Minimum Submittal Requirements

[Mr Softy]

the MA Building Code , last edition, our last home-grown code, had specific language prohibiting the use of the "all work shall conform' statement.

IBC 2009 has similar language in 107.2.1

i view this practice as lazy design, setting up the field inspector as the bad guy.

there's certain things i want to see on a set of drawings to prevent issues during inspection. wall type drawings showing fire rating and STC rating, travel distances for egress, door and window sizes, good FA drawings, dimesions (such an obvious thing!), stair details... if the details are on the drawings (or not) it's much easier and more cost effective to make changes to lines on paper.

if there are issues with a review, that will always be followed by a face-to-face meeting with the RDP to go over the issues. and i will either point out the missing information, or give code sections as to where i may see non-compliance.

i get corrected drawings for the records. i am in a very contentious city where people who are opposed to projects will research every possible avenue for trying to get a project stopped, including construction complaints and code violations in the drawings. one goal we have is to issue bullet-proof permits. permits that will hold up to strutiny. while this does make a review take longer, the end result is a project that runs smoother, once started.

what really drives me crazy are drawings, or other docs, that come in citing old editions of the code.

 

[peach]

Face to face meetings are great; especially in this economy since building departments don't want to lay people off, we're ok with plan review taking longer.. just do a thorough plan review. On big projects, pre con meetings are invaluable.

The inspector is sometimes still going to be the back guy; a good list of standard plan review comments that the contractor SIGNS for can be helpful. Lately, the big bug in the ointment is cord/plug condensate pumps above grid ceilings. For whatever reason, the NEC code writing committee deemed this as prohibited.. and it causes alot of arguements.

 

[mark handler]

I as an Architect agree, face to face meetings are great.

On the "compleatness" of plans, right or wrong, Most Architectural offices do their "in house" backchecks at the same time as the first planchecks.

 

[peach]

I know some departments who hold on to the plans for 30 days (which is their limit), then reject for something stooopid like " the mechanical code version is not listed on the title sheet" without going any further... then subsequently reject the entire set with 200 items.

Don't necessarily put a time limit on plan review, but at least do something and keep the client posted.

 

[brudgers]

brudgersI recently filled out an application for a building permit that required that I make statements under the penalty of perjury. What is important here is that I am making a decleration of what I believe to be true not what somebody else believes to be true.

If I understand your position you are saying that the building official can modify the appliction, which includes the construction documents, after I signed it thus making me responsible for the truthfullness of of what the building official believes to be true. Earlier in this thread codegeek pointed to a situation where the plans examiner was ultimately found to be wrong. If I am to be held responsible I want to be held responsible for my statements not those of the plans examiner.

If you really believe that it is OK for the plans examiner to unilaterally make changes then we really have to really worry about big brother and our constitutional rights.

Mark, what I am saying is that your position is based on nothing but your imagination.

...and too much Fox News.

 

[brudgers]

The plans should be clear enough that a compentent contractor not familiar with the project should be able to order materials from the plans and built it, with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

There are two issues with this (aside from being outside the scope of the code).

First is that the imaginary contractor should be familiar with the plans.

Second is that ordering materials is irrelevant to life safety.

 

[Mr Softy]

My general speech on really bad plans is this:The plans should be clear enough that a compentent contractor not familiar with the project should be able to order materials from the plans and built it, with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

i have a similar speech -

The plans should contain enough information so that i could go and build the project without having to ask questions.

 

[Mac]

In NY the rules are set by the state, in an effort to standardize the submittals:

(2) An application for a building permit shall request sufficient information to permit a

determination that the intended work accords with the requirements of the Uniform Code and shall

require submission of the following information and documentation:

(i) a description of the proposed work;

(ii) the tax map number and the street address;

(iii) the occupancy classification of any affected building or structure;

(iv) where applicable, a statement of special inspections prepared in accordance with the

provisions of the Uniform Code; and the State Energy Conservation Code.

(v) at least 2 sets of construction documents (drawings and/or specifications) that define the

scope of the proposed work.

