Plan Review, The Balancing Act

[jar546]

Jar456, I think you and I are actually in agreement.



Here's what I said:


I, too, do NOT advocate duplicate information on both the plans and in a separate spec book. (Notable exceptions may include copying geotechnical report values from the the geotech report which is copied into the spec book.)

When the spec information is required to verify code compliance, it goes on the plans. In the examples you provided:

• Required valves: these are listed by brand, model# and size on a schedule on the plumbing plans.
• Proof of energy compliance: we paste the Title 24 (California) energy forms on the plans, and our details cross-reference to these forms.
• Fire ratings of wall types are detailed on the plans. Required flame spread ratings of wall finishes are shown on the plans.

In most of these cases, if a proprietary product is shown on the plans to demonstrate compliance, we add the words "or equivalent". The spec book then lists acceptable alternate manufacturers or requires the contractor to make side-by-side comparison submittals that demonstrate equivalent code performance.

No, just no. The drawings are just part of the information package and never intended to be all-inclusive.

 

[Yikes]

...but until you go through the spec books, submittals, and shop drawings in addition to the architectural, structural & MEPs, you really can't get the entire picture of code compliance.

Please clarify: are you saying your local building department requires a spec book and all the submittals and all the shop drawings to be plan checked by the department prior to issuing the building permit?

 

[jar546]

Please clarify: are you saying your local building department requires a spec book and all the submittals and all the shop drawings to be plan checked by the department prior to issuing the building permit?

What I'm saying is that mid to larger-sized commercial jobs will have a spec book, submittal documents & shop drawings in addition to the drawings submitted by the design team, and it is the Building Department's job to review those documents in order to get an idea of the full scope of the project and confirm compliance with all applicable building codes and ordinances. We don't mandate them on all projects because they are normally submitted anyway unless it is a very small commercial project.

I am still of the opinion that if the BD is given all of the documents, which includes a spec book, submittals, and shop drawings, for a BD to require the architect or engineer to put something on the drawings that are already in the documents submitted, you are overstepping your boundaries and causing unnecessary delays and costs. Don't cause more work for someone else because you are too lazy to look at the entire permit package.

 

[Yikes]

What I'm saying is that mid to larger-sized commercial jobs will have a spec book, submittal documents & shop drawings in addition to the drawings submitted by the design team, and it is the Building Department's job to review those documents in order to get an idea of the full scope of the project and confirm compliance with all applicable building codes and ordinances. We don't mandate them on all projects because they are normally submitted anyway unless it is a very small commercial project.

I am still of the opinion that if the BD is given all of the documents, which includes a spec book, submittals, and shop drawings, for a BD to require the architect or engineer to put something on the drawings that are already in the documents submitted, you are overstepping your boundaries and causing unnecessary delays and costs. Don't cause more work for someone else because you are too lazy to look at the entire permit package.

1. I agree with your second paragraph that the BD should not require information to be stated twice in 2 different locations on the documents submitted to the building department.

2. I disagree with your first paragraph that it is the BD's job to review shop drawings and submittals, if the plans generally already contain the basic info for plan check. An exception would be for design-build deferred approvals, in which case I would agree.
I think you are assuming that the plan somehow will not enable you "to get an idea of the full scope" sufficient for plan check. I'm simply saying that it depends on the type of project and the DP's choice of how to assemble the plans.

For example, if my mid- to large- size commercial project drawings show lever handles as a requirement for access compliance, I do not think you should also require me to provide my hardware submittal package form the GC's door hardware supplier.

 

[jar546]

I disagree with your first paragraph that it is the BD's job to review shop drawings and submittals, if the plans generally already contain the basic info for plan check. An exception would be for design-build deferred approvals, in which case I would agree.
I think you are assuming that the plan somehow will not enable you "to get an idea of the full scope" sufficient for plan check. I'm simply saying that it depends on the type of project and the DP's choice of how to assemble the plans.

Have you ever been deposed in a lawsuit over a plan review? I have. No matter how thorough you are, the opposing counsel will try to paint you as an incompetent villain who worships the devil.

