Minimum Submittal Requirements

[Papio Bldg Dept]

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.

I require revisions when the information provided is incomplete and insufficient to complete my plan review, or when there is a non-compliant design/specification in the CDs that would create a contradiction by approving the plan review. If I can make a comment for the RDP to acknowledge and approve pending field inspection I will.

 

[brudgers]

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.

Just because they got a permit doesn't mean the plans are suitable for construction. Or that they met code......

 

[brudgers]

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.

A plans examiner is qualified to indicate the requirements for code compliance and may do so as part of issuing the permit.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

A plans examiner is qualified to indicate the requirements for code compliance and may do so as part of issuing the permit.

Yes, I agree with your statement, just not with where and how those requirements may be indicated. I make compliance indications via my plan review comments, and let the RDP make the revisions they need to meet those requirements, plus any other revisions that might be required due to meeting those requirements.

As an example, on my last review, I did not mark up the non-compliant CPT distance by adding an additional exit, which is what the code requires when the CPT exceeded 75' for this projects conditions. Rather, I made my comment specifically, indicating which code sections were applicable when the CPT exceeded 75 ft for a single exit space, and allowed the RDP to design their solution and amend their CDs. We communicated over the phone and internet, as too other compliance issues their alternative solutions may or may not cause, and eventually they were able to submit a complaint design that reduced the CPT to less than 75', thus not requiring an additional exit, but required extensive revisions to the CDs, that could not, in my opinion, be simply red-lined.

I have stated the other reasons why I don't mark-up RDP plans, and that is also our current departmental policy. Furthermore, I do not have any objections to marking-up an RDP plan that will not be issued as field construction document for the purposes of plan review. That is not altering the design, or making design decisions, without RDP oversight, but rather assists in the analysis and review for code compliance. Neither policy is necessarily a better policy, simply different, and we simply and respectfully disagree.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Just because they got a permit doesn't mean the plans are suitable for construction. Or that they met code......

In the spirit of prolificating the use of semantics, then, specifically, because they don't have a building permit, it does mean the plans are not suitable for construction. Catch my drift, or are you discussing the qualitative nature of the plans and their suitable-ness towards the construction of the actual code compliant building? In that respect, even if the plans were suitable for construction and also met code, there is also no guarantee that the building was actually built to plan, nor code compliant, regardless of how many permits and certificates of occupancy and compliance are issued.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Your example of the non-compliant CPT in post #76 would be the way most plans examiners would handle that code issue because the RDP needs to decide the location of the door and all the other issues that would go along with a new door.

However if during a means of egress review an exit sign was not identified on the drawings leading to a verticle exit enclosure (exit stair) we would be just redline it on the drawings and include it in the plan review comments which we send to the DP, owner and GC so everyone is in the communication loop.

 

[texasbo]

Your example of the non-compliant CPT in post #76 would be the way most plans examiners would handle that code issue because the RDP needs to decide the location of the door and all the other issues that would go along with a new door.However if during a means of egress review an exit sign was not identified on the drawings leading to a verticle exit enclosure (exit stair) we would be just redline it on the drawings and include it in the plan review comments which we send to the DP, owner and GC so everyone is in the communication loop.

Yes, both are excellent examples.

 

[brudgers]

Yes, I agree with your statement, just not with where and how those requirements may be indicated. I make compliance indications via my plan review comments, and let the RDP make the revisions they need to meet those requirements, plus any other revisions that might be required due to meeting those requirements. As an example, on my last review, I did not mark up the non-compliant CPT distance by adding an additional exit, which is what the code requires when the CPT exceeded 75' for this projects conditions. Rather, I made my comment specifically, indicating which code sections were applicable when the CPT exceeded 75 ft for a single exit space, and allowed the RDP to design their solution and amend their CDs. We communicated over the phone and internet, as too other compliance issues their alternative solutions may or may not cause, and eventually they were able to submit a complaint design that reduced the CPT to less than 75', thus not requiring an additional exit, but required extensive revisions to the CDs, that could not, in my opinion, be simply red-lined. I have stated the other reasons why I don't mark-up RDP plans, and that is also our current departmental policy. Furthermore, I do not have any objections to marking-up an RDP plan that will not be issued as field construction document for the purposes of plan review. That is not altering the design, or making design decisions, without RDP oversight, but rather assists in the analysis and review for code compliance. Neither policy is necessarily a better policy, simply different, and we simply and respectfully disagree.

Adding an exit is a little different from stating "Existing doors shall be provided with accessible hardware" or whatever words to that effect I suggested many posts ago.

 

[Architect1281]

Papio if you were to receive a plan for renovations from me I schedule ALL doors

the existing doors are labeled E or EX with the room number and a,bc, etc if more than 1 per room

the new door are just plain numbered same as the room number same a,b,c, if mor than 1

all existing door sizes aare indicated - and hardware is chart listed.