(3) Construction documents shall not be accepted as part of an application for a building permit

unless such documents:

(i) are prepared by a New York State registered architect or licensed professional engineer

where so required by the Education Law;

(ii) indicate with sufficient clarity and detail the nature and extent of the work proposed;

(iii) substantiate that the proposed work will comply with the Uniform Code

Just provide the miinimum required by the state and I will commence the review.

 

[righter101]

There are two issues with this (aside from being outside the scope of the code).First is that the imaginary contractor should be familiar with the plans.

Second is that ordering materials is irrelevant to life safety.

I disagree, IRC 106.1.1 states, in part....

R106.1.1 Information on construction documents. Construction

documents shall be drawn upon suitable material.

Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted

when approved by the building official. Construction documents

shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location,

nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail

that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant

laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined

by the building official.

This places my comments inline with what is required.

Brugers, I think I should send you a copy of some of the documents I receive. I always use Milton's rule, but sometimes the submissions I get are just horrible. I make every effort to work with the drawings I am given, but when there are a large number of things missing, I have to draft a letter. My canned comment isn't something I always throw out there, rather, I save it for occasions when my plan check comments start to involve every aspect of the drawings.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

I was also taught that when an RDP puts their seal and signature on a set of plans, those plans are now copyrighted. Any modifications to those plans without permission of the RDP could be a violation of copyright law.

That is essentially what I was taught, and is still the issue to this day. The State E&A Board still suggests this as best practices, and has encouraged us to report violations directly to them. However, we usually try to make contact with the RDP before taking that step. Stamping an RDP signed and sealed construction set with a third party stamp that says "reviewed for code compliance," is not an amendment to the RDP's copyrighted material, and as we are not under the direct supervision of the RDP (i.e., given RDP permission) to amend/redline the drawings, it is then the RDP and thier designated official's responsibility to amend the plans if so required.

That being said, I do not disagree entirely with Plan Check/Review red-lining, as many have said it is helpful to inspectors, however, I make my comments very specific by citing the code section to be addressed for compliance. I still believe that in some cases, where more than one option for compliance is available, a red-line on my part, would be in principle, making a design decision for the RDP. I don't believe that is my place.

Thank you everyone for your comments. They are extremely helpful. I have already passed on your suggestions and some for changes in our process to the CBO for consideration.

 

[brudgers]

i have a similar speech - The plans should contain enough information so that i could go and build the project without having to ask questions.

That approach doesn't scale. On complex projects, no questions mean the person isn't following them.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

That approach doesn't scale. On complex projects, no questions mean the person isn't following them.

In part, I agree, that the speech, or IBC 106 comment does not scale for all projects. My OP is concerned with projects that require an RDP. I am not asking for plans so that anybody can build them. I need plans I can review for compliance, otherwise, why am I even here. Anyone can stamp and issue a drawing for a permit, but that doesn't make the drawing code compliant. Sometimes it is the RDP, sometimes it is the contractor, sometimes it is the Plan Reviewer, and sometimes it is the inspector who slows down the process and devoids Milton's rule. In this OP, we are talking about RDPs, and what is the minimum information they feel they should provide to receive a permit.

I have used IBC 106 several times in the last year when I was exasperated by the lack of response to my comments by the RDP (i.e., multiple review cycles without comments being addressed, let alone a phone call returned), or a general lack of information on the original submittals by the RDP. A plan without notes, dimensions, or schedules is limited in the specificity of which I can make comments. Either way, IBC 106, or whatever speech I use, doesn't work with those who don't want to work (or aren't getting paid to work).

 

[permitguy]

Stamping an RDP signed and sealed construction set with a third party stamp that says "reviewed for code compliance," is not an amendment to the RDP's copyrighted material, and as we are not under the direct supervision of the RDP (i.e., given RDP permission) to amend/redline the drawings, it is then the RDP and thier designated official's responsibility to amend the plans if so required.

Don't get hung up on the act of modifying the documents being a problem because of copyright protection. The copyright act does not afford an RDP protection against someone modifying their documents in the context being discussed here. It protects the RDP from someone else using their documents for commercial gain (i.e. building the same building somewhere else, using the plans as a concept for a separate project, etc.). Once again, signatures and seals have nothing to do with the work being protected by the copyright act.