 

[Yikes]

Have you ever been deposed in a lawsuit over a plan review? I have. No matter how thorough you are, the opposing counsel will try to paint you as an incompetent villain who worships the devil.

Right, that's the opposing counsel's job.

But - - this may be a controversial take - - the reality is that, short of you personally providing full-time continuous inspection of every laborer on the job, there's no way you (or anyone else) can ever prove that a project is code compliant. When some framer accidentally uses a 12d nail instead of a 16d nail on one stud somewhere in the project, the opposing counsel will call you an incompetent devil-worshipper for not noticing.

Back to plan review, 107.3 requires the plans examiner to "ascertain by such examinations whether the construction indicated and described is in accordance with the requirements".
In my example in post #76, if the drawings submitted for plan check indicate and describe lever hardware, you do not also need to review a separate door hardware submittal in order to ascertain whether those drawings are in code compliance.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Back to plan review, 107.3 requires the plans examiner to "ascertain by such examinations whether the construction indicated and described is in accordance with the requirements".
In my example in post #76, if the drawings submitted for plan check indicate and describe lever hardware, you do not also need to review a separate door hardware submittal in order to ascertain whether those drawings are in code compliance.

Depending, of course, on how well the lever hardware is described. I recently reviewed drawings (no specs) for a day care center. Hardware for exit doors was listed in the remarks column of the door schedule as "lever lock."

That's obviously not enough information to determine that the type of lockset to be used will always have the lever on the egress side active -- or to ensure that the doors won't also be equipped with non-interlocked deadbolts with thumb turns.

As some wise man once remarked, "The devil is in the details."

 

[jar546]

Right, that's the opposing counsel's job.

Twice. Two lawsuits, with one dragging on for over three years. The first was dropped due in part to my detailed communication, review, and note-taking; the second one dragged on for over three years and was dismissed with prejudice. You won't convince me otherwise, so you just keep doing things the way you want, and I will do the same in my way that has been proven in court. We can agree to disagree.

I've also spent some time on the other side of the coin and was instrumental in getting a code official decertified due to his plan review incompetence and got another one disciplined for the same reason. So keep trucking the way you perceive your job, and you will more than likely be perfectly fine for the rest of your career.

 

[Yikes]

Depending, of course, on how well the lever hardware is described. I recently reviewed drawings (no specs) for a day care center. Hardware for exit doors was listed in the remarks column of the door schedule as "lever lock."

That's obviously not enough information to determine that the type of lockset to be used will always have the lever on the egress side active -- or to ensure that the doors won't also be equipped with non-interlocked deadbolts with thumb turns.

As some wise man once remarked, "The devil is in the details."

Everything you just described could/should be shown on notes or details on the drawings. For example, our notes on the plans for lever hardware also describe the max 1/2" gap between the the lever return and the door panel.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Everything you just described could/should be shown on notes or details on the drawings. For example, our notes on the plans for lever hardware also describe the max 1/2" gap between the the lever return and the door panel.

Of course. The design "professional" (in this case it actually was a licensed architect) could have just specified an appropriate hardware industry lock function, either by number or name (such as Classroom function" or "Storeroom function" and that would tell the contractor what kind of lock to put in those doors. Just saying "Gimme a lock" is rather less than the minimum information required to demonstrate compliance with code requirements. Where the building is going to hold 75 children and toddlers, I don't want the doors to be installed with cheap locksets supplemented by separate (non-interlocked) thumb-turn deadbolts because the day care operator decided at the last minute that the exterior doors need to be more secure.

 

[socaldano]

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?

Forgive me if I am off base. IMO the BEST building inspectors "share" how they want it done in advance. So I suggest creating a list of "best practices" to insure everyone is on the same page.
Pilots use "knee boards" a checklist for each task. We used to call them FAQ's. If you make the lists, make them available. Let any DO's, architects or engineers edit them as "living documents". If you want them to read it, label it "the code requirements failures most commonly causing rework".

