Questioning the $ for the 20% for Alterations Affecting Primary Function Areas.

[Mr. Inspector]

Has anyone questioned the amount of the project total cost and the 20% spent on accessibility on an existing building? It seems to me that they could put down any amount they want.
I have an architect that always adds grab bars in the toilet room for existing buildings and it always comes out to exactly 20% of the cost no matter what they are doing to the existing building. When I do the inspection, I can't tell if there were any grab bars there before of if they are new. I guess I could look up the cost of the grab bars if I can find the brand of them but have no idea of the labor cost. I don't think it is my job to figure out if the architect or owner is telling the truth about this. Along as he gives me a piece of paper with the cost of the project and what they are doing and spending for the 20% I think I am covered.

What do you think?

 

[jar546]

Has anyone questioned the amount of the project total cost and the 20% spent on accessibility on an existing building? It seems to me that they could put down any amount they want.
I have an architect that always adds grab bars in the toilet room for existing buildings and it always comes out to exactly 20% of the cost no matter what they are doing to the existing building. When I do the inspection, I can't tell if there were any grab bars there before of if they are new. I guess I could look up the cost of the grab bars if I can find the brand of them but have no idea of the labor cost. I don't think it is my job to figure out if the architect or owner is telling the truth about this. Along as he gives me a piece of paper with the cost of the project and what they are doing and spending for the 20% I think I am covered.

What do you think?

I get where you're coming from about the project costs and the 20% spent on accessibility for existing buildings. It's definitely suspicious if an architect always reports that exactly 20% of the project cost goes to accessibility features like grab bars, no matter what else they’re doing.

As building officials, our main job is to make sure the documentation meets code requirements. If they hand me a piece of paper showing the project cost and the 20% spent on accessibility, technically, I'm covered. But if it feels off, I don't hesitate to ask for more detailed documentation. Sometimes just talking to the architect about how they arrived at their 20% figure can reveal if something’s not right.

In some cases, recommending a third-party audit might be necessary to ensure compliance and transparency. While it’s not our job to verify every detail, making sure the process is transparent and reasonable helps maintain the integrity of our inspections.

 

[Yikes]

Adding grab bars can actually get pretty expensive. In some cases it can include demolishing existing wall finishes, installing backer blocking, patching drywall, patching wall tile (and if you can't patch it to match and look good, then maybe you are re-tiling the entire wainscot), then installing the grab bars. You might be relocating toilet accessories to provide clearance around the grab bars. If it's an exterior wall, exposing the stud bays might trigger filling the cavities with insulation.
So, depending on the contractor's labor force, you might be looking at a framing sub, a drywall sub, a tile sub and a toilet accessories sub.
Then you need to pro-rate the general conditions, insurance, overhead and profit associated with all of this work. For field conditions, you might also need a porta-potti if this puts the existing toilet out of commission while the building is occupied.
When it some to those construction-related soft costs, if I have clients who want to push towards the 20% with fewer items, they may treat the cost of accessibility work as a separate item, meaning their cost estimates assume those subs will mobilize separately just for the grab bar-related work. That's probably the biggest gray area, but also hard to argue.

Yes, it might be possible to use WingIts or similar wall anchors for the grab bars and avoid a lot of the cascading costs. The LA Housing Department Neutral Accessibility Consultant (NAC) has generally advised against relying on these, especially on older retrofits as the 250 lb. force is dependent on the drywall attachment to the studs, which is not readily visible. Did they use screws into studs, or nails? Is the drywall thick enough? Etc.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

What we generally encounter is a sequence that runs more or less like this:

1. Plans come in for an alteration, with zero provision for accessibility, or zero documentation of pre-existing accessibility
2. I cite the IEBC requirement and ask for either documentation that the accessible route is accessible, or documentation that the current project includes at least 20% for accessibility improvements
3. We receive new plans, still not showing accessibility, with a letter saying something like, "It's an existing building, I don't have to do anything outside of the space I'm renovating."
4. We respond by once again citing the IEBC requirement
5. We receive an e-mail complaining that no other town in the state ever made them do this
6. We respond by (again) citing the IEBC requirement, and pointing out that this has been in the code for over 20 years.
7. The applicant calls the mayor
8. Much hilarity ensues

 

[steveray]

Ask for the 20% number up front? They are already supposed to be showing the work area so determining primary function should not be hard....

 

[BN4537]

Here they just tell us that the building is already fully accessible. Then the inspector shows up on site for an inspection after permit issuance, and change orders are filed...

 

[arwat23]

We use to fudge the numbers on our hardship applications (the form that shows that we're meeting the 20% requirement) since we, as architects and designers, suck at coming up with precise costs for anything. However, recently a jurisdiction we work in has been demanding actual price breakdowns, from a contractor, to get approval for the hardships. We now need to show how much it would cost to bring the entire path of travel up to code just to justify the 20% (and so the city has a record of how much things will cost and what they can demand in future projects at the address). This is allowed under the CBC.