Long ago I went to my local professioal commercial door company wizard and asked for the format that

door supplies use to schedule a door - thats the format I've been using for 30 years.

nothing reinvented - gets the information to the guy who really needs to know in the format they are familiar with

and lets the building official who has to review and approve my plans do so with the same clarity.

that is the difference between plans of a project and pictures

a picture lacks a thousand words. or pieces of necessary information

Sounds to me like you reasonably expect adequate information to make an un revised decision

proper plans by a Plan development professional should leave little for you to assume.

i have sent many a picture back and requested plans be submitted

PS many a time I am embarassed for the lack of plan information supplied by RDP's

although it is reffered to a Practicing so they do it till they get it right

Copywrite of mis-information is worthy of redlining

 

[Codegeek]

Back to my point I made last week about the plans examiner redlining the plans and issuing the permit without letting the RDP know of the comments made on the plans...

We had a project go through a plan review several months ago. On Wednesday of this week, our office received a set of plan review comments. The permit was issued several weeks ago, with the plans redlined. One of the redlines was that a tenant demising wall had to be a two-hour fire barrier. By the time our office received the plan review comments on Wednesday, the contractor had already begun construction of the tenant demising wall. Had our office been made aware of the two-hour fire barrier prior to the permit being issued, we could have been more prepared to address the need for the two-hour wall. Instead we were scrambling to find a UL listed assembly that would allow not only using materials on the job site, but allow for our tenant to build the two-hour wall on their side of the wall without disrupting the adjoining occupied tenant.

My point, if you as a plans examiner redline the plans, the professional and courteous thing to do is to at least contact the RDP to let them know of what you believe needs to be changed. Most RDP’s will make those changes accordingly and most likely submit new sheets, if necessary.

Not telling the RDP of major issues such as the need for a rated assembly is doing a disservice to all parties involved in the permit/construction process as it only creates additional problems that in the end cost time and money.

 

[permitguy]

Not telling the RDP of major issues such as the need for a rated assembly is doing a disservice to all parties involved in the permit/construction process as it only creates additional problems that in the end cost time and money.

Agreed. Your example takes it beyond what should be red-lined by a plans examiner without having the DP resubmit.

 

[steveray]

"The RDP not catching major issues such as the need for a rated assembly is doing a disservice to all parties involved in the permit/construction process as it only creates additional problems that in the end cost time and money."

I'll pull a Brudgers....There...fixed it for you!

BTW..we redline for areas of concern that need more attn in the field than what is on the plans....any clarification with major code compliance issues is resolved by the DP prior to permit issuance.

 

[Codegeek]

"The RDP not catching major issues such as the need for a rated assembly is doing a disservice to all parties involved in the permit/construction process as it only creates additional problems that in the end cost time and money."I'll pull a Brudgers....There...fixed it for you!

BTW..we redline for areas of concern that need more attn in the field than what is on the plans....any clarification with major code compliance issues is resolved by the DP prior to permit issuance.

In the case I posted earlier today, the fire barrier is not required by any version of the IBC, but rather by an interpretation at the state level in this particular jurisdiction. There is absolutely no information on the state's website to indicate this requirement, so it was not an oversight by the RDP.

 

[steveray]

In the case I posted earlier today, the fire barrier is not required by any version of the IBC, but rather by an interpretation at the state level in this particular jurisdiction. There is absolutely no information on the state's website to indicate this requirement, so it was not an oversight by the RDP.

My apologies then....the fire barrier is not required, or not 2 hr? (per IBC) all of our state amendments and interpretations can be found here:

http://www.ct.gov/dps/cwp/view.asp?a=2148&Q=294226&dpsNav_GID=1665&dpsNav=|

 

[Codegeek]

Don't worry steveray, it wasn't in your state! This is a mixed use building that would meet the provisions of nonseparated uses, but this jurisdiction says their state will not recognize nonseparated mixed uses in a shopping center, which is where this project was located. So, they want everything separated from everything with at least a two-hour fire barrier. No reduction in the rating for a fully sprinklered building either.

 

[brudgers]

Back to my point I made last week about the plans examiner redlining the plans and issuing the permit without letting the RDP know of the comments made on the plans... We had a project go through a plan review several months ago. On Wednesday of this week, our office received a set of plan review comments. The permit was issued several weeks ago, with the plans redlined. One of the redlines was that a tenant demising wall had to be a two-hour fire barrier. By the time our office received the plan review comments on Wednesday, the contractor had already begun construction of the tenant demising wall. Had our office been made aware of the two-hour fire barrier prior to the permit being issued, we could have been more prepared to address the need for the two-hour wall. Instead we were scrambling to find a UL listed assembly that would allow not only using materials on the job site, but allow for our tenant to build the two-hour wall on their side of the wall without disrupting the adjoining occupied tenant. My point, if you as a plans examiner redline the plans, the professional and courteous thing to do is to at least contact the RDP to let them know of what you believe needs to be changed. Most RDP’s will make those changes accordingly and most likely submit new sheets, if necessary. Not telling the RDP of major issues such as the need for a rated assembly is doing a disservice to all parties involved in the permit/construction process as it only creates additional problems that in the end cost time and money.

