Exception to IBC106.1 -Submittal documents

[brudgers]

I have found myself gravitating towards Min&Max approach. Like brudgers commented you have to stay within your state guidelines but minimizing the contractors need to get stamps is resulting in a much better working relationship with them. If a plan needs corrections it is much easier and faster to get the contractor to fix it than argue with some DA design professional who's main interest is adding cost to the project in order to bump his salary.

Architects are licensed to protect the public as are Engineers.

For a code official, having poor relations with them indicates a lack of professionalism.

 

[incognito]

Brudgers,

You would think their main concern would be to protect the public since what they are licensed to do. So I would have to whole-heartedly agree that the vast majority do lack any semblance of professionalism since it appears their main goal is to fatten their bank accounts by inflating project costs with unnecessary "fluff" and promoting the passing of laws that make their services required for projects that are insignificant in scope.

The most frustrating thing is that architects are the most difficult to deal with and they are little more than glorified interior designers. It is the engineers that are carrying the majority of the "weight".

 

[brudgers]

Brudgers,You would think their main concern would be to protect the public since what they are licensed to do. So I would have to whole-heartedly agree that the vast majority do lack any semblance of professionalism since it appears their main goal is to fatten their bank accounts by inflating project costs with unnecessary "fluff" and promoting the passing of laws that make their services required for projects that are insignificant in scope.

The most frustrating thing is that architects are the most difficult to deal with and they are little more than glorified interior designers. It is the engineers that are carrying the majority of the "weight".

Yeah just like code officials all solicit bribes.

 

[incognito]

I do not know of any code official that has ever solicited a bribe. Can't imagine that an owner/contractor/architect would actually pay enough of a bribe to make it worthwhile to the code official. I have had contractors and architects jokingly ask how much it would take if they could build as designed. My response has always been "at least 1.5 million since it will be difficult to find a job once we all get out of jail".

 

[Jobsaver]

Architects are licensed to protect the public as are Engineers.For a code official, having poor relations with them indicates a lack of professionalism.

Having poor relationships with any "sector" indicates a lack of professionalism. The few architects I have known have a underlying passion for the lines of a building, followed by a good business sense to may their profession pay, followed by varying degrees of tolerance for construction budgeting and gravity.

 

[peach]

I do not know of any code official that has ever solicited a bribe. Can't imagine that an owner/contractor/architect would actually pay enough of a bribe to make it worthwhile to the code official. I have had contractors and architects jokingly ask how much it would take if they could build as designed. My response has always been "at least 1.5 million since it will be difficult to find a job once we all get out of jail".

for me it would have to be steamer trunks full of unmarked, old $50's (just kidding... my opinion is not for sale). The jurisdiction where I work has a long history of bribe taking.

 

[Uncle Bob]

I think most who do use the "Building Official's Options" to lessen or ease code requirements, come under the following;

1. Lazy (it's easier)

2. Incompetent (Have little or no code knowledge)

3. Political pressure (AHJ Council/Administrator requirement to retain employment)

4. Greed (bribery)

I did an internet search; and was going to post links of Building Officials and/or Inspectors found guilty of taking bribes; but, they were too numerous. When considering bribery, you might keep in mind that only a small number are actually caught and found guilty.

In some specific, large cities like Chicago and New York; taking bribes is a job requirement; not an option.

I think of all the above; that incompetence and political pressure are most prevalent.

ps. The word incompetent is not an insult; it describes a persons lack of knowledge, experience and/or qualifications.

Uncle Bob

 

[peach]

I agree UB... incompetent doesn't mean we are stupid.. it means we don't know what we don't know.. (which is where experience really comes in.. I can read code books all day and pass tests all day.. doesn't mean I'm necessary competent).

 

[brudgers]

Just for the record, I was just offering an equally ridiculous characterization of code officials to the one made about architects.

 

[Yankee]

I think most who do use the "Building Official's Options" to lessen or ease code requirements, come under the following;1. Lazy (it's easier)

2. Incompetent (Have little or no code knowledge)

3. Political pressure (AHJ Council/Administrator requirement to retain employment)

4. Greed (bribery)

I did an internet search; and was going to post links of Building Officials and/or Inspectors found guilty of taking bribes; but, they were too numerous. When considering bribery, you might keep in mind that only a small number are actually caught and found guilty.

In some specific, large cities like Chicago and New York; taking bribes is a job requirement; not an option.

I think of all the above; that incompetence and political pressure are most prevalent.

ps. The word incompetent is not an insult; it describes a persons lack of knowledge, experience and/or qualifications.

Uncle Bob

There is no "Building Official's Options" to lessen or ease requirements.

There is the option of approving an equivalent method of compliance and I can tell you that coming to that decision takes a hell of a lot more knowledge and performance than approving something written verbatim in the code, and those situations aren't decided lightly.

 

[peach]

Oh, Dear Yankee,

You haven't had the political pressures applied yet, have you?

Approving an alternate method is always tough.. pretty much everything in IBC chapter 4 was originally an "alternate method", because there were no code provisions to approve things like atria.

my 2 cents

 

[Yankee]

Oh, Dear Yankee,You haven't had the political pressures applied yet, have you?

Approving an alternate method is always tough.. pretty much everything in IBC chapter 4 was originally an "alternate method", because there were no code provisions to approve things like atria.

my 2 cents

I have. Like UB, decline to sign an app. Haven't gotten fired yet though (probably a matter of time). As I said, my Board of Selectmen consider building codes "guidelines", so there is pressure , , , always, and every customer that walks into my office is a potential time-bomb.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Yankee,

Sorry my statement was not more clear.

You stated; " There is no "Building Official's Options" to lessen or ease requirements. "

After reading this sentence; it looks like I meant that Building Officials were given the authority to lessen or ease code requirements.

However, what I stated was;

" I think most who do use the "Building Official's Options" to lessen or ease requirements, come under the following "

Obviously my statement was poorly written; which enabled you to rewrite it and give the sentence a different meaning than what I intended.

So I'll break it down;and explain just what I meant to convey:

First, there are "Building official's Options"; Code Neophite's example:

" The exception to 106.1 allows the building official to waive the submission of construction documents "if it is found that the nature of the work applied for is such that review of the construction documents is not necessary to obtain compliance with this code "

Many Building Officials use this to waive the requirement for submitting plans; where the State does not require plans prepared by a Registered Design Professional. Unfortunately they completely ignore;

" if it is found that that the nature of the work applied for is such that review of construction documents is no neccessary to obtain compliance with this code. "

Many Building Officials use their authority to envoke this "Option" to not require plans; for some of the reasons I have already listed; lazy, incompetent, etc..

My statement was not meant to imply that the codes give Building Officials the option (authority) to lessen the code requirements; but, that many Building Officials use the "authorized options afforded them by the codes" to lessen the code requirements; and they are wrong when doing this.

Hope this helps,

Uncle Bob