What details must be plan-checked for minor field conditions?

[Yikes]

I am an architect who is helping an owner with a commercial remodel project. I is already under permit, and the previous architect just retired. The permit set is what I would call "life safety", meaning it provided the basic info needed to get through plan check.

Neither the superintendent nor the inspector are very experienced with this kind of project, and they seem to feed off each other's concerns. As a result we are encountering requests not only for "means and methods" details, but also to have those details plan-checked (a processed that gets outsourced for 2 weeks to a private company).

An example: The approved plans call for protection at all penetrations of fire-rated walls, and it has standard details/examples for fire caulk around conduit penetrations. During construction, the owner decided they wanted a cable tray instead of conduits, so a cable tray now penetrates a rated wall. We've provided a wet-stamped detail with the 3M intumescent pillows, and the UL report from 3M. In my previous experience on other projects, the super would just keep this detail on file in case the inspector had questions. I this case, the inspector wants it submitted for plan check!

There are other examples besides this, but the question is: Is their some standard-to-the -industry to which we can agree that plan check is not necessary?

If the plans were approved with a prescriptive standard, e.g. "one hour" walls, and during construction we have an ICC report or UL listing that describes how we meet that standard, why would a plan check of that detail be necessary?

 

[conarb]

Yikes:

My experience in the Bay Area is that once plan check is done with you they don't want to see you anymore, in fact when I've brought back major structural revisions (like substituting steel for glue lams) they get very annoyed and actually issue new permits for the revised pages, I had one house with 5 permits and 5 sets of plans because of changes I initiated. As to minor details like you are referencing I just give a package to the field inspector including applicable ES Reports, 8.5x11 details from the SE, and UL Reports. I actually had a field inspector ask once: "What am I supposed to do with all this?", I responded: "Just build your file as thick as possible, it makes us both look good." Of course every AHJ is different.

 

[cda]

"""If the plans were approved with a prescriptive standard, e.g. "one hour" walls, and during construction we have an ICC report or UL listing that describes how we meet that standard, why would a plan check of that detail be necessary""

I would want to see a detail like this before a permit is issued

Punching a hole in a rated wall is a little bit more than a minor change , especially for a cable tray

Sounds like more info should have been requested at plan review

Especially when the superintendent, can't figure how to build it

 

[Builder Bob]

I am an architect who is helping an owner with a commercial remodel project. I is already under permit, and the previous architect just retired. The permit set is what I would call "life safety", meaning it provided the basic info needed to get through plan check.Neither the superintendent nor the inspector are very experienced with this kind of project, and they seem to feed off each other's concerns. As a result we are encountering requests not only for "means and methods" details, but also to have those details plan-checked (a processed that gets outsourced for 2 weeks to a private company).

An example: The approved plans call for protection at all penetrations of fire-rated walls, and it has standard details/examples for fire caulk around conduit penetrations. During construction, the owner decided they wanted a cable tray instead of conduits, so a cable tray now penetrates a rated wall. We've provided a wet-stamped detail with the 3M intumescent pillows, and the UL report from 3M. In my previous experience on other projects, the super would just keep this detail on file in case the inspector had questions. I this case, the inspector wants it submitted for plan check!

There are other examples besides this, but the question is: Is their some standard-to-the -industry to which we can agree that plan check is not necessary?

If the plans were approved with a prescriptive standard, e.g. "one hour" walls, and during construction we have an ICC report or UL listing that describes how we meet that standard, why would a plan check of that detail be necessary?

Because the one hour detail is very descriptive for products allowed and method attachment...... if it ain't on the plans, then the contractor/ inspector aint gonna know how to field verify the construction.

 

[steveray]

I put a note on every plan review that the listings need to be on site for inspections or the inspection will be terminated. Usually I have that discussion with the DP at submission as part of plan review because it will be screwed up in the field. But if they are not specing for the contractors and they all use different materials, I do not have a great heartbreak over not getting it on the plans. What I am going to start insisting on is clarification on fire wall, fire barrier, or fire partition (Not just 1 hr wall). Not that I expect it will mean much to the contractors, but when I go for roughs and they have built all of the rated shafts (fire barriers) bearing on each unrated floor system (supporting construction) and I tell them they need to rate the entire building construction now, it will be a little clearer.....

 

[north star]

& : & : &

"Is their some standard-to-the -industry to which we can agree that plan check is not necessary?"

Probably not !..........As **conarb** mentioned, ...every jurisdiction is different.The Inspector has requested copies of the "changed plans" be submitted.

Please courteously submit what they have requested, and ask if there is

anything else they will need.........From the Inspector side of this issue, I

used to like to receive lots of details and be aware of major changes.

Yes, ...I too think this is a major change [ from conduits penetrating a

rated assembly to a cable tray penetrating a rated assembly ].

& : & : &

 

[ADAguy]

Thank you "all" for a very timely discussion.

In Sou Cal with its many jurisdictions, languages spoken and declining numbers of "experienced" contractors and building officials, this is an issue more than worthy of discussion.

Much of what we do is based on "trust" but when a super indicates a lack of "basic knowledge" it becomes a life safety issue.

Concurrent review in larger cities by local fire would not let this deviation slide but a smaller city might.

"Yikes" if you value your license you will at a minimum have a discussion with your plan reviewer.

 

[zigmark]

We deal with these types of minor revisions through either an RFI (request for information) or AEB (architect and engineer bulletin) process. In commercial construction there are often details or constructability issues overlooked that have to be sorted out. Either of these methods provides a formal way for a contractor to submit a request for a revision detail or a question about how something will or will not work and get a formal response from both the design team and the AHJ. We typically require that they are numbered and dated and circulated to a predetermined group of people. We also ask that as the AHJ we be left out of the initial "discussion" phase of this and are only copied once the team has settled on a proposed solution. This type of record keeping and documentation has served us well with larger projects.

Something to remember with commercial construction is that the cost of revisions/changes can add up quickly. Part of the purpose for requiring approved plans and specifications is to protect the owner by ensuring that they are getting what they agreed to pay for.

ZIG

 

[tmurray]

We preform a fire stopping inspection, so the submittal sheets have to be in and reviewed prior to us arriving on site. We find this works well and most contractors like to show off their fire-stopping skills.

 

[ADAguy]

Love our Canadian friends,

 

[Builder Bob]

A third party inspection may be used by the building department if deemed necessary....