How do you handle resubmittals?

[Sifu]

You should not be disassembling a licensed design professionals set of drawings. Period. That can probably lead to legal issues.

If you are still doing paper, make them either resubmit the entire set or the design professional or their representative can come into the office and disassemble and reassemble and resubmit.

That is what we usually did in the paper days, because they brought them in and we handed them a staple puller and stapler. Now, almost daily, I am sent individual pages to insert or replace, by the design professionals. It would seem to be much easier with electronic plans to provide a complete set, but apparently they can't be bothered with it. Often, it is not the DP that submits, they send the plans or pages to the owner, contractor or expediter, then they do it. That really muddies the chain of custody for the documents. The file uploads are very often submitted one page at a time, it's not unusual to have dozens, or hundreds of individual uploaded pages, with the expectation that we will assemble them. In my experience, the DP's don't seem to care much about their own documents. But, in their (weak) defense, most of the AHJ's around here don't have strong policy on document management (or any) and if they do, they are not adhered to. Poor practice becomes expected practice.

 

[steveray]

Poor practice becomes expected practice.

AMEN

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

If you are still doing paper, make them either resubmit the entire set or the design professional or their representative can come into the office and disassemble and reassemble and resubmit.

I won't make THAT mistake again.

A colleague was the BO in a small town several years ago and he had a commercial project that he thought was too much for him to handle the plan review and cover his field inspections, so be brought me in to do the plan review. There were a LOT of issues. When the architect brought in revised plans, he volunteered to staple the new sheets into the plan sets. However, he took the old sheets with him when he left. My friend didn't notice. Two+ years later, after they got the CofO, the owner sued my friend. One of the changes they had made in the plans, which my friend hadn't noticed, was to add a second kitchen on the second floor of a restaurant. That created several code issues. In their lawsuit, they claimed it had been there all along. The didn't know that I still had the original set of construction drawings that I had reviewed for the first plan review.

Oops.

Nope. If anyone does any unstapling and restapling, it'll be me. I 'X' out the old sheets and insert the new ones in front of the old ones. After the permit is issued, we have the entire set scanned -- X'd out sheets and all.

 

[Mark K]

Question: I want to clarify what you mean by "plan checker," here. Are you talking about a person on the designer's side of the equation, or the planning/building part of the equation?

Reason I ask is that our shop is small, and with but one exception (a trainee who has strong field skills but isn't quite ready to review plans on his own), each inspector reviews plans and then is responsible for the build from permit issuance to final inspection. In other words, I *am* the plans reviewer, and field inspector.


Exactly. I wish folks would grasp this reality.... the changes made to correct one error may often accidentally create another issue. Off the top of my head

- point load transfer
- duct penetration of fire separations
- exit pathways, exit widths, exit distance
- Fire separation requirements might change (Had a room required to be separated by 1 hour moved so that part of a wall was also part of a public corridor. Now that 45-minute wall has to be one-hour in that location.

In short, there are times when a "minor change in the plans" causes the requirement for a complete top-down review of the whole thing.

A plan checker is an individual working under the direction of the building department to verify that the construction documents are in compliance with the code. An inspector is an individual who verifies that what was constructed complies with the construction documents. In some cases a single individual could wear both hats but in California, in my experience, that is rare. My sense is that there are enough differences between the two jobs that an individual who is good at one is unlikely to be good at the other.

If the work load is such that the fees cannot support two individuals maybe the City should consider contracting with the county building department to provide such services.

The building department has no business in telling the designers how they divide the work among their staff. In many cases the designer is a sole practitioner and has no staff.

I am hearing examples of obviously inadequate submissions and while such examples can occur, I suspect that they are not the norm. Remember designers are highly motivated to make a profit which is hard to do if multiple submittals are the norm.

 

[Yikes]

In the days of paper plans, here's an example form city of LA.
The plan checker would review each sheet, but would only "initial" (as complete) those sheets that had no code issues.
During backcheck, the plan checker would be willing to review individually corrected separate sheets, but it was not their job to collate or reassemble in to a new set of plans. This was especially necessary in Los Angeles, where multiple sets of plans would be reviewed concurrently by multiple different departments.
It was 100% the applicant's responsibility to create a conformed final set of plans from all the various departments and their iterations of plan check.
At final submittal, architects would bring in all the initialled individual sheets of plans in one stack, and a clean final set of cleaned, conformed, stamped plans next to it for a side-by-side comparison by the plan checker.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

If the work load is such that the fees cannot support two individuals maybe the City should consider contracting with the county building department to provide such services.

That might be possible in places where there is a county building department. That's not the case anywhere in New England (that I'm aware of). I can't speak for other parts of the country. It's also possible to farm out plan reviews to the ICC.