It's fine to argue the merits of red-lining plans during review, but the copyright act shouldn't be used as justification for disallowing the practice.

 

[Mark K]

Stepping back from the copyright issue. I will suggest that the various reasons stated are a reflection that most design professionals do not like this practice. I would suggest that the more contientious design professionals are more likely not to like such practices.

Is it to your advantage to try to work with these design professionals or is it your attitude that since you are the building official you can ddo what you want in spite of what others want? Maybe these design professionals would rather prefer to modify their documents to resolve any issues related to code compliance.

 

[texasbo]

Stepping back from the copyright issue. I will suggest that the various reasons stated are a reflection that most design professionals do not like this practice. I would suggest that the more contientious design professionals are more likely not to like such practices.Is it to your advantage to try to work with these design professionals or is it your attitude that since you are the building official you can ddo what you want in spite of what others want? Maybe these design professionals would rather prefer to modify their documents to resolve any issues related to code compliance.

And I think that's a fair assessment Mark. But you have to understand the dilemma we face; we're dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. I will tell you that in my experience, I've never had a RDP complain about redlined drawings. And I have received appreciation from both RDP's and other permit applicants for our policies.

Here's the deal: as the DP, tell your client you want to review the drawings after the Building Department reviews them. If they are redlined, make the changes to the CD's if you feel uncomfortable with the redlined items. The problem is that our relationship is with the person submitting the permit, and if you're not that person, and you want another swing at it, then just communicate that to the permit applicant.

 

[permitguy]

Agreed. As with so many things, I think avoiding either extreme is to everyone's benefit. Completely disallowing the practice seems overly restrictive; however, if it is necessary to red-line every page in the drawings, then perhaps the RDP should take another crack at it. It's up to each BO to define what "red-lining" actually is and to what extent it is acceptable in their department.

I guess you could say that will lead to consistency issues. To that, I'd say get in line . . .

 

[brudgers]

Stepping back from the copyright issue. I will suggest that the various reasons stated are a reflection that most design professionals do not like this practice. I would suggest that the more contientious design professionals are more likely not to like such practices. Is it to your advantage to try to work with these design professionals or is it your attitude that since you are the building official you can ddo what you want in spite of what others want? Maybe these design professionals would rather prefer to modify their documents to resolve any issues related to code compliance.

The design professional is not the person who is issued the permit. If they want to revise and resubmit their drawings, then the place to address that is in their contract with the Owner.

Otherwise, their seal says the drawings are ready for construction.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Don't get hung up on the act of modifying the documents being a problem because of copyright protection. The copyright act does not afford an RDP protection against someone modifying their documents in the context being discussed here. It protects the RDP from someone else using their documents for commercial gain (i.e. building the same building somewhere else, using the plans as a concept for a separate project, etc.). Once again, signatures and seals have nothing to do with the work being protected by the copyright act.It's fine to argue the merits of red-lining plans during review, but the copyright act shouldn't be used as justification for disallowing the practice.

My contention to not red-line RDP signed and sealed drawings has little to do with whether or not the material is copyrighted. It is my understanding, that because our state has adopted a regulation act for engineers and architects, and it does not permit anyone but the architect/engineer of record to prepare the drawings (with exception for those under direct supervision of the architect/engineer of record) for construction (and in my opinion, red-lining is a further preparation, and further illustrated when RDPs red-line their own work during in-office plan check). As an example, our E&A regulation act, mandates an RDP prepare construction documents for projects over 3,000sf and Group B Occupancy. It does not mandate that an RDP and Plans Examiner prepare construction documents. Therefore, I do not do anything to the drawings that would amend the work within. It is not my mandate, nor my responsibility to do the RDPs work for them. I examine the plans for code compliance (my stamp says, "reviewed for code compliance"), make specific comments to be addressed or acknowledged as the RDP chooses, meet with the RDP to discuss and resolve compliance issues, and then issue the compliant construction documents and building permit in a timely manner. As I stated in my OP, this process is made more difficult when the RDP does not provide what I deem the minimum information to determine even MOE compliance, let alone accessibility compliance. I don't use blanket compliance stamps either, because I do not believe they make a construction document compliant or complete when the CDs are either in non-compliance, or incomplete.

