Contractors and Compliance: The Crucial Role of Detailed Construction Drawings and Documents

In the world of construction, the landscape is constantly shifting, presenting challenges that demand our attention and innovation. As a seasoned Building Official, I've witnessed the evolution of these challenges over the past 12 years, and it's clear that comprehensive construction drawings and documents are more critical than ever. In this article, we'll explore the multifaceted issues surrounding the need for detailed plans and how they intersect with contractor competency, overloaded inspectors, plan examiners, and recent legislative changes.

Contractor Competency and Code Knowledge:

One of the foremost issues we face today is the competency of contractors, particularly in smaller commercial projects. We're dealing with contractors who may lack the experience, knowledge, or commitment required for the complexities of commercial work. This challenge is exacerbated by projects involving ADA and other nuanced code compliance.

Imagine this scenario: A contractor claims they don't need to install ADA signage because it's not explicitly on the plans. Such excuses are unacceptable, and this situation underscores the urgency of having all necessary information clearly laid out. It's essential that drawings include specific details on ADA requirements, leaving no room for interpretation. As Building Officials, we must emphasize the importance of adhering to accessibility standards, even for contractors who may be out of their depth in commercial projects.

Overloaded Inspectors and the Need for Clarity:

Inspectors are the guardians of code compliance on construction sites. However, labor shortages have burdened them with excessive inspections, leaving them limited time to decipher ambiguous or incomplete drawings in the field. Their time is precious, and they should not be burdened with tasks that should have been resolved during the design and planning phase.

This underscores the critical role of detailed construction drawings. When plans provide explicit instructions, inspectors can focus on verifying that the work aligns with the approved designs rather than having to interpret vague statements or refer to the code book for specifics.

The Role of Plans Examiners and Legislative Impact:

Plans Examiners are the gatekeepers of construction plans' compliance with building codes and regulations. Their ability to do their job effectively relies heavily on the quality and comprehensiveness of the plans they review. However, legislation in states like Florida has limited their access to contracts, which are often crucial for understanding the full scope of the project.

This legislation highlights the importance of having comprehensive and unambiguous construction drawings. Architects and engineers must recognize the responsibility they bear in ensuring that their plans leave no room for uncertainty. Clear and detailed drawings become even more crucial in states where the contract cannot be used as a reference.

Collaboration for Success:

To address these challenges, collaboration among all stakeholders is paramount. Architects, Engineers, Plans Examiners, and Building Officials must work together effectively. Architects and Engineers should take the lead in providing detailed plans that leave no room for ambiguity. Plans Examiners can provide valuable feedback to designers, helping them understand the specific requirements and expectations of the permitting process.

Building Officials can play a pivotal role in fostering this collaboration, acting as facilitators between plan examiners, architects, and engineers. Encouraging open communication and clarity in construction documents is essential to ensure that projects proceed smoothly from design to completion.

The construction industry is in a state of flux, and these challenges require our collective attention and effort. Detailed plans are the cornerstone of successful projects, offering clarity and compliance while addressing the rise of inexperienced or incompetent contractors. Legislative changes may pose hurdles, but with effective collaboration and an unwavering commitment to precision, we can navigate this changing landscape and continue to build a safer and more efficient future for construction.

 

[jar546]

updated

 

[ICE]

Chapter 11 of the code book is equal to half of the code book. There is a great deal of chapter 11 stuff with even the simplest of projects. I don’t know how you guys handle it but at my first inspection I ask for the Chapter 11 pages. If they aren’t there,,, well here’s the first correction. I’m not going to refer to a code book to figure out the two dozen dimensions involved with the accessible bathrooms. Don’t ask me even one ADA question… look at the plans and if the answer isn’t there well then here’s another correction.

You decry the inexperienced contractor, the incompetent contractor. I am supposed to guide them through the thicket of their fraud? I write the corrections… I put forth a rudimentary explanation. If they don’t comprehend, it’s not my lot in life to pound it through a thick skull. I advise them to hire someone that can help them.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Chapter 11 of the code book is equal to half of the code book. There is a great deal of chapter 11 stuff with even the simplest of projects. I don’t know how you guys handle it but at my first inspection I ask for the Chapter 11 pages. If they aren’t there,,, well here’s the first correction. I’m not going to refer to a code book to figure out the two dozen dimensions involved with the accessible bathrooms. Don’t ask me even one ADA question… look at the plans and if the answer isn’t there well then here’s another correction.