The problem most building departments in my state have is that the permit fees don't stay with the Building Department -- they get absorbed into the municipality's general budget. The Building Department, if they're lucky, might get back 25% to 33% of the fee revenue to run the department. That's not the way it's supposed to be, of course, but in this state that's the way it is. The towns look at the Building Department as a cash cow.

 

[rktect 1]

A colleague was the BO in a small town several years ago and he had a commercial project that he thought was too much for him to handle the plan review and cover his field inspections, so be brought me in to do the plan review. There were a LOT of issues. When the architect brought in revised plans, he volunteered to staple the new sheets into the plan sets. However, he took the old sheets with him when he left. My friend didn't notice. Two+ years later, after they got the CofO, the owner sued my friend. One of the changes they had made in the plans, which my friend hadn't noticed, was to add a second kitchen on the second floor of a restaurant. That created several code issues. In their lawsuit, they claimed it had been there all along. The didn't know that I still had the original set of construction drawings that I had reviewed for the first plan review.

So, all revisions, usually based on a previous plan review comment, should have come with a letter from the design professional. That should be standard practice. Any changes that were submitted on their part (like adding a second kitchen or twelve more stories) should also be accompanied by a letter from the design professional. Now, if the permit coordinator and plan reviewer decided not to read those letters detailing all changes to the original set I would think you need new people. Or a better process in place. I have a small enough staff where we don't have the kind of time you appear to have on your hands. So I can understand that if you wanted to do this on your own but IMHO, It could lead to other issues. Clearly something went wonky with your case. I'd focus on the process you have.

 

[tmurray]

I am hearing examples of obviously inadequate submissions and while such examples can occur, I suspect that they are not the norm. Remember designers are highly motivated to make a profit which is hard to do if multiple submittals are the norm.

Your position is fundamentally flawed in that it requires that people are mostly free from cognitive heuristics and biases, however there is no evidence that designers are somehow the only group immune to this.

I would suggest most people justify their poor submissions in that it would be too costly to perform the necessary quality assurance to ensure that the design is approved the first time, every time. In fact, they could be right in some cases, given the cursory review process seen in some jurisdictions.

Ultimately, I would need some fairly compelling evidence to agree that designers are doing what they are doing based on a true evaluation of the economics of the situation, rather than just their feelings.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

At final submittal, architects would bring in all the initialled individual sheets of plans in one stack, and a clean final set of cleaned, conformed, stamped plans next to it for a side-by-side comparison by the plan checker.

I like this approach, and it seems well-suited for the paper-copy world, and for large shops, especially.

Yet I read this and wonder how this would work in a large-shop *digital* world.... so I raise the point for discussion.

 

[Mark K]

Your position is fundamentally flawed in that it requires that people are mostly free from cognitive heuristics and biases, however there is no evidence that designers are somehow the only group immune to this.

I would suggest most people justify their poor submissions in that it would be too costly to perform the necessary quality assurance to ensure that the design is approved the first time, every time. In fact, they could be right in some cases, given the cursory review process seen in some jurisdictions.

Ultimately, I would need some fairly compelling evidence to agree that designers are doing what they are doing based on a true evaluation of the economics of the situation, rather than just their feelings.

Since 3 to 4 submissions are not the norm in California such logic would suggest that the building departments in California are not doing an adequate job. It is either that or the engineers in California are so much better. Who do you wish to insult?

 

[tmurray]

Since 3 to 4 submissions are not the norm in California such logic would suggest that the building departments in California are not doing an adequate job. It is either that or the engineers in California are so much better. Who do you wish to insult?

Where are you getting the 3-4 submissions being the norm in California?

What did I say that was insulting?

 

[steveray]

Who do you wish to insult?

Normally everyone....

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

So, all revisions, usually based on a previous plan review comment, should have come with a letter from the design professional. That should be standard practice.

As you probably know from specifications and general conditions language, "should" is not mandatory. I am not aware of anything in code, statute, or regulation that requires a design professional to submit any sort of letter to accompany revised construction drawings. We consider ourselves extremely blessed if they even bother to "cloud" the revisions on the drawings.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I would suggest most people justify their poor submissions in that it would be too costly to perform the necessary quality assurance to ensure that the design is approved the first time, every time. In fact, they could be right in some cases, given the cursory review process seen in some jurisdictions.

There's an old saying (which I haven't heard recently, but which certainly still applies): "Nobody has time to do it right the first time, but everyone has time to go back and do it over."