For instance, I talked to Ameren UE about having multiple panels connected to the meter instead of sub panels. You could use a modified copy of the list for "electrical, kitchen remodel" and "New pool circuits"... So a list of requirements as follows:

1. Cable from meter must be (I forgot size), two to six node disconnect after meter.
2. up to 6 nodes may be connected to the meter
3. All County residential is 200 amp service
3a can be overcommitted to 230amps
3b so instead of upgrading panel to 200amps and installing subpanel, you may have 100amp main panel, 100amp shop panel and 30 amp AC circuit off the meter
4. New code requirement: surge protector required either on the panel or on the meter.
5. Outlets must use 12guage (2 wire/ w ground yellow) romex, X outlets max
6. lighting may use 14 gauge (2 wire, white) Romex, Y amps of lights max.
7. Phone number of DP or GC for questions not on FAQ.
8. Links to the section of the electrical code

Identify additional stupid you encounter, recommend the DP attach the lists to the plans. And suggest he have the GC have all subs sign off on each one (or he pays for rework, no guilt).

Doing the same thing for each area. I could probably do one for each area in 15 minutes each

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Forgive me if I am off base. IMO the BEST building inspectors "share" how they want it done in advance. So I suggest creating a list of "best practices" to insure everyone is on the same page.
Pilots use "knee boards" a checklist for each task. We used to call them FAQ's. If you make the lists, make them available. Let any DO's, architects or engineers edit them as "living documents". If you want them to read it, label it "the code requirements failures most commonly causing rework".

For instance, I talked to Ameren UE about having multiple panels connected to the meter instead of sub panels. You could use a modified copy of the list for "electrical, kitchen remodel" and "New pool circuits"... So a list of requirements as follows:

1. Cable from meter must be (I forgot size), two to six node disconnect after meter.
2. up to 6 nodes may be connected to the meter
3. All County residential is 200 amp service
3a can be overcommitted to 230amps
3b so instead of upgrading panel to 200amps and installing subpanel, you may have 100amp main panel, 100amp shop panel and 30 amp AC circuit off the meter
4. New code requirement: surge protector required either on the panel or on the meter.
5. Outlets must use 12guage (2 wire/ w ground yellow) romex, X outlets max
6. lighting may use 14 gauge (2 wire, white) Romex, Y amps of lights max.
7. Phone number of DP or GC for questions not on FAQ.
8. Links to the section of the electrical code

Identify additional stupid you encounter, recommend the DP attach the lists to the plans. And suggest he have the GC have all subs sign off on each one (or he pays for rework, no guilt).

Doing the same thing for each area. I could probably do one for each area in 15 minutes each

Respectfully, quite simply -- no.

It isn't the building official's or the code inspector's job to rewrite the code to dumb it down for the benefit of people who either can't read it or won't take the time to do so. Building safety is a system of checks and balances. Someone writes and promulgates a building code. Someone else then is responsible for designing a building in conformity with the requirements of that code. The plan reviewer is then responsible for checking the construction documents to verify that the design satisfies code requirements. In the exact words of the IBC, to confirm that the construction documents "show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, ..." The contractor is then responsible for executing the work in accordance with the approved construction documents and, finally, the inspectors are responsible for verifying that the contractor executed the work in accordance with the approved construction documents.

When you take a book that's 800 pages in length (my state's amended version of the 2021 IBC) and try to pare it down to a series of single page checklists, something has to be omitted. And if it could be omitted, it probably wouldn't be in the code to begin with. In my opinion, your suggestion is virtually guaranteed to result in more problems than it can possibly alleviate.

Building officials and inspectors CANNOT (legally) tell anyone in advance how they want it to be done. Maybe there's cheaper way to do it that meets code -- if so, then the inspector is costing the owner money. That can result in the jurisdiction getting sued. To reiterate, it is not the role of the building official or the inspectors to tell anyone before-hand how to build something. It is our responsibility and our legal duty to look at ("inspect") the work after completion to verify that it complies with the code.

 

[bill1952]

My experiences over 40 years and the posts above tell me the system does not work as well as it used to, and usually no one party is responsible for all of it.

In my area, auditoriums and stages, I think it's quite common and only rarely caught and corrected.

 

[tmurray]

No matter how thorough you are, the opposing counsel will try to paint you as an incompetent villain who worships the devil.

