• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Open letter to my plan checker

Y

Yikes

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
3,088
Location
Southern California
[inspired by my rant on another thread]

*

Dear Plan Checker:

Thanks for all the meaningless standard correction notes that don't apply to my project. I realize you must get pretty jaded with all the stuff you've seen over the years.

I have tried to be a good architect and make sure I give you a complete set of plans. Heck, I even take your published standard correction lists and do my own internal "pre-plan check" prior to our submittal, just to check and make sure our plans completely address all your typical concerns from the start.

So, here's my request to you - - if you don't really intend to take your job seriously and LOOK AT THE PLANS until the backcheck meeting, then please, don't waste valuable calendar days in the development process - - just let me know so I can play the game too:

Six weeks earlier, I can hand in a half-baked set of plans that you won't read anyway, and then I'll finish off the real plans between now and backcheck. That way, we can give a *wink* to the formality of initial plan check, the real work will get done at backcheck, and the overall development process stays on schedule, even though we wasted each other's time and our client's money.

Heck, maybe we can give this charade a positive spin, perhaps calling it "fast track".

; )

*

OK, I'd like to think that if you come to this forum, you already care enough about your own work and professionalism that this rant doesn't apply to you. I'm sure you've got some of your own rants for architects. Bring it!
 
Dear plan submitter

I have reviewed your plans once again and unforunatly you fall in the I cannot trust what is in black and white so please respond to the following comments, so it is documented twice, for when the project comes to a Halloween screaching halt, I can show that it was documented twice in two different places that all this minimum stuff was required

Thank you

Awaiting your response
 
I can appreciate what Yikes is talking about, I was on the other side of the counter before. When I submitted plans for my own house, I went to great pains to make sure I had the info on the plans. SD locations, stair/guard/handrail details, framing details, etc......even had my future boss, a CBO look at them. When I get the review back, there were these numbers scattered about the plans, not code sections, but numbers the related back to a comment list. The moron would actually write the comment number next to a compliant feature......or somewhere not even related, like he hadn't even looked at the plan.........sheesh. I bet the review couldn't have taken ten minutes.
 
I can appreciate what he is talking about too; I've seen it many times, and it is infuriating. I have no problem with "typical" comments, or a boilerplate list; such items are not intended to require correction, but are merely a tool to make sure everything is covered. A plan might show a guard, but not indicate its height - a boilerplate list would clarify height requirements; it doesn't say there is necessarilly a violation, but just describes in detail where the plans may be a little vague.

But to blindly slap correction requirements on a plan or list, without actually reviewing the plans is inexcusable.
 
I've never seen it as an architect and I don't do it as a plans examiner.

I think that would suck.
 
Sometimes, the powers-that-be want the expedited plan review, so that no

contractor feathers get ruffled! Yes, it actually is more common than you think!
 
I put many stamps on plans that strictly speaking should not be needed. Most of these are cautionary in nature. Many of these are at the direction of the City Attorney because of past legal difficulties. It takes little time to stamp what should be an obvious caution, and occasionally it saves someone some grief. So if you are an experienced builder/designer that would have done these things anyway please excuse these. There are people in this world who will make amazing mistakes without cautions. (I'm afraid that in our current litiginous society, such cautions will increase, not decrease in the future. The funniest one that I have seen was on a bundle of steel roofing cautioning that it was not for ingestion.)
 
This seems to be a very common compliant for both sides of the fence. In this state, the design professional must first submit to the state for a design release. Once obtained, the local building official can review and approve the plans. On numerous occassions I have found the state release irrelevant to the plans submitted indicate such items as "fire alarm shall conform top NFPA 72" when an alarm system is not even required. When I have asked the state for a superceded release, their comment is "That is in case they put one in" and do not amend the release. Now I have a file that implies there is a fire alarm system when in in fact none is required. Frustations for each corner. Done ranting also.
 
If you are a lazy designer and your standard comment is "Install per Code" I am going to ask you to tell me and the guy in the field who has never read let alone own a code book how he is suppose to do that. I can be pretty dense at times so it might take a couple of details for me to understand just like the guy in the field.

