/seen this type of installation with just the footings being poured for this type of building and no interior slab initially?

What is being submitted in my opinion is not acceptable but, maybe I am prejudiced because I am more familiar with stick built. The size of the building will be 24,648 sq. ft. at completion. The footprint of the metal building is

102' x 242'.

Sorry if this is as clear as mud.

 

[mark handler]

I have asked for, and got, foundation only permits.

 

[pwood]

sue,

think of this as a big hay barn! the ti work can be done later. Have them install a ufer ground in the footings and any other penetrations. they can't pour the slab without the underslab plumbing installed . You can possibly work with them in order to get the project moving. it should be up to you to decide what will work within your comfort zone. the engineering should cover any structural issues with a shell only and no slab build.

 

[Alias]

I have asked for, and got, foundation only permits.

Mark -

I have a printed handout which states a complete set of drawings. In my book a complete set of drawings includes the foundation, slab & TI along with the metal building plans.

The real question is is it okay to just pour footings, erect the building, and toodle on down the road? I guess the reason for the question is that it is CA.

Maybe I'm being too picky but my experiences with this owner is that I can't get a full set of plans for anything! It is always dribs and drabs and they want a permit yesterday. As I am sending this project out to a third party plan checker, I can see this turning into a nightmare very fast.

 

[globe trekker]

Alias,

We have had mini-strip retail centers constructed with the perimeter

footings only, no interior slab......The plumbing rough-in was installed

though!......At the time the building shell was constructed, the owner

did not know the type of tenants (Occupancy Groups) that would be

going in, nor the size of the tenant space desired by the leasing tenant.

Since the interior slab part was non-load bearing and the other variables

were not known, we did not have a problem with them proceeding ahead.

We performed all of the plumbing rough-in inspections and then the

foundation inspections. They left some steel re-inforcement bars exposed

& unattached to anything on the interior.

I would think that as long as you have everything under the foundation

RDP designed ( the structural, seismic & plumbing, wind ??? ) for your

building, that you would be o.k. Because you are in CA, that may be a

whole different story though!

.

 

[Alias]

sue, think of this as a big hay barn! the ti work can be done later. Have them install a ufer ground in the footings and any other penetrations. they can't pour the slab without the underslab plumbing installed . You can possibly work with them in order to get the project moving. it should be up to you to decide what will work within your comfort zone. the engineering should cover any structural issues with a shell only and no slab build.

pwood -

They have already invaded my comfort zone and I don't like it at all! The people constructing this building last week went behind my back and complained to the mayor and a city councilperson about me and said there is lack of cooperation all because I am requiring a full set of plans. :censored

They showed up a little while ago with plans and specs but hadn't bothered to include a permit application. :banghd

So, I sent them off with two permit applications - one for temp power and one for the foundation/building, an encroachment permit, and returned the plans and asked them to submit everything at one time. Let's see if we can get this accomplished in a timely manner.

Thanks for the info on the ufer as they do want temporary power. Of course, I don't know if PP&L has even been contacted about the temp power.

I am also interested to see who is listed as contractor..................

 

[mtlogcabin]

I am requiring a full set of plans to send out for review and they were made aware of this requirement.

This wiill be a building occupied by the Feds. Guarantee the complete drawings are out there somewhere and being reviewed by them also.

Depending on your contract with the plan review firm. Quite being the middle person, let the owner deal directly with the plan review firm. When it is all over the owner will bend over backwards to keep you from sending their next project out for review.

 

[Coug Dad]

This wiill be a building occupied by the Feds. Guarantee the complete drawings are out there somewhere and being reviewed by them also.Depending on your contract with the plan review firm. Quite being the middle person, let the owner deal directly with the plan review firm. When it is all over the owner will bend over backwards to keep you from sending their next project out for review.

Not always true. Many Federal projects are going under a design build contract with tight completion schedules that make phased permits a must. The Feds are doing very little traditional design - bid - build projects where the final design is done before sent out for bid.

 

[mark handler]

Sue

It sounds like it is already a nightmare.

I know it maybe difficult, but try to work with them.

Sit down with them and explain that it will cost much more to do this piecemeal.

Explain that every submittal will cost money.

If they submit the entire package they will save “X” dollars.

And explain that based on subsequent submittals earlier work may need to be removed.

Keep good records, FAST TRACK projects are difficult to manage

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

My question is have you ever heard/seen this type of installation with just the footings being poured for this type of building and no interior slab initially?

Have done this all the time when working on the private sector side, and have issued them on the public sector side too. We do not issue occupancy certificates for shell buildings, so there is very little to verify for plan review other than engineering, and in 95% of the cases the above ground work is pre-engineered by the manufacturer's engineer, and the footings are designed by a local engineer.

 

[Mark K]

I assume that the project will be privately owned and leased to the federal government. Otherwise you would not have jurisdiction.

Does the code explicitly require a ufer ground or are other grounding schemes acceptable. The ufer ground system assumes that the concrete footing is in contact with the soil. If a membrane is provided under the bottom of all footings you may have a barrier that makes this ground not effective. I believe that this is called a floating ground.

In addition if the grounding wires are attached to foundation reinforcing I would question whether grounding currents would result in corrosion of the steel reinforcing where it is in contact with copper wires. In copper mines they have extracted copper from the water pumped out of the mine by having the copper rich water flow over steel scrap. The steel corrodes and solid copper is left. The point is that copper and steel do not play well together.

 

[Alias]

Have done this all the time when working on the private sector side, and have issued them on the public sector side too. We do not issue occupancy certificates for shell buildings, so there is very little to verify for plan review other than engineering, and in 95% of the cases the above ground work is pre-engineered by the manufacturer's engineer, and the footings are designed by a local engineer.