Speaking of professional behavior...tracking the permit status of one's designs would fall into that category - as would observing construction from time to time on site. If you are not doing either of those things, it is not unsurprising that you find yourself running around with your hair on fire through no fault of the building department. The lack of a professional approach to communications is centered among the Owner, Builder, and Architect...even if it is convenient to cast public servants as scapegoats.

 

[brudgers]

Don't worry steveray, it wasn't in your state! This is a mixed use building that would meet the provisions of nonseparated uses, but this jurisdiction says their state will not recognize nonseparated mixed uses in a shopping center, which is where this project was located. So, they want everything separated from everything with at least a two-hour fire barrier. No reduction in the rating for a fully sprinklered building either.

Sounds like no meeting between the design team an building official prior to submittal either...

 

[Codegeek]

Speaking of professional behavior...tracking the permit status of one's designs would fall into that category - as would observing construction from time to time on site. If you are not doing either of those things, it is not unsurprising that you find yourself running around with your hair on fire through no fault of the building department. The lack of a professional approach to communications is centered among the Owner, Builder, and Architect...even if it is convenient to cast public servants as scapegoats.

I'm not the RDP, in fact I'm not an RDP period. I've served in the public sector for nearly twenty years from permit technician to building inspector to plans examiner to building official. Now I'm in the private sector. The firm I work for does work all over the US and other countries. In most cases, we have permit expeditors. I'm not familiar with the details on this specific project, only that the permit was issued without notifying us, the design firm, that there were comments made on the plans. I don't disagree that there needs to be communication from all parties. My point is that the jurisdiction at least needs to make someone aware, either the RDP or the contractor, that they red-lined the drawings about an issue that could have been addressed prior to becoming a problem in the field.

Be careful where you point your finger. There's at least three pointing back at you.

 

[Mark K]

It is a cheap shot trying to blame the problem on the RDP. How can the RDP be expected to know that he will be receiving plan review comments after the permit has been issued. In addition it is fairly common for contientious consultants not to hear from a project for two weeks at a time.

It also apprears that the state enforcement agency is enforcing requirements that go beyond reasonable interpretations of the code. If this is the fact then it would not be reasonable to blame the consultant for not knowing.

 

[brudgers]

I'm not the RDP, in fact I'm not an RDP period. I've served in the public sector for nearly twenty years from permit technician to building inspector to plans examiner to building official. Now I'm in the private sector. The firm I work for does work all over the US and other countries. In most cases, we have permit expeditors. I'm not familiar with the details on this specific project, only that the permit was issued without notifying us, the design firm, that there were comments made on the plans. I don't disagree that there needs to be communication from all parties. My point is that the jurisdiction at least needs to make someone aware, either the RDP or the contractor, that they red-lined the drawings about an issue that could have been addressed prior to becoming a problem in the field. Be careful where you point your finger. There's at least three pointing back at you.

You work for a big company that hires locals to take care of permitting? And it's the building department's fault that your consultants don't communicate with you? And because you don't bother to even meet the staff, there's some sort of obligation? Sorry, but I have little sympathy for plan stampers who rely on the building department to determine the proper rating of fire separations instead of reading the applicable code...I'm just funny in that professional negligence bothers me more than a lack of social grace. [Edit: not with the finger I'm using]

 

[Codegeek]

Brudgers, I've tried to watch your posts from a neutral stance, but my post earlier today was about a circumstance that was totally out of the hands of our firm, yet you continue to blame our firm for not knowing. Our firm takes great pride in designing buildings which fully comply with adopted codes, one of many reasons for my position here.

Why is it always the RDP’s fault? Having worked on both sides of the counter, and now especially on the outside world of a jurisdiction, there are just as many incompetent code officials out there as there are incompetent RDP’s.

 

[Coug Dad]

A unfortunate growing trend is the need for expediters. There are getting to be more cities where plan review is painful without one. RDP's can leave voice mail after voice mail and not get a response. A favored expeditor amazingly gets a quick return call and status of the permit. I have been in AHJ lobbies where no one can get past the front counter without an escort - expect for the favored expeditors who walk right through unescorted. I'm not saying its good or bad, it is just a reality. I have also seen expediters move plan sets from one review section to another to keep them moving. We advise many clients to secure an expediter to get their permit aplication through faster.

 

[Mark K]

I have seen a disturbing correlation between jurisdictions where expediters are regularly used and corruption in building departments.

Any jurisdiction who sees expediters regularly used should be asking what are they doing wrong.

 

[Mr Softy]

A unfortunate growing trend is the need for expediters. There are getting to be more cities where plan review is painful without one. RDP's can leave voice mail after voice mail and not get a response. A favored expeditor amazingly gets a quick return call and status of the permit. I have been in AHJ lobbies where no one can get past the front counter without an escort - expect for the favored expeditors who walk right through unescorted. I'm not saying its good or bad, it is just a reality. I have also seen expediters move plan sets from one review section to another to keep them moving. We advise many clients to secure an expediter to get their permit aplication through faster.

that's crap. we're first come. first served. nobody jumps the queue. an expediter doesn't get anything done any faster. and if i have issues, it's the RDP that gets called.