Is This Normal?

[arwat23]

I have a project out to plan review. Small project, a residential addition. The plan reviewer has a comment about the grade of lumber we're using. Okay, simple enough. They say there's a conflict (DF#1 and DF#2 specified on the plans), so that's an easy fix. Except there is no conflict, only DF#1 is specified. Okay, mistakes happen. I make mistakes all the time, I don't judge. However, the plan reviewer isn't letting it go. Their reasoning is because they "need to make sure the contractor knows which grade of lumber to use." They're requesting that we add another note specifying the grade, even though it's already noted on the framing plan and in the specs.

The revision itself isn't a big deal. It's adding 5 words to a detail. I'm not here to complain (too much) about addressing this comment.

My question is, is this normal? Is it normal for plan reviewers try to account for what the contractor may or may not do when reviewing plans? I ask because this is something I've never experienced - a comment solely to make sure that even a half-blind contractor can't miss something and it's not at all related to code or a conflict in the drawings. I'm curious if this is a regular thing or if this reviewer is going beyond what they should be doing.

 

[Joe.B]

This is interesting. I think the concern may be that DF#1 is extremely rare, at least where I'm at. Probably 95% or more of framing lumber sold is DF#2, so the plan reviewer may be concerned that the GC will bid on the job assuming #2, buy all #2, frame it all up and not know there's even an issue until the inspector shows up for rough framing. He might also be concerned that the inspector might miss it too.

Does it really need to be #1? If it could be #2 then it might save everybody a lot of trouble.

 

[mtlogcabin]

"need to make sure the contractor knows which grade of lumber to use."

Yes he is going beyond what he should be requiring.
If it was only in the specs I might have asked for it to be noted on the plans for the framer in the field to have that information

 

[Joe.B]

Availability of #1 framing lumber? - Fine Homebuilding

Hello All, I just called around to most of my local ‘real’ lumber yards looking for #1 Doug-Fir 2by6’s in 12′ and 14′ lengths. Out of 4 places only one […]

www.finehomebuilding.com

 

[ICE]

For years I tried to get the County to require a plan check note regarding placing additions over clay sewer pipe. That should be a prominent balloon note on every set of plans for an addition to the front or side of a dwelling and at the rear if there is an alley behind the property.

How about footing detail drawings that depict rebar as a single dot at the top and bottom with a note that says, "Two bars, top and bottom" Then they install one bar at each location for the "two" bars, top and bottom.

If a plan calls for #1 lumber it should be prominently displayed all over the place. Put it at the top of every sheet and the job card.... oh wait there are no job cards anymore and the plans are on an iphone.

You effing suit guys sit at a desk and look down your noses at us mutts in the field.

 

[arwat23]

Does it really need to be #1? If it could be #2 then it might save everybody a lot of trouble.

No clue. That's outside my scope. We have an outside structural engineer for this project (don't ask why, idk) and they're the ones who spec'd it. We've done other work recently with them, all with #1, and it seemed to be fine. It's a very small addition, so the cost difference wouldn't make a huge difference.

Even then, their plans only have #1 listed and the reviewer isn't concerned about the availability or cost of #1. They just want to make sure the contractor knows that it's #1.

There's also the issue of resubmitting. This isn't the point of my post, but resubmitting for this minor change sets the project back 3 weeks at best. The town is VERY slow with plan reviews right now. If we had other comments, I probably wouldn't have even posted this question. "Ah shucks, a minor comment with a really simple solution? Takes about 5 seconds to address it before I get back to the other comments." But it's the only comment, so there's emphasis on it.

He might also be concerned that the inspector might miss it too.

The reviewer said "I don't want the inspector to have to do plan review in the field". The reviewer is also one of the town's inspectors and has inspected the property multiple times for other projects.

 

[arwat23]

If a plan calls for #1 lumber it should be extremely displayed all over the place. Put it at the top of the job card.... oh wait there are no job cards anymore and the plans are on an iphone.

It's not plastered everywhere, but it's on the framing plan and in the specs on the structural sheets. DF #1 is listed immediately next to the beam size on the framing plan. It's pretty hard to miss if you're actually looking at the plan (that is, of course, assuming the contractor actually looks at the plan).

Plans need to be printed in color in the jurisdictions I work in, at least for the job copy. Same with the job card. Genuine question: is that not normal now?

 

[Joe.B]

I would strongly recommend changing everything to #2. #1 is extremely rare and usually a special order.

We've done other work recently with them, all with #1, and it seemed to be fine.

This just tells me that #2 was used and nobody cared. If I was the inspector and I showed up to a "very small addition" I would only be looking for #2 or better, if I saw the note on the plans about #1 I would have just ignored it and never looked back. I can neither confirm nor deny if I've done exactly that when I was an inspector. (Larger scale project though, it matters, a lot.)

However, you are an RDP with far more skin in the game. I bet you would care if they used #2 when the stamped plans call for #1. If this project moves forward with #1 called out on the plans, I'll bet you a sandwich they're going to use #2. Let's call it two sandwiches, fancy ones from that Italian deli, you know the one.

 

[arwat23]

However, you are an RDP with far more skin in the game. I bet you would care if they used #2 when the stamped plans call for #1. If this project moves forward with #1 called out on the plans, I'll bet you a sandwich they're going to use #2. Let's call it two sandwiches, fancy ones from that Italian deli, you know the one.

If they do, fine. As long as it meets code and is safe, I personally don't care. Not my scope, defiantly not my stamp, and completely outside my wheelhouse (I do very little structural work). I'll leave the caring for the engineer who drew and stamped those drawings. For all I know, maybe DF #1 is actually required. Probably not though...

Hell, if anything, this DF #1 thing is what that engineer defaults to for everything, sort of like reusing details without thinking to save time. I looked through our old projects with this engineer and they spec #1 for everything. Never had an issue on those projects, so either the contractors actually use #1, or they use #2 and no one has cared.

 

[ICE]

they use #2 and no one has cared.

Ever look up at a glulam and see the words, “THIS SIDE UP”?
Rare but it has happened. Same thing with the #1 lumber. It is surprising what is on some plans. The “Oh my, get a look at this”.
Does anyone use common nails? I once had a huge industrial food processor with a note on the electrical plan that stated that unistrut could not be used to support raceways. A tube was required for cleaning purposes. I think that the el. contractor tried to put a hit out on me.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

My question is, is this normal? Is it normal for plan reviewers try to account for what the contractor may or may not do when reviewing plans? I ask because this is something I've never experienced - a comment solely to make sure that even a half-blind contractor can't miss something and it's not at all related to code or a conflict in the drawings. I'm curious if this is a regular thing or if this reviewer is going beyond what they should be doing.

It isn't normal, but it's not unheard of. My guess is that the plan reviewer isn't willing to man up (person up?) and admit that he/she made a mistake initially, so they're covering up by now insisting that you add a redundant specification note. It's certainly easier to add the second reference to Doug Fir #1 than to point out that best practice for construction documents is to specify something only in one place, as insurance that if it gets changed later it won't get changed everywhere it appears.