If the answer isn't in the plans, why were the plans approved? But the answer isn't to reproduce the diagrams from A117.1. The answer is for the plan reviewer to have A117.1 open beside him (or her), and to verify that the toilet rooms, ramps, etc. are designed and dimensioned to be in compliance.

You decry the inexperienced contractor, the incompetent contractor. I am supposed to guide them through the thicket of their fraud? I write the corrections… I put forth a rudimentary explanation. If they don’t comprehend, it’s not my lot in life to pound it through a thick skull. I advise them to hire someone that can help them.

Some years ago, at my former position, we had a large golf course condo project being constructed. When the developer built a sales office building on the site, we failed their first final inspection because they had the grab bars all wrong in the accessible toilet rooms. To help them out, I have them a copy of an isometric view I had drawn up in AutoCAD to show all the grab bars and related dimensions.

When they later did the clubhouse, their architect took my isometric drawing and pasted it into the construction documents. Their field people got the grab bars all wrong anyway. So we went out there with a marker and marked on the walls exactly where all the grab bars had to go. They still got it wrong on the second try.

There's an old saying: "Ignorance can be educated, but stupid is forever."

 

[Mark K]

Admittedly there are numerous frustrations in getting a building completed. But I suggest that in our system not all of these problems can be eliminated by the building department. Each of the players have their own role and collectively we are best served if each of the players understand what their role is.

The building department should focus on code compliance. If the construction documents do not comply with the code the building department should say so. Still I would hope that the building department focuses on a thorough plan check and does not expect the inspectors to complete the plan check.

The primary focus of the inspectors should be on compliance with the approved permit documents. We do not need inspectors performing there own code checks. Yes there will be instances where an inspector notices a code issue that was not previously identified and when that happens the issue should be addressed.

If it is common for the inspector to identify code issues not addressed in the construction documents maybe the problem that the plan checks are not thorough. We should not expect the inspector to duplicate the function of the plan checkers.

The design professionals focuses on designing and documenting the project and on monitoring for compliance, which includes the permit documents, with the contract. The building department has no business reviewing the Owner Contractor contract.

The Contractor is responsible for complying with the construction documents. It is not the Contractors responsibility to do a code check to verify that the ADA signs were required. That is the responsibility of the designers.

If the building department attempts to solve all the problems it will only frustrate all involved. The building official cannot be the savior.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I hope you are just taking about commercial projects. I never saw or required on residential drawings: services, panel details, wiring details, attic ventilation, window U value, stairway details, interior finishes, doors, plumbing materials, lumber species, dryer vents, exact outlet locations, grading...

On commercial plans I am very strict about details when it comes to accessibility. I aways ask for details about any vertical changes on the accessible routes but which they always show level anyway. Then when I go for the inspection it's on slope to steep.

 

[TheCommish]

So the plan checker should do the job of the RDP and check everything in the plans for compliance with all the codes?

Massachusetts 2015 IRC (780 CMR) with amendments 107.6.2 Registered Design Professional Services

107.6.2.1 Design
All plans, computations and specifications involving new construction, alterations, repairs, expansions or additions or change in use or occupancy of existing buildings shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of a registered design professional and shall bear his or her signature and seal (see Section 107.1.1).

Said signature and seal shall signify that the plans, computations and specifications meet the applicable provisions of 780 CMR and accepted engineering practices. Any alternative means and methods which deviate from prescriptive requirements of 780 CMR shall be submitted to the building official for approval in a narrative form separate from the plans.

107.6.2.2 Construction
The registered design professionals who are responsible for the design, plans, calculations, and specifications, their designee or the registered design professionals who have been retained for construction phase services, shall perform the following tasks:

Review, for conformance to 780 CMR and the design concept, shop drawings, samples and other submittals by the contractor in accordance with the requirements of the construction documents.

Perform the duties for registered design professionals in 780 CMR 17.00: Special Inspections and Tests.

Be present at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the work and to determine if the work is being performed in a manner consistent with the construction documents and 780 CMR.

