• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

What is ICC Thinking - Replicable Reviews?

F

FyrBldgGuy

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
356
Just saw an ICC news release about a new process called Replicable Reviews. I can just hear the chain companies now!

This Guideline is intended to help state and local jurisdictions —as well as owners, architects, builders and engineers— streamlining a building document review process to examine and verify replicable construction documents; thus, eliminating repetitive code compliance reviews. A global review of replicable documents paired with a local review of unique jurisdictional requirements could be more cost effective and bring greater consistency in the application of local regulations.

“The Replicable Building Review concept has the potential to avail additional expertise to the jurisdiction through an expert review process similar to the present use of evaluation reports that assure code compliance of a particular product. Replicable building design reviews, like evaluation reports, have the potential to produce more thorough and uniform results” Benefits of this Guideline:

  • Enhance public safety through a more uniform review process
  • Conserve local resources through the elimination of repetitive reviews of transportable plans
  • Reduce the time between permit submittal and construction mobilization
 
City of LA has had something like this in place for years now, at least for major building components. For example, if I have a project that requires metal stiars in an exit stairwell, I can specify "standard stair plan #72", which references a particular steel fabricator that has a set of plans pre-engineered, plan-checked and reviewed. I do not need to detail handrails, stringers, etc. The only information needed is rise + run + riser height. Of course, this is a proprietary plan; I could not take it to a nother steel fabricator without switching plans.

It seems you would still need local plan review for site adaptation:

soils conditions / bearing capacity;

grading, stormwater, WQMP, SWPPP

local planning department requirements (non IBC stuff)

energy calculations vs. solar orientation
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can anybody provide a link to the press release and the guidelines?

Unless the state wanted to take over the building enforcement function there is no way that the local jurisdiction can be bypassed.
 
I think it might give a smaller "local" guy a little more comfort, and he might get a better set of plans to do his review.... or organize it in a way that makes his review quicker...that might be the value to a national company. It wouldn't work well around here...too many state amendments...
 
The description seems to indicate that if you design a restaurant in Texas and get ICC to review it as compliant with some version of the code, then you can use that review to do the same in New York.
 
I have no issues with it.

Years ago when things were really booming this one city wanted me to do a review on the new Toy R Us bld. Called the guy up and asked some questions and got this answer: "We got three sizes of building depending on the location. This is our medium size store."

Same thing with the Jack in the Box they came in with their medium size store, got finished and complained it should have been bigger.

Those plans had been looked at by many AHJ before they got to me and it's all most a rubber stamp on this end. They are the one with plans, engineering, all the special inspection stuff filled out when they show up to submit.

There was talk of something similiar happening to house plans down here when the Phoenix area was booming. Since most builders stock plans were about the same the talk was to have the plans submitted to one agency in the valley and coming away with approved plans to build anywhere where the cities agreed to accept the plans. Hasn't happen yet, but then maybe.

To be sure there may be minor tweaks to the plans depending on your city's planning dept.
 
I would still need to review the plan. I am not going to sign off on someone else's work. A UL paste on is fine! A wall detail OK. But to just stamp a plan because someone at ICC reviewed it Not Me!
 
RJJ said:
I would still need to review the plan. I am not going to sign off on someone else's work. A UL paste on is fine! A wall detail OK. But to just stamp a plan because someone at ICC reviewed it Not Me!
Click to expand...
Well not so fast:

I remember the old ICBO and sending them a house plan for review because some contractor thought I was too tough on him. After about 6 weeks of waiting back it came with about 20 pages of corrections they wanted answers to. Think the contractor decided the local dude was ok.

Some questions were show location and type of smoke detectors that you are using. Now the guy would need to actually show a wall or ceiling section with measurements before they would approve. Another was provide engineering for shear walls (this was shortly after the 94 codes came out).

So sure I would like to scan over the plans approved from ICC and then move on but not waste days on them.
 
I'd be very nervous about ICC plan reviews.. not because they don't have good plan reviewers.. they do.. but if there are local requirements, ICC has no way to know that.

They are going to review according to the ICC codes, and not your local amendments... they are building in an escape hatch (and I would too).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top