I believe too many design professionals (in this region, anyway) have become accustomed to one-person and small building departments where the norm is to approve anything that has a seal on it, in the mistaken belief that an architect's or engineer's seal constitutes a certification that the documents meet code. Design professionals are constantly being battered by clients to take projects for less than what should be a fair and reasonable price, so they take the job and then hope they can get away with poor quality construction documents. (I was going to say "sub-standard" but, when everyone is doing lousy drawings, "lousy" IS the standard.) When they encounter a department that actually reviews the construction documents and cites the flaws, they DON'T do the responsible thing and sit down to thoroughly review the package, they just make the minimum revisions they think will allow them to squeak through and get the permit. Sometimes that works ... and sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Since 3 to 4 submissions are not the norm in California such logic would suggest that the building departments in California are not doing an adequate job. It is either that or the engineers in California are so much better. Who do you wish to insult?

I'm an equal opportunity offender ...

 

[tmurray]

There's an old saying (which I haven't heard recently, but which certainly still applies): "Nobody has time to do it right the first time, but everyone has time to go back and do it over."

I believe too many design professionals (in this region, anyway) have become accustomed to one-person and small building departments where the norm is to approve anything that has a seal on it, in the mistaken belief that an architect's or engineer's seal constitutes a certification that the documents meet code. Design professionals are constantly being battered by clients to take projects for less than what should be a fair and reasonable price, so they take the job and then hope they can get away with poor quality construction documents. (I was going to say "sub-standard" but, when everyone is doing lousy drawings, "lousy" IS the standard.) When they encounter a department that actually reviews the construction documents and cites the flaws, they DON'T do the responsible thing and sit down to thoroughly review the package, they just make the minimum revisions they think will allow them to squeak through and get the permit. Sometimes that works ... and sometimes it doesn't.

There are only two ways to do something. The right way, and again.

I would agree that too many people just see a stamp and think they are done. I think this has turned a corner in the past number of years though.

 

[jar546]

I would agree that too many people just see a stamp and think they are done. I think this has turned a corner in the past number of years though.

It is wholly inexcusable for any plans examiner to merely rubber-stamp drawings based on an architect or engineer's endorsement without conducting a thorough review. Such negligence not only constitutes a grave dereliction of their professional duty but also reflects a profound level of incompetence, laziness, and a disturbing disregard for public safety and ethical standards. This approach undermines the integrity of the construction process and jeopardizes the well-being of all who rely on their diligence and expertise.

 

[rktect 1]

As you probably know from specifications and general conditions language, "should" is not mandatory. I am not aware of anything in code, statute, or regulation that requires a design professional to submit any sort of letter to accompany revised construction drawings. We consider ourselves extremely blessed if they even bother to "cloud" the revisions on the drawings.

Like I said, you probably need a better process in place.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Like I said, you probably need a better process in place.

Such as what, exactly? We can't require applicants to provide or to do anything the code doesn't call for. Since the code doesn't mandate a narrative letter to accompany resubmittals and doesn't mandate that drawing revisions be "clouded," we can't require it.

Our code is adopted at the state level, by the legislature. Local jurisdictions are not allowed to adopt any changes or amendments. We have to play the hand we are dealt.

 

[jar546]

Since the code doesn't mandate a narrative letter to accompany resubmittals and doesn't mandate that drawing revisions be "clouded," we can't require it.

The Building Official has the power to adopt policies and procedures. That sounds like a policy. Don't make this too complicated. We are not asking for codes that don't exist, we have a policy that clouded drawings with a response letter are required. It is that simple.

 

[Yikes]

As a practicing architect on the customer side of the building counter, I am accustomed to the plan checker not looking closely at the plans, at least on first review. Especially with repetitive building types (such as apartments), I would often get a copy/paste list of corrections for items already shown on the plans.

On resubmittal of paper plans, I would take the correction list and (for example) write next to correction #13 that the info could be seen on fire note #24 on sheet AG-3. Then on sheet AG-3, I would take a small post it and write "13" on it and slap in over note #24.

The post-it both immediately draws the attention of the plan checker, and forces them to physically move the post-it and deal with the actual content on the plans.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The Building Official has the power to adopt policies and procedures. That sounds like a policy. Don't make this too complicated. We are not asking for codes that don't exist, we have a policy that clouded drawings with a response letter are required. It is that simple.

The administration won't approve any such policy. Not the hill I or my boss want to die on. We can't even get them to approve re-inspection fees, and the boss isn't allowed to post an unsafe structure notice with prior approval from the mayor and the town counsel.

 

[Mark K]

The Building Official has the power to adopt policies and procedures. That sounds like a policy. Don't make this too complicated. We are not asking for codes that don't exist, we have a policy that clouded drawings with a response letter are required. It is that simple.

I sometimes get confused as to the differences between a policy and a regulation that has not formally been adopted

 

[rktect 1]

Section 104.1 (2021 IRC) The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code.

I am not certain who you or your "boss" is, but one of you may or may not be the building official. If neither of you are, who is? Here, I am the building official and I amend the building codes, make policies and set procedures.