Yep, and from the preview, the metal building roof snow load is listed at 20#, foundation is 30# snow load. Local designer got the 30# right, metal building folks didn't even after sending them the local design requirements.

 

[mark handler]

Sue

Charge for every resubmittal

 

[Alias]

Not always true. Many Federal projects are going under a design build contract with tight completion schedules that make phased permits a must. The Feds are doing very little traditional design - bid - build projects where the final design is done before sent out for bid.

CD -

That is what we have here. There were glitches on both sides - feds & owner - and the building didn't get started in July as planned. We are now in the middle of winter with temps dropping to anything from 0 to teens at night. Days so far have been high 40's - low 50's. Snow predicted this week.

 

[Alias]

SueCharge for every resubmittal

That will be happening as the third party plan check firm is in Sacramento, 6 hrs away. I have a signed contract with Willdan - 75/25. When I told them I would be sending the plans out for plan check, I meant it.

 

[steveray]

Be careful Sue and document and disclaimer everything in the meantime....the "shell" may not meet Height and Area when the deal falls through and it becomes a gunpowder factory.....we have done shell permits, but as details change; (or tenants) MOE, H&A, importance factor,and a whole lot of other factors may change as well!

Good Luck!

 

[Alias]

I assume that the project will be privately owned and leased to the federal government. Otherwise you would not have jurisdiction.Does the code explicitly require a ufer ground or are other grounding schemes acceptable. The ufer ground system assumes that the concrete footing is in contact with the soil. If a membrane is provided under the bottom of all footings you may have a barrier that makes this ground not effective. I believe that this is called a floating ground.

In addition if the grounding wires are attached to foundation reinforcing I would question whether grounding currents would result in corrosion of the steel reinforcing where it is in contact with copper wires. In copper mines they have extracted copper from the water pumped out of the mine by having the copper rich water flow over steel scrap. The steel corrodes and solid copper is left. The point is that copper and steel do not play well together.

Mark K -

You nailed it, this will be a privately owned leased govt. building.

As to the ufer, it will depend on where they put the temporary power pole. For that matter, it will depend on where the power company will be installing the underground power lines.

 

[Alias]

SueIt sounds like it is already a nightmare.

I know it maybe difficult, but try to work with them.

I have already had about 6 meetings with them on the planning side and the building side. Good thing about small cities, we can get everyone in the same room at the same time and get things ironed out. I passed out the submittal requirements to them twice, and their designer was there for these meetings.

Sit down with them and explain that it will cost much more to do this piecemeal.Explain that every submittal will cost money.

If they submit the entire package they will save “X” dollars.

And explain that based on subsequent submittals earlier work may need to be removed.

Keep good records, FAST TRACK projects are difficult to manage

I have talked to them repeatedly about cost savings, etc. and it appears to be falling on deaf ears. Thanks for the "removed" reference, maybe that will wake them up.

 

[mark handler]

Good luck, We are here to listen when you need to vent.....

 

[Coug Dad]

The "X" dollars they save on a non phased plan review may be a drop in the larger bucket.

 

[north star]

*

Because it is the Feds. [ USFS & USDA ], they are not concerned with

saving dollars......It's about their own agendas!.......You're just a speed

bump in their way!

*

 

[Alias]

Good luck, We are here to listen when you need to vent.....

Thanks Mark. Do you know of a specific requirement in CA code (DSA, H&S, as well as CBC, etc.) that would require a full set of plans for submittal? I need any and all ammo that you and others know about to back my play.

I will be researching this weekend instead of relaxing.

I started the morning with the owner & the non-contractor showing up about 10 AM with plans for the foundation and building and no permit app for the work. I informed them that they needed to submit the plans with the permit app. I sent them off with an app for an encroachment permit and two building permit apps. - one for the foundation/shell and one for a temp. power pole. When the owner came in this afternoon at 1:55 pm to drop off the permit applications, he forgot to bring the foundation, building plans and engineering specs for the foundation. There was also no drawing for the temp power pole. I mentioned that I needed something showing where the pole was going and was informed by the owner that the pole had been installed and the work had been done by his handyman. Plans finally arrived about 2:20 pm. I was not a happy camper at this point (kept my temper, bit my tongue) as they held me up on my way to post a substandard rental house & mail the notice to the owner plus, they know that my regular office hours are 8 am - 2 pm M-F.

I had a little talk with the mayor this afternoon about the project. He seems to think that I am being unreasonable and that I should just let them put up the building on the foundation and not have to pour a slab or follow the submittal checklist that I gave them with the permit app plus at two prior meetings. The mayor has scheduled a meeting Tuesday at 10 AM to discuss what can be done(read - get Sue to cave). The owner & non-contractor, another city councilperson(former contractor, not a fan of me), Director & Asst. Director of PW, the designer, and I don't know who else are invited. I am pretty sure that I will be run over by the bus at this time. Hopefully no one will throw it in reverse.......

What worries me is that owner & non-contractor have pretty well convinced the mayor that I am being obstructionist and difficult to deal with. They have also been lobbying the County Supervisor for the city. I found out about this because I ran into him at the bank today. He said that they have been saying some not so very nice things about me to him - something to the effect that I don't know what I'm doing, I must not know anything because I am having a third party do the plan check, etc., etc. etc. The Supe informed them that he had no involvement in city policy or business. He also stated that he understood why I sending it out for third party plan check.

Thanks for listening everyone, I am finally calmed down a bit.

 

[mark handler]

Have a calm weekend

 

[Alias]

Have a calm weekend

Thanks Mark, I'll try. Chocolate & ice cream is helping.