Door closer

[Yikes]

Doesn't make sense to me that one can get through a spring hinge door faster than a hydraulic closer door.

While we are on the subject at a drug store I go to they have automatic folding doors and at a supermarket where they have automatic sliding doors the doors seem to close really fast. Are these considered door closerers?

Automatic doors are not considered as having "closers" in the same sense as manual swinging door has closers (ADAS 404.2).
Automatic swinging doors are addressed in a completely different section, ADAS 404.3, which refers to ASNI/BHMA A156.10 for operation specifics.

 

[Yikes]

At what point is a "licensed" contractor/sub to not be held responsible for not adhering to code and the CDs?

That answer depends on the nature of the contract they signed with the owner. But for sake of discussion, let's assume that they are using the standard AIA-A201 General Conditions of the Contract for Construction:

§ 3.2.2 Because the Contract Documents are complementary, the Contractor shall, before starting each portion of the Work, carefully study and compare the various Contract Documents relative to that portion of the Work, as well as the information furnished by the Owner pursuant to Section 2.2.3, shall take field measurements of any existing conditions related to that portion of the Work, and shall observe any conditions at the site affecting it. These obligations are for the purpose of facilitating coordination and construction by the Contractor and are not for the purpose of discovering errors, omissions, or inconsistencies in the Contract Documents; however, the Contractor shall promptly report to the Architect any errors, inconsistencies or omissions discovered by or made known to the Contractor as a request for information in such form as the Architect may require. It is recognized that the Contractor’s review is made in the Contractor’s capacity as a contractor and not as a licensed design professional, unless otherwise specifically provided in the Contract Documents [e.g., design-build components].

§ 3.2.3 The Contractor is not required to ascertain that the Contract Documents are in accordance with applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, codes, rules and regulations, or lawful orders of public authorities, but the Contractor shall promptly report to the Architect any nonconformity discovered by or made known to the Contractor as a request for information in such form as the Architect may require.

§ 3.2.4 If the Contractor believes that additional cost or time is involved because of clarifications or instructions the Architect issues in response to the Contractor’s notices or requests for information pursuant to Sections 3.2.2 or 3.2.3, the Contractor shall make Claims as provided in Article 15. If the Contractor fails to perform the obligations of Sections 3.2.2 or 3.2.3, the Contractor shall pay such costs and damages to the Owner as would have been avoided if the Contractor had performed such obligations. If the Contractor performs those obligations, the Contractor shall not be liable to the Owner or Architect for damages resulting from errors, inconsistencies or omissions in the Contract Documents, for differences between field measurements or conditions and the Contract Documents, or for nonconformities of the Contract Documents to applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, codes, rules and regulations, and lawful orders of public authorities.​

So, in the example in this thread, if the architect had a floor plan that contained an inherent code conflict (door clearance vs. lavatory location), it is not the contractor's problem. But let's say these same plans also had (A) a door schedule that called for latch and a closer, and (B) a standard detail that showed door strike side clearances and it said 'add 12" on push side for door equipped with closer and a latch':

Scenario #1 - The contractor follows the floor plan and schedule, does not notice the inherent conflict between plan, schedule and standard detail, and it gets built in a non-code-compliant manner: The contractor is not liable to fix the problem; the responsibility rests with the architect.

Scenario #2 - The contractor notices the conflict during construction, and sends an RFI: The contractor is not liable for the cost or time to fix the problem; the responsibility rests with the architect to come up with a code-compliant solution.

Scenario #3 - The contractor notices the conflict prior to installation, but says to himself, "hey, I'll make more money if I build it first, then point out the code problem, then get paid to tear it out and rebuild it again": The contractor is then liable for the difference in cost in design solutions of when they knowingly should have reported it vs. when they did report it.

 

[ADAguy]

3.2.3 ! We can't question his methods and means and he accepts our plans as Gospel, so why then does a client hire an architect? There does not seem to be any provisions for checks and balances other then the poor inspector who should have caught this issue, no?

 

[Yikes]

ADAguy, I'll give you a real-world example.
I recently had a project where there were 2 foot wide electric ranges back-to-back on the fire-rated wall between two (11B accessible) apartments. The code requires that any recessed outlet boxes in the fire-rated wall be separated by 24", and so our electrical engineer should have instead specified surface mounted J-boxes (which would have still fit behind the range, invisible to the tenant, and which are shown in the range installation instructions). But the engineer forgot and called out for recessed boxes.

