Tenant Finish Plan Review - Door Hardware

[Papio Bldg Dept]

I am noticing a tendency to not include existing door hardware in construction documents for tenant finish/change of occupancy projects. In some cases they might reference a Specification or Project Manual that was never provided at submittal, but mostly it isn't even provided there either. How do you verify compliance for door operations (1008.1.3) if there isn't any information? Isn't that a basic means of egress design consideration? There is a lot of reluctance to provide the information too. I don't get it.

Sincerely,

frustrated with status quo.

 

[brudgers]

A specific concern should be noted in review comments. Otherwise during an early inspection. The scope of work is the scope of work. In other words, you could as for a geotech report, too.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

A specific concern should be noted in review comments. Otherwise during an early inspection. The scope of work is the scope of work. In other words, you could as for a geotech report, too.

kind of like an approval with specific comment addressing or noting compliance conditions? I am not reluctant to specifically comment on compliance concerns, but I am not going to make design decisions for anyone, especially an RDP. If the comment addresses a final occupancy inspection concern, I will typically approve the permit in a limited capacity (e.g. groundwork, rough-ins, structural) pending further compliance clarification.

 

[cda]

How do you handle plan review comments??

We write comments and either have the submitter respond to them in writing prior to release of permit of if it is a simple thing just check it in the field

 

[lunatick]

I am noticing a tendency to not include existing door hardware in construction documents for tenant finish/change of occupancy projects. In some cases they might reference a Specification or Project Manual that was never provided at submittal, but mostly it isn't even provided there either. How do you verify compliance for door operations (1008.1.3) if there isn't any information? Isn't that a basic means of egress design consideration? There is a lot of reluctance to provide the information too. I don't get it. Sincerely,

frustrated with status quo.

Plan review is often performed on Construction Documents.

The construction documents are meant to communicate the scope of work to be performed.

So care has to be taken to communicate the scope of work while addressing the concerns required for plan review.

This is akin to addressing knowledge of existing rated construction. It needs to be noted as such. Existing 1 hour rated wall (do we know more than this such as FP/FB, etc based upon older documents?). But not detailed, unless modified, as their is likely no new work.

What are you wanting to know? If they are equipped with patch sets, locksets, storage sets, etc?

I would not think it proper to assign a detailed hardware group as one would see for new doors or modifications for existing doors hardware.

 

[LGreene]

In my experience as a hardware consultant, the hardware for doors that are existing to remain is not typically spelled out in the hardware specification. The architect usually sends us photos or we may do a site visit to see what needs to be matched (lever design, manufacturer, model, finish, etc.), but we don't often review each existing door for code-compliance, or record what is on each door for the AHJ's reference. I have had some projects where it was part of my scope of work to detail what was on each existing door in order to determine whether hardware needed to be replaced, but that was not very common.

 

[Frank]

Panic hardware needs to be called out on the plans.

Other hardware we tend to field check for lever type and proper allowance of exiting.

For the first 4-5 years lever hardware was required we used a reminder stamp on the drawings while people were in the learning curve.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

How do you handle plan review comments??We write comments and either have the submitter respond to them in writing prior to release of permit of if it is a simple thing just check it in the field

I write comments that cite code section and general compliance issues and either status as approved with comment, pending or rejected depending on whether revisions or additional information is required.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

What are you wanting to know? If they are equipped with patch sets, locksets, storage sets, etc?

I would not think it proper to assign a detailed hardware group as one would see for new doors or modifications for existing doors hardware.

typically I want to know how the existing main door complies with door operations per Section 1008.1.3 of the IBC (2006). If there is a keyed lockset, which typically there is on retail shell, then there is a specific requirement of the code if they choose to leave it. They could always change it out for a panic paddle, but that is there decision. I try to let the RDP decide how they want to comply...but I still need to know, especially on spaces with only one exit. Call me crazy, but code compliance for the main or only means of egress seems kind of important.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

In my experience as a hardware consultant, the hardware for doors that are existing to remain is not typically spelled out in the hardware specification. The architect usually sends us photos or we may do a site visit to see what needs to be matched (lever design, manufacturer, model, finish, etc.), but we don't often review each existing door for code-compliance, or record what is on each door for the AHJ's reference. I have had some projects where it was part of my scope of work to detail what was on each existing door in order to determine whether hardware needed to be replaced, but that was not very common.

In other words, nobody is really enforcing Section 1008.1.3 of the IBC? If it's existing, then whatever is there is grandfathered is a typical response I get from RDPs. We don't review hardware on shell buildings because we don't assign occupancy to them, but most of our shell specs call out a keyed lockset with wire push/pull. Have you ever spec'd out the signage required by that code section that allows the keyed lockset to be compliant on new buildings?

 

[LGreene]

In other words, nobody is really enforcing Section 1008.1.3 of the IBC? If it's existing, then whatever is there is grandfathered is a typical response I get from RDPs. We don't review hardware on shell buildings because we don't assign occupancy to them, but most of our shell specs call out a keyed lockset with wire push/pull. Have you ever spec'd out the signage required by that code section that allows the keyed lockset to be compliant on new buildings?

I'm not saying that nobody is enforcing 1008.1.3, but I guess I assumed that it would be verified during an inspection - I definitely don't think it should be grandfathered. I've never had an architect come back and ask me for more information for the AHJ regarding the existing doors, so maybe the AHJs aren't asking for that at plan review time. Actually, I've never had any questions about the hardware from an AHJ during plan review, so I didn't think they were reviewing to that level of detail. For most people, reading the hardware schedule is like reading in a different language.

I have never specified a double-cylinder lock on any egress door that I can think of. I know it's allowed on the main entrance in certain occupancies, but I don't like it so I don't do it. With that said, I don't usually work on retail projects where that application is most commonly used. But the signage is not considered part of the hardware so it would not usually be specified in the hardware section. If I did specify a double-cylinder lock, I would note the wording of the signage that's required but the sign itself would be supplied with the rest of the signage for the building.

 

[Architect1281]

Papio you are correct and entitled to such information

as a DRP when doing a floor plan I indicate and schedule all doors and the egress capacity of each

an existing door in roo 110 is labeled E110 I list the function - Passage / Lockset and label if known or requied

I do the same of course for new

Some of my feloow CBO / FM's insist that I give them a manufactures cut sheet for each door and hardware set to which I respond PPTTTHHHHHH! no!

and explain that I specify class as in heavy duty - function as in Lock / classroom / exit / egress and listing if in a labeled door

telling them that NOone EVER BUYS the specific model # I spec anyway.

 

[Builder Bob]

This is a gray area as far as tenant up-fits and existing conditions at a building. In most worlds, the Fire marshal looks at existing construction and should be maintaining what hardware that was originally installed and CO by the building department.

An architect shouldn't have to provide any information that is outside the scope of construction, However, if the Tenant space that is being up-fitted is having to use an common area (core area) for egress, I would consider that to be a part of the MOE and would inquire about the existing door hardware on the doors leading to an exit.

If twelve suites were emptying out into the core area, I would not require a hardware schedule for the existing suites......... they were not in the scope of the project.

Coordination of field inspections would be a great answer between the FD and the building department. IF the existing doors outside the scope of the permit work are incorrect, I don't believe you could hold up the certificate of occupancy (or Certificate of Completion) for a contractor. (I smell litigation and civil action.) The fire marshal could write a corrective action report and follow up with their legal proceedings to obtain corrections.

 

[peach]

Here, the mag locks are always a separate permit (which shows up at final, usually because the tenant not the GC is responsible). And we fail the final inspection if they aren't installed and working.

 

[TJacobs]

If the construction documents do not give specific information I ask for cut sheets.