From a code compliant standpoint, I like this. We're required by code to spend a minimum or maximum (CA is unique...) of 20% of the cost of construction on ADA upgrades depending on the cost of construction. A lot of architects (and the firm I work for tbh) have gotten away with not complying at all or not fully complying with this requirement for will over a decade. Inspectors in my area suck at catching accessibility violations, so the permit techs and plan reviewers pick up the slack.

From a practicality perspective, from a designer's perspective, it sucks. We often don't have contractors selected for the project until a permit is ready to be issued, so it can delay getting plans approved. Once, we had a contractor give us a number that was way less than 20% on a project where we had to hit 20% at minimum. This resulted in additional revisions that delayed the project by over a month.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Here they just tell us that the building is already fully accessible. Then the inspector shows up on site for an inspection after permit issuance, and change orders are filed...

We ask for a modest amount of documentation. For example, if they claim that an altered area containing a primary function is served by accessible toilet rooms and drinking fountains outside of the work area, we ask that they provide documentation that those facilities are, in fact, accessible. They always grumble. Eventually they give us something -- sometimes they add toilet room plans labeled "Existing" and other times they submit photos -- and about half the time they have to alter the toilet rooms or add new ones because the existing aren't accessible.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Here they just tell us that the building is already fully accessible. Then the inspector shows up on site for an inspection after permit issuance, and change orders are filed...

I get that too. Inspecting a very large warehouse now where the plans said it was fully accessible. I had to use the men's room and noticed the lavatories were too high, the women's room was "out of order" and the drinking fountains did not work. There are other toilet rooms in the building.
Do you think I should spend a lot of time to go to all the plumbing facilities, routes, check doors, opening weight/ closing speed of doors, routes and parking and report on everything that is wrong for accessibility? We don't budget for something like this for the inspections. Or should I just say on my report that the building is not fully accessible per plans and have the architect do the work on finding what is not accessible?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I get that too. Inspecting a very large warehouse now where the plans said it was fully accessible. I had to use the men's room and noticed the lavatories were too high, the women's room was "out of order" and the drinking fountains did not work. There are other toilet rooms in the building.
Do you think I should spend a lot of time to go to all the plumbing facilities, routes, check doors, opening weight/ closing speed of doors, routes and parking and report on everything that is wrong for accessibility? We don't budget for something like this for the inspections.

No. Not the inspector's job to do the plan reviewer's work. All those things should, however, be checked at the final CofO inspection.

Or should I just say on my report that the building is not fully accessible per plans and have the architect do the work on finding what is not accessible?

Yes. The architect should have dealt with those questions when drawing the plans, so push it back on him/her/them and let them explain to the client why they didn't do their job when they should have done it.

Back when I first started working in architects' offices in the late 1960s and 1970s, there was a prevailing attitude among architects that if they could fool a building official into issuing a building permit, all was good. Unfortunately, that same attitude can still be found with some architects. They don't understand (or claim not to understand, or choose to ignore) that our failure to spot their mistakes does not in any way constitute a waiver of the code requirements or in any way absolve them of liability for their mistakes.

 

[tmurray]

Has anyone questioned the amount of the project total cost and the 20% spent on accessibility on an existing building? It seems to me that they could put down any amount they want.
I have an architect that always adds grab bars in the toilet room for existing buildings and it always comes out to exactly 20% of the cost no matter what they are doing to the existing building. When I do the inspection, I can't tell if there were any grab bars there before of if they are new. I guess I could look up the cost of the grab bars if I can find the brand of them but have no idea of the labor cost. I don't think it is my job to figure out if the architect or owner is telling the truth about this. Along as he gives me a piece of paper with the cost of the project and what they are doing and spending for the 20% I think I am covered.

What do you think?

Have you considered a pre-permit walkthrough? Can be very valuable especially on alterations to existing buildings.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Have you considered a pre-permit walkthrough? Can be very valuable especially on alterations to existing buildings.

If the architect asks me to do this my boss may consider it with a fee. But then why wouldn't the architect do it themselves for nothing.
It may help with knowing what is really there so the architect could not cheat and say they are spending 20% towards accessibility on something that was already there. But no one would not ask for a pre inspection it they are going to cheat.,

 

[tmurray]

If the architect asks me to do this my boss may consider it with a fee. But then why wouldn't the architect do it themselves for nothing.
It may help with knowing what is really there so the architect could not cheat and say they are spending 20% towards accessibility on something that was already there. But no one would not ask for a pre inspection it they are going to cheat.,

We used to do it just to get our head wrapped around what the change is on more complicated applications.