Wait I thought that was why we are all in the careers we are.

We worship the wrong god and as penance, we must be building officials, right?

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Forgive me if I am off base. IMO the BEST building inspectors "share" how they want it done in advance. So I suggest creating a list of "best practices" to insure everyone is on the same page.

Our office does that. The requirements for a suitable set of plans are laid out clearly on our website, and also shows in a popup box on the online form.

And *still* we reject a good half of the plans that come in because they're simply not good enough. So when we reject an application, we will tell the applicant what needs to be done, and in a good third of the re-submissions, it's evident the client hasn't read the feedback, doesn't understand, or doesn't care.

Respectfully, quite simply -- no.

It isn't the building official's or the code inspector's job to rewrite the code to dumb it down for the benefit of people who either can't read it or won't take the time to do so.

I sort of agree, with the proviso that I know a lot of *builders* are visual learners, so I will create graphics. I grow less understanding of professionals who submit drawings missing basic details like fire separations, etc.

 

[jar546]

Forgive me if I am off base. IMO the BEST building inspectors "share" how they want it done in advance. So I suggest creating a list of "best practices" to insure everyone is on the same page.

You are forgiven. We've done that for YEARS, using a seven-page, detailed checklist with explanations, and yet no compliance in the clear majority of the cases. Heck, we can't even get the contractors and design professionals to properly name the files correctly, even though before they upload a single file, there are large red font letters telling them how to name the files. Do you know what it is like to have 10,000 files named A-1.pdf?

I think what you clearly fail to understand is that for decades, contractors decided they just don't have the time for the building department, and we are nothing more than an inconvenience to them, which explains the lackadaisical attitude and submittals we get from them. Many just aren't capable of following simple directions, and, after decades of putting up with this and dealing with incompetence, yeah, you sorta start getting a bit jaded.

 

[bill1952]

Do you all now require electronic submissions? I've only submitted hard copy. Dont know if previous jurisdictions no longer accept hardcopy but current - 5 years here - does and I suspect he prints out electronic, based on plotter and file cabinets in his office.

 

[jar546]

Do you all now require electronic submissions? I've only submitted hard copy. Dont know if previous jurisdictions no longer accept hardcopy but current - 5 years here - does and I suspect he prints out electronic, based on plotter and file cabinets in his office.

We are 100% paperless and do not accept anything over the counter and have not for almost 4 years. No one has complained. It is easier for everyone.

 

[bill1952]

We are 100% paperless and do not accept anything over the counter and have not for almost 4 years. No one has complained. It is easier for everyone.

Well, it allows you and applicant to not have to face and talk to each other. That can be easier for some.

Do you get many scans of hand drawing, or is that not permitted?

 

[jar546]

Well, it allows you and applicant to not have to face and talk to each other. That can be easier for some.

Do you get many scans of hand drawing, or is that not permitted?

All drawings & documents prepared by an architect, engineer or surveyor must be in PDF, cannot be scanned, and must be digitally signed and sealed. Everything else, can be scanned.

 

[bill1952]

All drawings & documents prepared by an architect, engineer or surveyor must be in PDF, cannot be scanned, and must be digitally signed and sealed. Everything else, can be scanned.

So a non-rdp, a diyer building a deck or addition for instance, hand drawn ok if scanned?

 

[jar546]

So a non-rdp, a diyer building a deck or addition for instance, hand drawn ok if scanned?

Yes, if it is to scale, the scale is not affected by the scanning process, and it is legible. Then, we will accept it for review. Common sense stuff. We have issues where drawings are to scale, made in 11x17, then scanned down to 8.5 x 11. That does not work. We've even had full-size plans 36x24 scanned down to letter size.

 

[tmurray]

Well, it allows you and applicant to not have to face and talk to each other. That can be easier for some.

Do you get many scans of hand drawing, or is that not permitted?

In many jurisdictions, you get to talk to the permit clerk.

Not the plan reviewer/inspector/building official.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Back to spec book. Sometimes they just have the brand name and catalog number of an item like a lock set or wiring cable. I don't think it's my job as a plan reviewer to look it up online to see what it is.