That's my pet peeve from the plan review side ;)
 
mtlogcabin said:
If you are a lazy designer and your standard comment is "Install per Code" I am going to ask you to tell me and the guy in the field who has never read let alone own a code book how he is suppose to do that. I can be pretty dense at times so it might take a couple of details for me to understand just like the guy in the field.That's my pet peeve from the plan review side ;)
Click to expand...
That is one of mine also.

The other is "as required". You are the designer. Tell me if they are required in YOUR design.
 
As architects, we always like general CYA statement on our plans like "build the project in conformance with applicable codes and statues". I guess the idea is that it doesn't hurt to have that note on the plans. However, that is no excuse for an incomplete submittal. The only time I would write something so general like "install per code" on a specific design item would be if the AHJ and I already agree that the item in question is being processed as a design-build "deferred submittal" per 106.3.4.2.

Example: fire sprinklers.
 
Many times, I've found, the standard comments are a way to get the plan review - first round - out the door in the alloted number of days... just so they can say "yup.. I got it out in 20 days"... .. then they actually start reviewing it so the real substantial comments (if any) go out in 5 days (or whatever the plan review standard may be).
 
By the way, in addition to practicing as an archtiect for private clients, I have also be retained by local jurisdictions as a code review consultant. I have also seen it from the other side of the fence, especially in my area where certain developers will outsource their architectural plans to overseas firms that will charge only a 1 or 2% fee.

The plans are often horribly bad, but the developer's philosophy is "hey, I can completely redo the plans 3 times and it will still cost me less than hiring a local firm". The overseas architect just puts something together and hopes the AHJ will do the design and quality control for them.

I recently sat a meeting where the local rep for the overseas firm said to the CBO and the councilman, "I don't know how to use the new code [iBC], so I figured it would be just like the old one; here's a code analysis from the old code." The he sits back and waits for you to redesign his project to meet the 'new' code.

The poor AHJ is stuck checking the plans for a number of iterations which were not anticipated in their plan check fee. These same developers are often the first to complain to a councilman that the AHJ is being obstructionist.
 
Yikes said:
... in my area where certain developers will outsource their architectural plans to overseas firms that will charge only a 1 or 2% fee.The plans are often horribly bad, but the developer's philosophy is "hey, I can completely redo the plans 3 times and it will still cost me less than hiring a local firm"...
Click to expand...
Wow. Haven't run into that yet, and hope I don't.
 
Well I work with two other individuals who review plans. One would stamp anything, write standard @#$ comments and approve the plans. The other would never let a set of plans go out the door if even one thing was wrong.

So when I review plans I am happy if the plans are at least about 90% correct. Then I make comments as to the items that need to be corrected, "Approved as Noted".

However, I also follow up on the site. If I find the contractor using the "Approved as Noted" plans and the contractor knows what the requirements are then inspections will go easier. This past month I went to a site and the contractor was not using the approved plans. I didn't leave the site until the approved plans were available. Next day same thing. Third day I told the contractor that if there were any plans on site other than the approved plans I was pulling the permit.

I had one time where I noted the corridor was not wide enough, per the code requirement. The contractor did not read the note and he installed 30 feet of corridor one inch too narrow. He really hated doing all the demo and reconstruction. He should have read the note.

A few years ago I supervised a fire department plan review section near Denver. The normal turn around time when took over the section was about 5 weeks. After a couple of months of training and changing the process it was down to less than 10 days. Four plan reviewers processed about 300 plans a month. The most important lesson for those plan reviewers was they were part of the process for building new buildings, and they were allowed to use their common sense. The previous supervisor was afraid to make a mistake, so the process was rigid and no plans were approved until everything was perfect.

Nothing is perfect. Plan reviewers should add to the process not just slow it down. Designers should know the code, and not try to get things through. Builders should use the approved plans. Inspectors should know how to read plans and understand that if something got missed by everyone else, thats ok, because the purpose of an inspector is to find issues and help to get them corrected.
 
FyrBldgGuy stated:

I had one time where I noted the corridor was not wide enough, per the code requirement.The contractor did not read the note and he installed 30 feet of corridor one inch too narrow.

He really hated doing all the demo and reconstruction. He should have read the note.
Click to expand...
I only thought that I was being tough on contractors. :eek: Man! You are one diligent person.

Kudos to you!

.
 
Before I got here, I had never seen a plan review done by ICC. Man you talk about a bunch of bull stools! I had to find some one else to send them out to.

