Plan Review, The Balancing Act

[jar546]

Soap box time.

I occasionally get responses from DPs such as "No one has ever asked for that to be on the prints before" or "Why do you need that information on the drawings". I try to clarify as much as possible during plan review so that there are less problems during the construction and inspection process. I cannot assume that the contractors know all of the code requirements.

Whenever I try to "dumb down" the plan review process because we get resistance from the DP's for having to make changes and complaints from the contractors for holding up the job, it always seems to end up causing problems in the end anyway. It always seems like a no win situation no matter which way you go. The DP did not think it was necessary to put it on the drawings and now that it is not, the contractor's excuse for not doing it was that "it was not on the drawings, how was I suppose to know?"

Now for some examples:

Electrical drawings were crude and basic for a psychologist's office that was converted from a SFR. The drawings showed some receptacle, light, emergency lights, switches, etc and said the installation was to be installed to "code". Since it was a relatively easy gut and rewire, I figured any competent electrician would do it right. I figured the inspections would be good enough on the fly. Surprise to me when I got there for the rough wire and found the entire job wired in NM cable including all exposed runs in the basement, attic and above drop ceilings. The outcome was not pretty as you could imagine. I should have held my ground and required more specific information on the prints.

Not showing the vertical grab bar on the drawings is another one. If you don't show it then how does the contractor know he has to install it and will they know enough to add the blocking? This has happened more than once.

Not showing tactile exit signs on the drawings. Sorry, I need to see them because I am tired of failing for this at finals. Yeah, we need that kind of detail

Not providing a list of special inspections. We need that list so that we know what paperwork to expect. How hard can that be to provide that list? If none are required then please state so ON THE DRAWINGS.

Why fight me because I am asking for details on a scupper? There are specs for this in the IPC you know. Already had this issue where they were too small after the EDPM was in place. Not a good time to find out.

How about that load calculation for the electrical service that you are specifying? I like your detailed panel schedule but there is an actual method for load calc. Guess what? We need that too.

I required path of travel, exit access to be shown on the drawings. Most provide this without asking although I have found a few to fudge their numbers when I took a real good look at them. And if you are going to show that, start from inside the offices or inside the apartments not at the door to the office or apartment.

Not specifying what codes and code cycle apply. I need that on the drawings.

We required a door and hardware schedule, a window schedule and a fixture schedule with specs and or model numbers. I just had a submission for illuminated exit signs that did not meet the IECC and was a part number that had been discontinued 3 years ago by Emergi-Lite.

This is just a small example of common items that are often overlooked/not provided.

Thoughts?

 

[rktect 1]

Recently, I have been trying to put together a list of what should be on drawings for submittal. (Starting with SFR's) I hope to be able to show this list to the building commissioner and see if he will allow it as a handout and guideline for DP's. (Really hoping for it to be required info on plans). But as I go through this, slowly, I find that my list keeps growing and I am not even halfway through it.

 

[steveray]

if they give me a hard time, I tell them it can be a problem at permit time or CO time.....when do you want to make changes? Alot cheaper on paper.....

 

[brudgers]

Door, window, and fixture schedules with specs and model numbers is just masturbation because the DP typically has so little control over these during construction of a typical project (if any control at all).

If you really want it, require it from the contractor as part of your inspection.

 

[jar546]

Door, window, and fixture schedules with specs and model numbers is just masturbation because the DP typically has so little control over these during construction of a typical project (if any control at all). If you really want it, require it from the contractor as part of your inspection.

Maybe for residential but not for commercial as these items are already picked out, specified and usually ordered.

 

[rktect 1]

Door, window, and fixture schedules with specs and model numbers is just masturbation because the DP typically has so little control over these during construction of a typical project (if any control at all). If you really want it, require it from the contractor as part of your inspection.

So, you want more hand holding and more inspections.

Typically, at some point we would have done a foundation inspection. The next scheduled inspection would be a structural rough. Usually, at structural rough, the house wrap is on and windows are installed in the rough openings. No window schedule means that there is a high likelyhood that I will get bedroom emergency escape and rescue opening windows that measure 24 inches high and 20 inches wide. Yes, I am certain that on some sheet there is an obscure note refering to min. emergency escape and rescue opening requirments for 5.7 or 5.0. But that will be lost on the contractor/framer/carpenter who may or may not read the language in which the plans have been drawn in, whatever that language was/is. What he sees on the plans is a window opening to centerline and numerals, being basically the same in a lot of languages, he can figure this out.

 

[brudgers]

Maybe for residential but not for commercial as these items are already picked out, specified and usually ordered.

Hard bid work, frequently.

Typical commercial work - not so much because many Owners will look at cost savings options proposed by the contractor.

Developer driven work - even less so.

On a 12 month build the contractor has months and months to negotiate on those items - and there's another several months between document preparation and issuance of permitting...so a year or more between specifying and purchase is not uncommon and the market can change quite a bit in that time.

