Receptacles in exits

[tmurray]

If the latter, there are many details that can work around this issue.

Agreed. The issue we have seen is a lack of interest by registered design professionals to provide designs this area in sufficient detail to ensure the contractor can actually construct it. They also have concerns that they will be required to provide enhanced scrutiny necessary to ensure it is constructed in accordance with the design.

This is not intended as a rant against RDPs. When owners are looking for the cheapest RDPs out there and you want to work, you have to ensure you can provide code compliance on a budget.

More of a rant against owners cheaping out on design services...

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Agreed. The issue we have seen is a lack of interest by registered design professionals to provide designs this area in sufficient detail to ensure the contractor can actually construct it.

.... and contractors who subcon to electricians who either
a) don't get the plans
b) don't follow the plans they are given


Which is why I generally get quite zealous about making sure that there are plans that show the details so that if something hits the fan, I won't get blamed (successfully) for it.

 

[Yikes]

To me it is not big deal. I already have details in my plans for other recessed and semi-recessed components in fire-rated walls, such as fire extinguisher cabinets, medicine cabinets, etc, where the drywall membrane goes behind the cabinet. And for electrical boxes, I think you can spec a fire putty that's been UL rated.

I don't see shy the DPOR would be worried about enhanced inspection scrutiny. If it's on the plans and is required to maintain the fire rating, then the expectation is that the AHJ inspector will be inspecting for it, just like they inspect for other life-safety components shown on the plans.
If the component has an ICC report that requires special inspection, so be it.

Or, if I don't think the budget or labor skill exists to install and inspect correctly, then I design with uglier-but-cheaper surface-mount, as mentioned by others in previous posts.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

This is not intended as a rant against RDPs. When owners are looking for the cheapest RDPs out there and you want to work, you have to ensure you can provide code compliance on a budget.

More of a rant against owners cheaping out on design services...

For many years I've been telling anyone who will listen (nobody) that when the courts (in the U.S.) decreed that the AIA's old recommended fee schedule couldn't be used because it was an unlawful restraint of free trade, architects joined in a race to the bottom. We are still reaping the results. Cite an architect's drawings under IBC 107.2.1 (or IRC 106.1.1) and you can hear the screeches of protest from San Diego to Eastport, Maine. All we see these days is pretty (or not!) pictures with a lot of notes about "To code" or "Per code." The BOCA Basic Building Code included language that specifically prohibited using such phrases as a substitute for specific information. Back when the original 2000 IBC came out, I contacted the ICC and complained about the omission. I was told that the intent was the same and that I should just cite 107.2.1 (or whatever the number was back then).

Of course, that has never worked well. Ultimately we can do that if we're willing to tolerate the abuse that follows, but it can get ugly. I finally prevailed on my state to restore that language when we adopted the 2021 IBC and IRC in 2022, and it has proven to be invaluable in short-circuiting protests that we're asking for unreasonable amounts of "extra" work by the architect.