I may be wrong, but it is my opinion that few RDPs out there who would be excited about some other RDP, or even a contractor, amending and red-lining their construction documents because they failed to address an issue in compliance with the code.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Otherwise, their seal says the drawings are ready for construction.

And when the AHJ says they are not ready for construction, then back to the contract between the RDP and Owner to discuss whether or not work was performed in accordance with the contract, and or needs to go beyond that scope?

 

[texasbo]

It is my understanding, that because our state has adopted a regulation act for engineers and architects, and it does not permit anyone but the architect/engineer of record to prepare the drawings (with exception for those under direct supervision of the architect/engineer of record) for construction (and in my opinion, red-lining is a further preparation, and further illustrated when RDPs red-line their own work during in-office plan check).

I think the issue is the perception that you are preparing/altering the drawings. You can look at it that way, or you can look at it as you are providing plan review comments. However, instead of sending an email, or attaching an 81/2 x 11 list, you're putting them directly on the drawings. What's the difference in writing comments on the drawings and stapling them on the drawings?

The real issue is: at what point do you require revisions, and when do you let the comments suffice? I think that's purely a judgement call depending on the completeness and/or accuracy of the submittal. And please don't misunderstand; I have seen plenty of situations that warranted revisions. In fact, the majority of our commercial reviews result in a combination of revised drawings and written comments.

 

[brudgers]

My contention to not red-line RDP signed and sealed drawings has little to do with whether or not the material is copyrighted. It is my understanding, that because our state has adopted a regulation act for engineers and architects, and it does not permit anyone but the architect/engineer of record to prepare the drawings (with exception for those under direct supervision of the architect/engineer of record) for construction (and in my opinion, red-lining is a further preparation, and further illustrated when RDPs red-line their own work during in-office plan check). As an example, our E&A regulation act, mandates an RDP prepare construction documents for projects over 3,000sf and Group B Occupancy. It does not mandate that an RDP and Plans Examiner prepare construction documents. Therefore, I do not do anything to the drawings that would amend the work within. It is not my mandate, nor my responsibility to do the RDPs work for them. I examine the plans for code compliance (my stamp says, "reviewed for code compliance"), make specific comments to be addressed or acknowledged as the RDP chooses, meet with the RDP to discuss and resolve compliance issues, and then issue the compliant construction documents and building permit in a timely manner. As I stated in my OP, this process is made more difficult when the RDP does not provide what I deem the minimum information to determine even MOE compliance, let alone accessibility compliance. I don't use blanket compliance stamps either, because I do not believe they make a construction document compliant or complete when the CDs are either in non-compliance, or incomplete. I may be wrong, but it is my opinion that few RDPs out there who would be excited about some other RDP, or even a contractor, amending and red-lining their construction documents because they failed to address an issue in compliance with the code.

Marking the plans is not the act of practicing architecture and/or engineering when it is a step in the act of reviewing the plans and issuing a permit - it is purely ministerial.

 

[brudgers]

And when the AHJ says they are not ready for construction, then back to the contract between the RDP and Owner to discuss whether or not work was performed in accordance with the contract, and or needs to go beyond that scope?

The building department doesn't determine if the plans are ready for construction. It determines if the design complies or doesn't comply with code.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Marking the plans is not the act of practicing architecture and/or engineering when it is a step in the act of reviewing the plans and issuing a permit - it is purely ministerial.

You think a Plans Examiner is by default qualified to make ministerial amendments to an RDP's work? I am not talking about simply making a comment reference mark on a plan or a general compliance note, to which I would agree, that is not the practice of architecture/engineering, and could be deemed ministerial. I am discussing when a Plans Examiner red-lines an RDPs work and it constitutes a design change.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

The building department doesn't determine if the plans are ready for construction. It determines if the design complies or doesn't comply with code.

I disagree. At least here, when and where permits are required, they aren't ready for construction until they are compliant and accompanied by a permit issued by the AHJ. Then they are ready for construction.