 

[ICE]

Here is an example of incomplete approved plans. The scope of work is replacing posts and headers that support two existing second floor apartments. The plans state that the footings for the posts and either side of a grade beam at the front of the carport shall be verified in the field. It has been verified that there are no footings for the posts and there is no continuous footing at the front of the carport. The plans do not provide any indication of what the footings shall be. The note on the plan should have been, "(E) V.I.F. and get back to me."







Then there is note #1. That should include, "Give me a call and I'll explain what I was trying to say there."

 

[bill1952]

So the plan checker should do the job of the RDP and check everything in the plans for compliance with all the codes?

Massachusetts 2015 IRC (780 CMR) with amendments 107.6.2 Registered Design Professional Services

Just help me out. Does this mean in MA even a small one family dwelling requires and RDP? I think I missing something. Thanks.

 

[Mark K]

What may be the case in Massachusetts is not necessarily true in other states. In California the focus is on the completed project and not on who does what.

 

[TheCommish]

Ma exempts prescriptive built one and two family and buildings 35000cf from RDP .
I didn't see were the discussion was limited to single or small buildings

 

[bill1952]

Ma exempts prescriptive built one and two family and buildings 35000cf from RDP .
I didn't see were the discussion was limited to single or small buildings

It wasn't, just my question, confused by the section you quoted in post 7 which didn't seem to mention they could be prescriptively built. Thank you.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Ma exempts prescriptive built one and two family and buildings 35000cf from RDP .
I didn't see were the discussion was limited to single or small buildings

35,000 CUBIC feet? That's an odd way to establish a size limit for what can be designed without being a licensed professional.

 

[TheCommish]

Remember MA is a commonwealth on of 4 odd ball member of the US where when looking the all the regulations promogulated, have regulations the seem to contradict the rule of physics and other accepted scientific principles.

The 35,000 CF exception and exemption for 1 & 2 family has been in code for the 40+ year I have been involved in building.

2015 IBC MA amendments 107.6 Construction Control

107.6.1 General
This section shall apply to the construction controls, professional services and contractor services required for buildings and structures needing registered design professional services.

The following structures are exempt from the requirements of Section 107.6:
Any building containing less than 35,000 cubic feet of enclosed space, measured to the exterior surfaces of walls and roofs and to the top of a ground supported floor, or in the case of a crawl space, to the bottom surface of the crawl space. In the case of basement floors or levels, the calculation of enclosed space shall include such spaces. For additions to existing buildings, the volume of enclosed space shall include the entire existing building and all proposed additions.
Any one- or two-family dwelling or any accessory building thereto.

Notwithstanding these exemptions, registered design professional services shall be required for activities which are deemed to constitute the practice of architecture or engineering as defined in M.G.L. c. 112, §§ 60A or 81D ... more specific exemptions

 

[bill1952]

Seems like 2000-2500 SF with a basement? Or am I way off?

 

[socaldano]

In the world of construction, the landscape is constantly shifting, presenting challenges that demand our attention and innovation. As a seasoned Building Official, I've witnessed the evolution of these challenges over the past 12 years, and it's clear that comprehensive construction drawings and documents are more critical than ever. In this article, we'll explore the multifaceted issues surrounding the need for detailed plans and how they intersect with contractor competency, overloaded inspectors, plan examiners, and recent legislative changes.

.....

As an engineer, who has read the building codes. I find the inspectors rarely comply with the building code, or rarely apply it correctly. They are impossibly strict but have obviously never read the codes.

According to your claims, that to use the codes of 20, 30 or 40 years ago renders the house unfit for habitation. Even though millions of homes were build and remain to that standard. I will go to the ridiculous. You will condemn my home if I have no power, gas or plumbing. Yet, in 90% of the counties in my state, the county will not complain if I don't have internal plumbing, no gas (wood stoves), or electrical. 90% of the counties in my state would be overjoyed if the occupied premises in their county met the building codes of 40 years ago.

The legal standard is "healthy and safe" and the Courts have said that the burden of proving that it is an issue of health and safety, and that it is enough to condemn the house is on the City not the owner. I understand if the inspector issued a correction notice and allowed the house to be occupied, but condemning houses for the most frivolous of reasons is the standard practice in this county. As if the inspector feels if he does not find "defects rendering it unfit for habitation" he is not doing his job.

