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.

 

[tmurray]

It's not the building official's job to make sure the contractor has an easier job finding the information (arguably, that is your job as the RDP). No matter how you draw it, someone will miss it. Once I was doing a framing inspection on a house that used cantilevered trusses. The drawings clearly showed which side was cantilevered and you could easily tell by the truss webs. The truss company went one step further by putting helpful florescent pink "this is a bearing point" tags under the truss plates where the trusses were supposed to bear on the exterior wall before the cantilever. When I walked in, the florescent pink tags were all in the middle of what is supposed to be the kitchen. The building was being built by a licensed (red seal) framer for himself. He had all the knowledge and incentive to do it right. He was set up for success in the best way and still failed. We can't idiot proof everything. Sometimes the contractor has to learn that they need to read things through the hard way.

 

[tmurray]

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.

This is my thought too. More than once, I've had to swallow my pride and admit I missed something in a plan review.

I would agree it's probably easier to add the second note. If the reviewer cannot admit they missed it, they are not really going to see the light of day and even if you can force them to come around, it will likely not be beneficial in the long run. Just add the second note to shut them up.

 

[steveray]

I personally would mark the plans and permit and send it, maybe reach out to the contractor directly, he would get a note in our system if he was the applicant...Not my job to idiotproof it...

 

[mtlogcabin]

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.

Resubmittals should be reviewed within 2 or 3 working days.

 

[TheCommish]

Resubmittals should be reviewed within 2 or 3 working days.

Why if the submittal was incorrect on the first review go to the head of the line, if I did that the new submittals would languish.

 

[steveray]

Resubmittals should be reviewed within 2 or 3 working days.

If they are simple I would agree, but I have been struggling with a dead end corridor issue and use separations on a project for longer than I should because the correction is expensive....And they don't want to do that....

 

[BN4537]

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.

I had a set of plans for a national fast-food chain that called for treated lumber in the fairly extensive overbuild portion that gives the building it's distinctive shape. The lumber was protected from the weather, and did not need to be treated for any reason at all that we could come up with, let alone code.

So I showed up on site and it was all framed with untreated lumber. I called the young guy over who was running the site while the big guy was away, and showed him the note on the plans. I told him to see if the RDP's would allow them to keep what they have rather than spend a week taking it all off and trying again, since the treated lumber was totally unnecessary.

Shortly thereafter, I received an irate call from the architect about why was I requiring treated lumber, it's not code, yada yada. I could not get through to him that it was only required because it was ON HIS FREAKIN' PLANS. All I needed was an email from him waiving the requirement that he's copy/pasted a thousand times and no one ever looked at. The attitude that some RDP's have that the contractor can just ignore stuff on the plans "that doesn't apply to this project" only holds until something goes wrong, then the contractor is on the hook for not following plans - or if he did follow the plans they'll get him for not meeting code or some tiny thing buried in a spec or any other way they can weasel out of responsibility.

If you don't want them to build it that way... don't draw it that way. Once we approve the plans, I will make you do everything the RDPs specified no matter how dumb, painful, and unnecessary it is. The only accountability most RDP's have is when this stuff blows up on them because it can stop a project and that makes the customer mad enough to rattle their cage.

 

[redeyedfly]

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.


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.

I've been at this for many decades and I have never once seen #1 framing lumber anywhere except in span tables. Never in a lumber yard, never on drawings, never in the field. It's #2 & BTR or SS (sometimes MSR but usually only in trusses). I understand the reviewers concern that this won't be followed since it is really unheard of.

 

[Joe.B]

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.

The problem is that if a RDP is producing an engineered design it's no longer about whether it meets code or not, it about the approved plans. The code is a minimum; the plans are a contract. You posed a question about whether or not it is normal for a plan checker to be questioning this and stating that some engineer has been calling out DF#1 for everything and I get that the discussion turned another way. So, to answer your original question in a different way, it's probably more normal just to ignore stupid design choices than it is to call them out. Somebody finally had the guts to call them out on it.

 

[arwat23]

Resubmittals should be reviewed within 2 or 3 working days.

Not here it isn't. Curranty (as of the last time I submitted something to the town a few weeks ago), it takes them up to 3 weeks just to process the documents. It then gets sent out to all departments. Building is usually quick - within a week. Planning is longer - they almost always take two weeks. So that's a bit over a month for a change like this.

Yes, it's crazy. No, I don't know why their system is set up this way. Apparently they'll be implementing a better system by the end of the year.

 

[arwat23]

So, to answer your original question in a different way, it's probably more normal just to ignore stupid design choices than it is to call them out. Somebody finally had the guts to call them out on it.

Except they aren't calling out the stupidity of it. They're fine with it being #1. They have no issue with that. They just want an additional note.

Originally they wanted clarity, but they just misread the plans since #2 wasn't called out anywhere. I also have a feeling they got two different plans mixed up because most of their references to our plans were wrong (saying that some sheets had plans or schedules that they didn't, listing notes that didn't exist, etc.). Again, not the point of my post, but wanted to add some info. All this combined made me want to ask this question - if these sorts of comments were normal.

Also, just to clarify, none of the structural engineers I work with put the grade in the location the plan reviewer wants it added. They almost always put it on the framing plans. Unless we're just weird here (these are mostly small firms in CA and NV, so that's always a possibility) or do things in a non-standard way (again, I don't do structural work myself, so idk what industry standard is for those types of plans), I don't see why this is being required other than maybe pride.

 

[arwat23]

I've been at this for many decades and I have never once seen #1 framing lumber anywhere except in span tables. Never in a lumber yard, never on drawings, never in the field. It's #2 & BTR or SS (sometimes MSR but usually only in trusses). I understand the reviewers concern that this won't be followed since it is really unheard of.

Seems I need to schedule a discussion with the engineer lol.

 

[Joe.B]

Except they aren't calling out the stupidity of it. They're fine with it being #1. They have no issue with that. They just want an additional note.

They have to be fine with it; it's above the minimum. They can't make a comment like "hey, it's going to be ridiculously hard to find DF#1 and they're probably going to use #2 anyways so why don't you get with the program dude." Probably wouldn't go over well. So instead, they're saying "well okay, if you really want it to be DF#1, go ahead, but I'm going to do whatever I can to make sure people see it and actually build what you're designing..."