 

[brudgers]

So, you want more hand holding and more inspections. Typically, at some point we would have done a foundation inspection. The next scheduled inspection would be a structural rough. Usually, at structural rough, the house wrap is on and windows are installed in the rough openings. No window schedule means that there is a high likelyhood that I will get bedroom emergency escape and rescue opening windows that measure 24 inches high and 20 inches wide. Yes, I am certain that on some sheet there is an obscure note refering to min. emergency escape and rescue opening requirments for 5.7 or 5.0. But that will be lost on the contractor/framer/carpenter who may or may not read the language in which the plans have been drawn in, whatever that language was/is. What he sees on the plans is a window opening to centerline and numerals, being basically the same in a lot of languages, he can figure this out.

Back when Florida Implemented the state wide code which required approved products - one of Milton's innovations was to require all that information from the contractor prior to the first inspection.

That removed fictions from the drawings and chasing around changes with the DP, allowed the contractor to mobilize, and provided a win-win for everyone.

DP could provide performance criteria for all the items - which is what they are supposed to do.

 

[righter101]

Our jurisdiction is 90% res. 10% commercial. I get a range of submittals from high end DP's to drunk contractor scribblings. Part of the problem with contractors submitting is they assume that they will be building it and they don't need to put some of the info on the plans. Reality is that the owner may change contractors, for whatever reason, mid project.

One general note I include on my plan review corrections letters, if the drawings are very lacking, is "construction drawings and details shall be of sufficient clarity that a competent contractor, with no prior knowledge of the project, could prepare an estimate for the project and order building materials with a resaonable degree of accuracy. They should then be able to construct the structure using the information found on the drawings."

I, from time to time come across plans that I put in the "submission of the year award" pile. Wonder if we redact any identifying information, if it would be appropriate to post those on this website.??? thoughts on that? maybe a moderator's opinion.

I agree with Brugers idea to require some of the info from the contractor, prior to the first inspection. This would resolve the situations when the DP can not reasonably provide the info.

 

[FredK]

Been there done that. Here's what I found over the years:

ADA Restrooms:

ADA stuff all in the construction documents and not on the plans. Final grab bar in wrong location. Ask why? Response couldn't find it and scaled off the plans. Plans 1/8 scale. Remedy all that stuff on plans.

DP puts all sorts of measurements on next set of plans. Plans approved.

On next job the width of stalls listed on plans. Stall partitons/tile width not listed. Job site pull out tape and measure. 2 stalls wrong. Fix--major changes. Now require all that on plans.

Now so many notes on plans the plans alomost the size of a code book. Field superintendant wants to know what he needs to do. Call DP for advice.

OR the house plan where the guy decides on egress window as 4-0x4-0 slider. Go to home and find a 40x40 inch square window nicely framed.

And then because the same plan is so widely used all over the valley by the same guy the plan comes with 5-6 pages of code notes. "Ask why all the stuff." His answer other AHJ want it. My response, "isn't that what the building it under the 06 IRC mean???"

After a while you either got them to submit the bare minimum or what really needs to be there to get the work done.

 

[TJacobs]

I can't win. I try to get them to get the plans as accurate as possible and then I spin the roulette wheel of job outcome. Will they bother to look at the plans? What will they change without telling us? Have they bothered to read the manufacturer's installation instructions or did they just wing it?

I've got a signed and sealed house plan for review without a single code-compliant exit door out of the dwelling (never mind our amendment requiring two). No title sheet, no list of codes, window schedule "to be determined", no nothing. Nice design. Wanna bet he didn't draw the plans, or even check them for code compliance before stamping?

 

[TimNY]

How can you review a set of SFR plans without at least a window schedule? You need to verify U values, SHGCs and egress. They can change whatever they want in the field, but if it's wrong there is no "you didn't tell us that" excuse.

You can't control what the builder will do. You can control the information that he is provided with. Ultimately this is not about DPs inspectors or contractors. It's about the owners who eventually get screwed.. if not by paying twice for materials then by interest payments, rent payments etc.. due to delays caused by improper construction.

BTW I have never had any designer furnish a list of special inspections. I have always reviewed the plans and stipulated the special inspections to be performed. Then I explain what a special inspection is.

 

[peach]

Got called to the carpet with the AHJ regarding field changes we approved on an historic structure... the plan review was BAD, BAD, BAD and the AHJ mentioned "that's what the field inspection is for"... what? to do plan review in the field (I don't think so)... having said that, the inspector should have (rightfully) required revised plans. Plan review needs to do their job first; once it's under construction (even if it's exactly what the plans show) - code violations cost time and money (that they would have to do anyway.. just don't keep dumping on the inspectors).

Do any any of you compare brick on a renovation?

 

[pyrguy]

I never did as the AHJ. BUT I did work for one that usually had a cow over the littlest things on the exterior.

 

[jar546]

Bump. FYI, a new update to this will be released soon with a slightly different take.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

This discussion is now almost 13 years old, and just about everything Jar mentioned in the opening post is exactly what I deal with on a day-to-day basis. This part, especially, is too true:

Whenever I try to "dumb down" the plan review process because we get resistance from the DP's for having to make changes and complaints from the contractors for holding up the job, it always seems to end up causing problems in the end anyway. It always seems like a no win situation no matter which way you go. The DP did not think it was necessary to put it on the drawings and now that it is not, the contractor's excuse for not doing it was that "it was not on the drawings, how was I suppose to know?"