You seem to have forgotten that the primary purpose for building inspections is to insure that the contractors provide professional work for the money they are charging.
The second purpose is to insure the building is healthy and safe. But many building inspectors are like the traffic cop writing 75mph tickets for a 65mph freeway. Where the freeway is built to the standards of the Autobaun - 140mph+, the car they are driving is safe to drive at 120 to 140 mph (brakes, suspension, tires, center of gravity), and the driver is perfectly capable of driving the car at 100+ mph.

I am NOT proposing a 100mph speed limit, I am pointing out that standing on the logical fallacy of stricter means safer. Actually, when you increase enforcement to rediculous. You do not improve compliance, you increase avoidance of oversight.

I am in a County, which is famous for the out of control cities, out of control court system, and known locally for its insane building inspectors. Many Contractors try to avoid getting permits, but will get permits in about half the cities or anywhere in the 4 surrounding counties.

The Cities are so unsupervised and so out of control. A US Senator made his career on making state legislation against the Cities of this County. And in 2023 six of the cities have to repay all traffic fines going back to 2011 due to Constitutional violations. More of the 81 are to be added to the list. Probably 30 of the cities will have to refund all fines going back to 2011.

The cities which are mixed or poor (not rich white cities), use occupancy inspections to harass and annoy homeowners. No adding or changing adult residents without a new inspection and new occupancy permit. If the cities were fair and just, I would understand. But they condemn houses for things like moss on the north side of an out building in the other part of the property, unpainted deck, leaves in the gutters. And they say "its not condemned, its just not fit for occupancy". In some cities 100% of the houses fail the occupancy inspection. If you fix EVERYTHING, then the inspector demands certification to the NEW standard by a certified electrician or certified plumber or certified HVAC person, so you leave a couple of switch cover or outlet covers off, and some other 10 minute tasks so that the inspector has at least 10 stupid things to complain about. Looking at any of the Occupancy Permits that I failed in the last 10 years, over 90% of the city complaints are in conflict with the "existing building code" or "existing building maintenance code". They NEVER cite what section of the code they are claiming to be enforcing.

There are three cities who are petty tyrants, unfortunately I own property in two of the three. IN the second one. The prior building inspector was fair and just. I always enjoyed working with him. As he would discretely make suggestions on another way to do some things. Or tell me that he was passing something this time, but next time he does an occupancy inspection he wants it done a different way.

I currently have a house I have to sell for the property. Because the City refuses to issue a building permit to put up roofing trusses, which are designed by a professional engineer, has his stamp and seal, and professionally built by a vendor. A tree fell on the roof damaging 80 year old roof stick framing . Now they are demanding that the house be certified by a mold abatement company that the house is mold free (in a county where the news reports daily mold counts, and no mold is visable in the house). The truth is this is a street that is half awesome houses and a guy who wants to take my property for a song is friends with the city.

Another CIty is refusing to issue a permit to put up drywall in the dining room (water damage) until I give them Architectual plans for a 1906 house. Yet 10 years ago, the prior building inspector allowed me to stick frame the former flat roof to a pitched roof with hand drawn plans. The Inspector rejected my initial application because he wanted me to provide specifications of design specs for the drywall screws and the pattern and distance of the drywall screws on the sheets (I have a team of professional drywallers coming in to put up this drywall because I want it to look perfect).

My neighbor was prevented from moving into his turnkey home for three months. As the previous owner put up drywall in the basement and used wood screws instead of drywall screws. The inspector would not let them move in until every wood screw was replaced with a drywall screw, in an area deemed by the inspector as "non living space". He had to replace the superior screws with drywall screws, strangely, the abusive inspector did not require them to mud the sheets (they are just covering the basement exterior cinderblock walls).

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

You seem to have forgotten that the primary purpose for building inspections is to insure that the contractors provide professional work for the money they are charging.
The second purpose is to insure the building is healthy and safe.

I respectfully disagree. What you cite as the second purpose is, legally and in fact, the only purpose of building and fire safety codes. Ensuring (not "insuring") that contractors provide professional work for the money they charge is a function reserved to state trade licensing agencies and the civil court.s

 

[Mark K]

I respectfully disagree. What you cite as the second purpose is, legally and in fact, the only purpose of building and fire safety codes. Ensuring (not "insuring") that contractors provide professional work for the money they charge is a function reserved to state trade licensing agencies and the civil courts

This is a point that many building departments have not recognized. While compliance with the building code will tend to protect individuals the goal is to protect the community as a whole.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Looking at any of the Occupancy Permits that I failed in the last 10 years, over 90% of the city complaints are in conflict with the "existing building code" or "existing building maintenance code". They NEVER cite what section of the code they are claiming to be enforcing.

