The Art and Responsibility of Effective Plan Review: Finding the Right Balance

Plan review is a critical step in ensuring that building projects comply with code requirements. However, the question often arises: To what extent should plan reviewers delve into the various disciplines involved in a project? Should they defer to the expertise of licensed professionals, or should they critically examine each aspect of the design?

The Role of the Plan Reviewer​

A common misconception among plan reviewers is that they must be experts in every discipline they review. This belief is often reinforced by interactions with design professionals who may challenge the reviewer’s authority. Statements like “Who are you to question me?” can lead reviewers to doubt their own ability to comment on specific designs, especially when they lack equivalent training and experience.

However, it is not only acceptable but also necessary for reviewers to question the work of design professionals when warranted. The role of the reviewer is to ensure that the project meets the minimum code requirements, and this responsibility should not be overshadowed by the credentials of the designer. If there is a concern that something may not comply with the code, the reviewer should feel empowered to raise that question and request clarification or evidence of compliance.

Communication: The Key to Collaboration​

Effective communication is essential in the review process. By asking questions in a respectful and professional manner, reviewers can foster a collaborative environment where both parties work together to ensure the project’s success. The goal is not to undermine the design professional but to ensure that all code requirements are met, creating a safer and more compliant building.

For example, when reviewing the mechanical portion of a project, a reviewer might encounter areas where information is not clearly presented in the construction plans but is instead detailed in the project specifications. In such cases, the reviewer should phrase comments in a way that invites clarification, such as “Please verify,” “Please confirm,” or “It appears that...”. This approach opens the door for the design professional to provide the necessary details without feeling accused of making an error.

Striking the Right Balance in Plan Review​

Given the wide range of disciplines involved in construction, it is unrealistic to expect any single reviewer to be an expert in all areas. Nevertheless, reviewers should strive to familiarize themselves with all aspects of the code and approach each review as an opportunity for professional growth.

When conducting a review, it’s important to focus on key principles:

1. Prioritize Life Safety: The primary responsibility of the reviewer is to ensure that life safety elements are adequately addressed in the design. This should be a focal point of every review.
2. Cite the Code, Don’t Rewrite It: Comments should be concise and directly linked to specific code sections. There is no need to rewrite the text of the code—simply citing the relevant section is sufficient.
3. Avoid Commenting on Means and Methods: The plan review should focus strictly on code compliance, not on the means and methods of construction. These are the responsibility of the contractor and design team.
4. Use Preliminary Comments Wisely: If a project has numerous issues, consider issuing preliminary comments to guide the design team in resolving major concerns. However, make it clear that these are not comprehensive and that a full review will follow.

TBCF Summary​

In summary, the level of review should be thorough but focused. Reviewers should not shy away from areas where they lack expertise but should use these opportunities to enhance their knowledge. By approaching each review with a commitment to learning and a focus on clear communication, reviewers can ensure that all code requirements are met and that the project moves forward smoothly. The ultimate goal is to safeguard life safety while upholding the standards set forth in the building codes, ensuring that the structures we live and work in are safe, sound, and compliant.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I can't agree with item #4 above -- unless the plan review letter/memo VERY clearly states that the comments provided are only a partial list. Even so -- then what? Corrections to a partial list of violations may affect other things on the drawings. After issuing the partial list of issues, do you continue reviewing the set with the known issues, or do you issue a partial review and then sit back and wait for revised construction documents before proceeding with the review? If you wait, and then find other issues that were also in the original set, be prepared for the applicant or his/her/their design professional(s) to accuse you of playing rope-a-dope with them.

This doesn't mean that when looking at a resubmittal you won't spot something that was an issue the first time around that you missed on the initial plan review. It happens, and you should still cite it when you find it -- just as an inspector in the field should cite a violation if the plan reviewer missed it. But I am of the opinion that each plan review should be as complete as possible to avoid complaints that the Building Department is playing games with the applicant.

We try to make every plan review as complete as possible. We provide a brief description of the issue, and follow with a citation of the pertinent code section(s). Here's a snip from one of our plan review letters:



In my plan reviews, I also follow the specific comments with a mass of CYA language that's a blatant attempt to leave the door open to finding something on a second review that I missed the first time around:



Despite always including that language, even though I specifically "suggest" (since I can't require) that the design professional conduct a thorough review for code compliance -- they never do. They use the code review document we provide as a checklist. They (sometimes) address just the items we cite, then they resubmit. On larger projects, done by real architects, they may also submit a narrative response that lists our comments and adds a paragraph after each to tell us how they fixed it. It's astonishing how many times they'll write that they fixed an issue and nothing on the drawings was changed (or, if it was changed, it's still wrong). So, even though I give them a road map, they still can't figure it out.

It's getting to the point that I often don't like to admit I'm a licensed architect. It's like the lawyer joke: "98% of the architects in the world give the rest of us a bad name."

xx

 

[jar546]

I can't agree with item #4 above -- unless the plan review letter/memo VERY clearly states that the comments provided are only a partial list.

One issue that has been discussed here would be when the design professional uses the building department as their QA/QC. I used to write up 3 pages of deficiencies with over 40 line item comments until someone on this forum informed me what the RDPs were doing. I stopped that rather quickly and gave them a simple, very generic response, letting them know I was not their QA/QC and that the plans were so bad they needed to figure out themselves what they needed. The comment would look something like this:

After reviewing the plans submitted for ____________, it’s clear that they fall short of the necessary detail and do not comply with FBC 107. These drawings don’t meet the professional standards expected and seem to rely on the building department to perform your quality assurance and quality control, which is not our responsibility.

As a result, I’m halting the review process. You need to resubmit plans that are complete and compliant and reflect the thoroughness required by the code. As the design professional of record, you are responsible for ensuring these standards.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

One issue that has been discussed here would be when the design professional uses the building department as their QA/QC. I used to write up 3 pages of deficiencies with over 40 line item comments until someone on this forum informed me what the RDPs were doing. I stopped that rather quickly and gave them a simple, very generic response, letting them know I was not their QA/QC and that the plans were so bad they needed to figure out themselves what they needed. The comment would look something like this:

I love it.