Right now, we have a set of drawings -- done by a PE, but almost certainly working outside of his specialty -- showing a new building with two 200-amp electric panels and one 100-amp panel ... all fed by a single 200-amp feeder. My electrical inspector almost had a cow. I know the engineer's first response when we flag it is going to be "But I'm an engineer and you're not. Who are you to question ME?"

Sorry, Mate, but that's my job. That's what the citizens of this town pay me to do (protect them from you).

 

[jar546]

showing a new building with two 200-amp electric panels and one 100-amp panel

Thanks for agreeing with my article. However, it is possible to have what you describe based on how it is designed and what the load calculation is. I would not jump to conclusions with a setup like that. That can easily be a code-compliant installation.

 

[Mark K]

From an engineers perspective my sense is that some building departments are overly fixated on the drawings as opposed to the construction documents and other documents that are submitted with the application.

If specifications which address the issue are provided here is no need to provide the information also on the drawings. By expecting everything on the drawings you are encouraging the contractor not to look in the specifications which can create other problems for the Owner and his consultants..

IBC 1704.2.3 envisions the statement of special inspections as a document separate from the drawings.

The IBC envisions submittal documents will consist of more than just the drawings. Thus if the information required is in one of these other documents it may be that the information need not be on the drawings. I fear that many plan checkers only look on the drawings thus leading them to expect the information on the drawings.

The building department should be focused on what will be in the completed building and not on what the contractor might do. That is the concern of the Owners architect and engineers.

We may be seeing some bias in that many permits are focused on single family residences ignoring the fact that on larger projects the practices of how information is documented may differ.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Thanks for agreeing with my article. However, it is possible to have what you describe based on how it is designed and what the load calculation is. I would not jump to conclusions with a setup like that. That can easily be a code-compliant installation.

It could be -- but not the way it's drawn.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

From an engineers perspective my sense is that some building departments are overly fixated on the drawings as opposed to the construction documents and other documents that are submitted with the application.

If specifications which address the issue are provided here is no need to provide the information also on the drawings. By expecting everything on the drawings you are encouraging the contractor not to look in the specifications which can create other problems for the Owner and his consultants..

IBC 1704.2.3 envisions the statement of special inspections as a document separate from the drawings.

The IBC envisions submittal documents will consist of more than just the drawings. Thus if the information required is in one of these other documents it may be that the information need not be on the drawings. I fear that many plan checkers only look on the drawings thus leading them to expect the information on the drawings.

The building department should be focused on what will be in the completed building and not on what the contractor might do. That is the concern of the Owners architect and engineers.

We may be seeing some bias in that many permits are focused on single family residences ignoring the fact that on larger projects the practices of how information is documented may differ.

You are correct, and as an architect who spent several years as a specification writer I am intimately aware that the written specs are part of the construction documents.

That said, in the past twenty years I have only seen three projects with written specifications in a separate book (or books). Two of those were State projects, and one (still under construction) was a major nursing home expansion and alteration.

There is a trend among design professionals, at least in this corner of the universe, to put all the specs on the drawings and to not bother with 8-1/2 x 11 printed books of specifications.

 

[MtnArch]

Unfortunately what we normally hear when we're submitting to a jurisdiction is "do not send a specification/project manual". We then get comments about including items (such as a hardware schedule) on the drawings - when it is, in fact, in the project manual that they did not want to see.

 

[jar546]

From an engineers perspective my sense is that some building departments are overly fixated on the drawings as opposed to the construction documents and other documents that are submitted with the application.

I think that is possible, but that depends on the job size and if it even has specs and shop drawings. I think that all of us who are code administrators know that the level of information on the drawing will vary based on the size and complexity of the job. Specs are almost always submitted at the same time as the drawings, and they get reviewed at the same time. Shop drawings, however, are often deferred submittals and don't get reviewed until the permit is issued and the job is well underway.

We may be seeing some bias in that many permits are focused on single family residences ignoring the fact that on larger projects the practices of how information is documented may differ.

I don't think so. SFRs are another animal and almost completely reliant on the inspectors in the field after a basic review of the drawings. This thread was not started based on a SFR.

 

[jar546]

It could be -- but not the way it's drawn.

What matters is the load calculation. I can run 10 - 200A sub panels off of a 100A main breaker if I wanted too and be code compliant. The 100A breaker is the limiting factor.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

I remember holding up a permit application because the drawings lacked Code-compliant stair details. After rejecting several plans that failed to address the stair detail, the female half of the ownership couple came in to ask WTF.

So we sat down in my office and I started pulling the numbers. Once I drew what was submitted, I demonstrated how the design didn't just meet Code, it was such that anyone more than 5'8" would have to duck to get up or down the stairs without smashing their head.

The solution was to throw in a set of winders.

Bonus: the couple also own a major building supply store in town.