When the contractor discovered the problem during rough electrical, he should have sent an RFI, and I as architect would've been on the hook for the minimal cost difference (if any) of a surface mount J-box vs. a recessed box. Instead, the contractor - likely with the best of intentions - had his cabinet sub rearrange the cabinet layout to stagger the ranges apart. He did not inform us of any of this. Thus, he took on the design responsibility himself, and took it away from me. That had significant unintended consequences:
Now, in 50% of the units, the relocated range is too close to the refrigerator (it's a U-shaped kitchen) and does not comply with wheelchair clearance requirements for a side approach to the electric range. Per A-201 section 3.2.4 the contractor is now on the hook to either tear out and rebuild the kitchens, or buy a bunch of very expensive counter-depth refrigerators issues could've been avoided if the contractor had simply called or sent an RFI when they discovered the problem.

To answer your question: the client hires the architect in hopes that the architect will get it right the first time. But no one is 100% perfect, and since most buildings are one-of-a kind, there is usually a small amount of contingency funds set aside for minor problems, and there is professional liability insurance for rectifying huge mistakes. The contractor does not have to accept our plans as gospel: sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 make it very clear that the contractor needs to request more information when they have any doubts or see any errors or inconsistencies.

 

[e hilton]

Here is a clip of the detail on the construction drawings. As you can see, there is a dim for the correct clearance, but it is referenced off a point the framers could not see.

 

[e hilton]

Oops ... didn’t take.

 

[e hilton]

: The contractor is not liable to fix the problem; the responsibility rests with the architect.
.

Good explanation of the possible scenarios. Two comments. If the aor is found to be at fault, it’s typical that their financial liability would be limited to the cost of redoing the drawings. Hopefully the problem was caught before the contractor blindly (or nefariously) built it wrong, so the architect would provide revised drawings at no cost.
If there are additional construction costs ... say they drew the concrete slab as 3” thick rather than 6” ... the owner would have to pay the cost for the correct product, on the logic that if it had been drawn correctly then the bid price would have been higher anyway. You might ... maybe ... be able to recover some cost if the contractor had ordered the wrong product based on approved shop drawings and submittals, and there was a restocking charge. Say they ordered #3 rebar for the 3” slab, and needed #4 rebar for the 6” slab. You might have a chance of recovering the cost of the new rebar if the old rebar is not returnable.
Architects have E&O insurance. Errors and omissions. But that usually has a cap, sometimes the value of the design contract. So trying to recover money from the architect is a very arduous process for any amount, and depending on the level of the screw up, there might not be enough to cover the oops.

 

[e hilton]

the Contractor shall, before starting each portion of the Work, carefully study and compare the various Contract Documents , shall take field measurements of any existing conditions

Yeah, good luck with that. You would be surprised at how many details on the drawings are missed until its time to build.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Automatic doors are not considered as having "closers" in the same sense as manual swinging door has closers (ADAS 404.2).
Automatic swinging doors are addressed in a completely different section, ADAS 404.3, which refers to ASNI/BHMA A156.10 for operation specifics.

Thanks. So how do I time these doors to see if they comply to code when doing an inspection? Is the only way is to buy this standard?

 

[ADAguy]

Yeah, good luck with that. You would be surprised at how many details on the drawings are missed until its time to build.

Point, at time of bid this should have/could have been brought up (fat chance).
City issued permit (dwg's met code "minimum" as to content (in-house peer review/office standards vs best practices should have caught this?)
City inspector should have caught this.

 

[JPohling]

If the door is rated then you only have the auto operator to solve the issue. Is it a single occupancy toilet room? If non rated door then either remove the latch, or remove the closer. If single occupancy you could use the closer with push /pull hardware and then a thumbturn latch on inside.

 

[steveray]

404.2.7 Closing Speed.
404.2.7.1 Door Closers. Door closers shall be adjusted
so that from an open position of 90 degrees, the time
required to move the door to an open position of 12
degrees shall be 5 seconds minimum.
 Closers with delayed action features give a person more
time to maneuver through doorways. They are particularly
useful on frequently used interior doors. When used on fire
doors, the closer should be adjusted so that the delay does
not exceed requirements established by the administrative
authority. This requirement also provides sufficient time
for persons using walking aids, such as walkers and
crutches, to maneuver through the door without the added
burden of working against the door and closer.
404.2.7.2 Spring Hinges. Door spring hinges shall be
adjusted so that from an open position of 70 degrees,
the door shall move to the closed position in 1.5 seconds
minimum.
Although not considered as a “door closer” in the general
sense, spring hinges create the same difficulty for people
trying to open and then maneuver through the door. Therefore,
for the same reasons that are mentioned in the commentary
for Section 404.2.7.1, the standard establishes a
minimum length of time for the door to close.

 

[ADAguy]

Life expectancy on a spring hinge should be considered.