Byron
 
I also dislike the submittals with the generic "per code" stuff but still have to make sure what detail is provided is in line with the code. Similar to FBG we will note the deficiency and lack of detail and verify code compliance in the field. If is gets ugly during % inspections, our standard comments are that the review letter stated "Plan Reviewed as Noted. Please provide a copy of this correspondence to all affected parties to include the Owner, General Contractor, Sub Contractors and Consultants for their notification and attention." It's not our issue that someone didn't read the review that brought about the ugly discussion we face presently, our advice is to address that with the responsible parties. We'll await correction documentation detail as to how the DP will correct it and affix to original plan. Please call us for re-inspection and should you have any other questions, please feel free to contact our department.
 
CYA notes about things that do not exist are unprofessional. I have been pressured to put notes on drawings “in case it is needed on the project”. My contention is that such notes besides being a waste of time have the potential of adding confusion and thus having a negative impact on compliance

I agree about mtlogcabin’s comment about install per code. I believe that one of the old model codes once prohibited this practice. On the other hand I would find it acceptable if I reference a specific section of the code that clearly denotes the requirement and does not require an engineer to interpret it. I have an expectation that the contractor has a copy of the code and can read.

If you are dealing with a deferred submittal there is no need to state for the building official that it will be built in conformance with the codes. That work will not be permitted until the building official approves the deferred submittal and the deferred submittal should make it clear what is required. The designer may have a need to communicate to the bidders what is required, but in the case of fire sprinklers the specialty contractor should already know what is expected.
 
The whole "as required" note thing really steams my oyster - whether it's from the DP and the AHJ. I consider our firm as one of the top notch MEP designers around. We never issue bar napkin sketches, the designs are always fully fleshed out. Unfortunately, some of our competition does the "install per code" thing, and we are expected to meet their fees.

Sure, we miss things sometimes, and believe it or not, my opinion of the code does not always match that of the AHJ. So after the plan reviewer has checked all documents of the submitted set, then bring on the project specific comments. Way too many just hit the macro that puts all the standard comments on the plan review notice. Way too many of my plan review responses are essentially RTDD (Read The Documents, Dummy).

Another oyster steamer are the AHJs that don't read the specs. Many of the code requirements such as duct/pipe materials, insulation thickness, sequence of operation for interlocks and energy code compliance, etc are in the specs. We will NOT put stuff in the documents twice, as it is a place for errors and conflicts to creep in. Just because other consultants put out two sheet designs with on-sheet specs does not mean that our well thought out project manual spec, developed over many years needs to be compromised.

In our work, we review product data and shop drawing submittals from contractors. If they send us incomplete submittals, we send it back un-stamped and say "try again" without a full time consuming review process. The contract documents allow us to backcharge the contractor if we have to review the same submittal more than twice. Perhaps a "try again" approach from the AHJs would be appropriate. I know I would make sure my documents are complete (well, like I said, I already do) before submitting if I knew they could be sitting in the plan review queue several weeks only to get a "try again dummy" stamp.
 
Dr. J stated:

The whole "as required" note thing really steams my oyster
Click to expand...
Man! That's got to hurt! :D

Also:

Perhaps a "try again" approach from the AHJs would be appropriate.
Click to expand...
I agree that it would be appropriate, however, in a lot of AHJ's that is not in-line with

the "Money Train Express" mentality. As a gub`mint employee requesting a

"Do Over / Try Again", ...that ain't gonna fly! It isn't about reviewing the plans

correctly, it's about reviewing the plans the way that gets them out-the-door-the-quickest!

Your experience may be different!

.
 
I agree with DR. J.

I have worked in firms that put all of the information in the general notes and the general notes do not address all of the code issues, let alone non-code issues, that need to be addressed.
 
As a plan reviewer and inspector I do read the materials specs to ensure the materials described in the plans and in the specs are what was installed. If the builder changed something I ask for the response from the design professional. If the equipment is equal then no problem. If the designer wants Schedule 40 pipe and the builder puts in Schedule 10, thats when those specs are important because I will red tag the installation. Some plan reviewers, inspectors and builders will allow what ever the code allows without looking at what was specified. A simple change in a material spec can result in a failure of the system if it was critical to design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top