Our standard office policy (which I pushed for, and obtained) is that our inspectors are *required* to provide a code/standard reference for every item deemed non-compliant on an inspection.

Ditto for plans reviews when we reject a plan for non-compliance.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Looking at any of the Occupancy Permits that I failed in the last 10 years, over 90% of the city complaints are in conflict with the "existing building code" or "existing building maintenance code". They NEVER cite what section of the code they are claiming to be enforcing.

I'm sure I have posted previously (in other discussions) that pre-COVID we used to have an annual refresher for building and fire code officials with the chief prosecutor from the State's Attorney's office as the presenter. One of the things she always stressed was that if we wanted to cite something as a violation, we had to provide the code citation. "If you don't have a citation, you don't have a violation."

The town where I worked previously took that seriously, and the town where I work now takes that seriously. In my plan review letters I cite the code and the section. When we write up issues in field inspections, the guys all have Internet-enabled tablet computers with UpCodes on them so they can look up and cite the applicable code section(s) when they need to fail something in the field.

Relating to the quoted post and existing buildings, we are involved in a situation right now where in the course of reviewing plans for an office alteration in a 35-year old building, we became aware of a potentially serious situation affected the egress layout for the entire building. Just for fun, it's a small office condominium, and half of the tenants/owners are attorneys, as is the president of the condo association. We had to send them a written notice, which was sent to the president by certified mail with copies to each tenant/owner. In drafting the letter, anticipating that the first response of the association would be "After 35 years aren't we grandfathered?" (and I anticipated correctly -- the president received the letter on Friday and the call came on Friday afternoon), I dredged up a copy of the BOCA building code that was in effect in 1989 along with the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code that was in effect then along with the retroactive portions of the current NFPA 101 and cited chapter and verse in the letter. That way, the association (or its attorney) can look it up and know what they're facing. I think that's only fair -- as well as being legally required.

 

[Mark K]

If no code section is provided are there any ramifications for the inspector or plan checker?

 

[ICE]

Our standard office policy (which I pushed for, and obtained) is that our inspectors are *required* to provide a code/standard reference for every item deemed non-compliant on an inspection.

Ditto for plans reviews when we reject a plan for non-compliance.

That's one way to reduce the number of violations.

 

[ICE]

I'm sure I have posted previously (in other discussions) that pre-COVID we used to have an annual refresher for building and fire code officials with the chief prosecutor from the State's Attorney's office as the presenter. One of the things she always stressed was that if we wanted to cite something as a violation, we had to provide the code citation. "If you don't have a citation, you don't have a violation."

The town where I worked previously took that seriously, and the town where I work now takes that seriously. In my plan review letters I cite the code and the section. When we write up issues in field inspections, the guys all have Internet-enabled tablet computers with UpCodes on them so they can look up and cite the applicable code section(s) when they need to fail something in the field.

Relating to the quoted post and existing buildings, we are involved in a situation right now where in the course of reviewing plans for an office alteration in a 35-year old building, we became aware of a potentially serious situation affected the egress layout for the entire building. Just for fun, it's a small office condominium, and half of the tenants/owners are attorneys, as is the president of the condo association. We had to send them a written notice, which was sent to the president by certified mail with copies to each tenant/owner. In drafting the letter, anticipating that the first response of the association would be "After 35 years aren't we grandfathered?" (and I anticipated correctly -- the president received the letter on Friday and the call came on Friday afternoon), I dredged up a copy of the BOCA building code that was in effect in 1989 along with the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code that was in effect then along with the retroactive portions of the current NFPA 101 and cited chapter and verse in the letter. That way, the association (or its attorney) can look it up and know what they're facing. I think that's only fair -- as well as being legally required.

Do you realize that you're swatting flies with a shotgun? It's akin to smog testing 100% of the vehicles to catch the .0001% that are polluters. If someone has an ax to grind... well give them the section numbers. If the lawyers get involved, hold their hand. Going to that extent for every correction is a waste of time and you know that.

 

[jar546]

That's one way to reduce the number of violations.

We are now required to do this by state statute so it becomes the norm and does not affect the pass/fail rate.