Inspecting with a bad plan review

[Mr. Inspector]

I was wondering how any of you handle this. I am inspecting a building that a different 3rd party approved a plan review that has some major things missing. Took over a township where the 3rd party company is no longer in business. I can handle the small things when they are missing like wiring methods, missing receptacles, missing emergency lights, accessible toilet room measurements. But what do you do when there are major things missing? Right now, I am inspecting a 4,000 sq ft A3 building where the plans have no accessible route to the basement (required per code), no plumbing at all and has overhead doors for exits. I'm afraid there will be more like this.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Hoooboy, do I feel your pain. I've been in the unenviable position of assuming responsibility for some pretty deficient plans - the worst of which was for a massive industrial building where the floor plans were "issued for pricing" and didn't have required stamps - and weren't code compliant in any way, shape, or form. I ended up revoking the permit after much misery. The project is now back on track with code-compliance, but ...yeeesh. There have been a bunch of those where serious structural/life safety things have been approved by individuals who were not trained/qualified to issue permits, and did anyway.

You're in a tough spot. Technically, you are responsible for the building being up to Code. Approval of non-compliant plans creates an issue, but the liabiity for the screwup lies with the previous party, not you.

There is a Canadian legal case where this sort of thing happened - the new inspector found some deficiencies, but also went way, way the heck overboard on litigating the past, and the courts basically punished the new inspector for hammering *too* hard.

I think you have to fight the critical life-safety things, stuff that will lead to loss of life/property. Fire safety, too: because that's stuff that can land on your head if/when things go wrong. Accessibility ... maybe not so much.

Above all, document, document, document. Cover your keister.

 

[jar546]

I was wondering how any of you handle this. I am inspecting a building that a different 3rd party approved a plan review that has some major things missing. Took over a township where the 3rd party company is no longer in business. I can handle the small things when they are missing like wiring methods, missing receptacles, missing emergency lights, accessible toilet room measurements. But what do you do when there are major things missing? Right now, I am inspecting a 4,000 sq ft A3 building where the plans have no accessible route to the basement (required per code), no plumbing at all and has overhead doors for exits. I'm afraid there will be more like this.

At this point, you now own this project and will be held responsible as an inspector who is aware of such life safety violations. I would notify the building official in writing so he can determine how to proceed. If he blows it off and says don't worry about it, I would report it to my supervisor and refuse to inspect that property. I have also reported stuff like this to L&I and they were very receptive.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

One of our former state building inspectors (since deceased) used to say in classes that, "A violation is always a violation." The fact that something was missed during a plan review doesn't mean that the inspector can't cite it when he/she finds it in the field. IMHO you have a duty to cite it.

There will be much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of the teeth on the part of the owner, of course, but the bottom line is that the owner has a duty to submit plans that comply with the code. The plan review is just [supposed to be] for verification. Ultimately, the owner can sue the architect, engineer, or designer for the extra costs.

 

[ICE]

I was wondering how any of you handle this.

Violations... big or small, write them all. Let the players sort it out amongst themselves. When you find that the plans are a mess, there's no telling what other mistakes are sitting there. Feel free to send the plans back to the maker. People tend to get wound up ....but as Tommy, the oldest Henderson boy said, "here's the thing about that".... unless they are just stupid, they know.....they know better.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Violations... big or small, write them all. Let the players sort it out amongst themselves. When you find that the plans are a mess, there's no telling what other mistakes are sitting there. Feel free to send the plans back to the maker. People tend to get wound up ....but as Tommy, the oldest Henderson boy said, "here's the thing about that".... unless they are just stupid, they know.....they know better.

Maybe they're all just stupid.

A few months back, I rejected plans for an apartment building because (a) the dimensions on the structural drawings didn't match the dimensions on the architectural drawings, and (b) the dimensions on the north side of the architectural plans didn't add up to the same number as the dimensions on the south side. The architect and structural engineer made revisions, we received a new submittal, and the numbers still didn't work so we rejected the plans again.

Third submittal still didn't add up. At that point, the developer went whining to the mayor's office, and we had a telephone conference call with the architect, the engineer, the owner, my boss, my boss's boss (the land use director), the director of economic development, the municipal counsel, and me. The architect immediately started complaining that we were holding up the project for no reason and costing him money. I pointed out three strings of dimensions that didn't agree from one side of the building to the other. I told everyone on the call that I didn't feel I should approve drawings that have obvious errors, because if any of the errors result in a field condition that doesn't comply with the code, we would ave no choice other than to make the developer tear it out and rebuild it.

The architect was suddenly very quiet, and a few days later we received a new submittal on which all the numbers added up.

Sadly, although that was the only one (so far) that involved so many people, the scenario is not unusual. It's almost universal. We VERY rarely get drawings we can approve on the first submission.

Back when I worked as an architect we had a saying about contractors: "Nobody has time to do it right the first time, but they all have time to tear it out and do it over." It seems that saying now applies to architects and engineers.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I think you have to fight the critical life-safety things, stuff that will lead to loss of life/property. Fire safety, too: because that's stuff that can land on your head if/when things go wrong. Accessibility ... maybe not so much.

It's the opposite here. The state audits our accessibility inspections, and it is the quickest way to lose our license and lose our job.
Talking to the BCO and my boss now to figure out how to proceed.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

It's the opposite here. The state audits our accessibility inspections, and it is the quickest way to lose our license and lose our job.

That's.... quite refreshing.

Sadly, the province - or more accurately, arms of the province - are one of the worst offenders for not designing/building/caring about accessibility.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I calculated the occupancy load for this building. The approved plans had an amount of 300 occupants that was crossed off and changed to 299. I was suspicious of this because 300 or more requires sprinklers in an A3 building. my calculations came out to almost double this amount. The plans were approved with no plumbing at all. This building is in a campground, and it was written on the plans that the existing restrooms in the camp will be used. I'm sure they only have well water here and it's all dirt roads which would make it hard for an accessible route to the restrooms.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I calculated the occupancy load for this building. The approved plans had an amount of 300 occupants that was crossed off and changed to 299. I was suspicious of this because 300 or more requires sprinklers in an A3 building. my calculations came out to almost double this amount. The plans were approved with no plumbing at all. This building is in a campground, and it was written on the plans that the existing restrooms in the camp will be used. I'm sure they only have well water here and it's all dirt roads which would make it hard for an accessible route to the restrooms.

Basically, this would then require that exit capacity and arrangement has to be adequate for 299 people, and the space/building has to be posted for a maximum occupant load of 299 people. After that, it becomes a problem for the fire marshal, because the fire marshal's office will have to conduct periodic checks to verify that the space is never used to hold more than 299 people.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Basically, this would then require that exit capacity and arrangement has to be adequate for 299 people, and the space/building has to be posted for a maximum occupant load of 299 people. After that, it becomes a problem for the fire marshal, because the fire marshal's office will have to conduct periodic checks to verify that the space is never used to hold more than 299 people.

Can't do this. IFC has not been adopted and there are no fire marshals.

 

[ICE]

Talking to the BCO and my boss now to figure out how to proceed

It appears that you are off the hook. The lack of sprinklers and restrooms are issues that surely were addressed during plan check. I wouldn’t assume that mistakes were made. Intentional errors perhaps, but not mistakes.