I have a job in Miami Beach that has been permitted under 2001 FBC (Florida Building Code), the job construction started w/o specs, the Developer wants to flip the project, Buyer is demanding specs, this is a 10 story hotel renovation and new construction, Brand flag will probably be Hilton:
your feedback would be apprciated, thanks.
A building code, once adopted by a jurisdiction, is the law, too, for that jurisdiction, and compliance with the accessibility standards of the building code also apply and are enforced by the jurisdiction.
The ADA is federal law, and applies to the entire country. The law hasn’t changed much since 1990, but the standards used to ensure compliance with the law has changed. The new standards is called the “2010 ADA Standards.” If the project was permitted before March 15, 2012, then compliance with the former ADAAG was allowed. If the permit was issued on or after March 15, 2012, then compliance with the “2010 ADA Standards” is required.
You said it exactly right, ADA is a law, not a code. You fail to meet it at your own risk just like any other law. Subtle difference is that its any user of the facility (visitor, resident, employee) that can file a complaint).
So, technically, just like any law, like speeding, you can speed all you want. Its illegal at all times, but its only actionable when/if you get caught.
Most buyers of facilities have or hire a team that comes in and looks at the facility specifically for these kinds of breaches, including fair housing requirements when its a residence project and they draw up a correction list - often placing $ amounts next to it lowering the payment by the amount they estimate to be the cost of fixing it - whether they intend to fix it or not.
I sent this question out to a number of my local Florida based colleagues (some specwriters, most non-specwriters), than I decided to get input from my colleagues here on 4specs.com. I’ll tally up the votes per se and post the results here later, specwriter vs non-specwriter. The architect’s drawings right now label handicpped requirements per 2001 FBC, I sent them an email questioning that reference and they inturn are investigating it…
so far 3 specwriters vote ADA, 2 non-specwriters (architects) say Bldg Code rules.
They both rule–however, the one that provides the most restrictive requirement takes precedence.
The trick is determining what’s considered the most restrictive. If there’re requirments that are conflicting (i.e. compliance with one will be considered compliant by the other), then the federal law will supersede the local building code.
Ok, than in Spec Section 102800 - Toilet and Bath Accessories, under Regulatory Requirements I should list both 2001 FBC and 2010 ADA and than advise that the most restrictive takes precedence?
I can see the RFI’s on the wall now!!
The building department can only enforce the building code while the ADA applies to all projects but is enforces through litigation.
Failure to comply with ADA will not prevent you from obtaining a permit or certificate of occupancy.
As stated above comply with the most restrictive.
Strongly suggest that the architect consult with its attorney prior to taking a position that it doe not need to comply with the ADA.
Don’t be too alarmed. There are seldom differences between ADA, ADAAG, and most building codes. They are all cut off of the same concept: that everyone is entitled to get where they’re going comfortably. The big chore is discovering the few places where they disagree.
The IBC cites ICC A117.1 (an early version of which was a major basis for the ADAAG) as their default standard.
The “2010 ADA” (More properly the “ADA-ABA Accessibility Standards”) harmonized ADAAG requirements with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) which was written based on the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) for Federal facilities. 2010 ADA requirements are almost identical to ICC A117.1 requirements.
At present, Local codes are almost always based on IBC or ADAAG; sometimes on the 2010 ADA.
Some general differences:
ADAAG has requirements for detectable warnings (those pesky bumps).
The 2010 ADA dropped all detectable warning requirements (except for transit platforms).
The 2010 ADA has more detailed requirements on signage.
Of course, if you’re doing multiple family housing, you must also follow HUD’s “Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines.” This has more requirements than the others regarding kitchen layouts.
Access Board has a comprehensive collection of the Federal requirements: www.access-board.gov
Thanks Mark, Justatim, very helpful. Since my role is to prepare the specs only, I reference the codes, but don’t need to know them so well. On this Hotel project my concern was or what the Architect has noted on his drawings, which my specs have to 'match". I had heard that there were some clearance changes as well in the updated ADAAG, esp in gang toilet areas, but since I don’t draw anymore, my concern was for the architect’s liability.
Thanks to Dave Metzger who is on his way to Israel for his input, he too votes for ADA.
Heard back from some ADA experts who advise that no matter what ADAAG takes precedence, not the building code.
Expert:
Ex = Has Been
Spurt = Drip Under Pressure
Ask them how you’re supposed to get an Occupancy Permit when your building doesn’t meet Code.
I spoke with one ADA ‘expert’ who told me that we should build to meed Code, get C of O, then modify the building to meet ADA. Sure, like that’s going to happen.
Oh; oh; oh…
Like to see a fire marshall and an accessibilty specialist on site duking it out as to whether life safety trumps accessibility or vice versa. My bet is on the fire marshall; he has an axe.
At this point I don’t care anymore, I am only the specwriter, and ironically I don’t even have a signed agreement yet, I am going to list both the permitted code reference and the ADAAG reference and let the architect figure it out when the GC goes for his CO, that will be 9 months from now, and if I know the results I will report them on this forum.
The ADA will take precedence in most cases. However, there are cases, such as in California, where the building code has more restrictive accessibility requirements than the ADA Standards, thus they usually take precedence.
For example, lets assume the ADA Standards have a minimum clear width for a feature of 32 inches but the building code accessibility requirement is 36 inches–the building code would take precedence.
Also, just for clarification, there are two ADA standards published:
“Americans with Disabilities Act and Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines” - This was released on July 23, 2004, by the U.S. Access Board. It combined both updated requirements for the ABA and ADA. The ADA formally used the ADAAG and the ABA used the “Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards” (UFAS). This was adopted by several federal agencies, but the Department of Justice (DOJ)–the agency responsibile for enforcing the ADA–did not adopt the revised standards until 2010.
“2010 ADA Standards” - This is the document adopted by the DOJ on September 15, 2010. This document is “closely based on the U.S. Access Board’s ‘ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines’” as stated in the document. It essentially removes all the requirements associated with the ABA. Compliance with the “2010 ADA Standards” became mandatory on March, 15, 2012.
And then there are the “Texas Accessibility Standards”; we are a whole 'nother country. The primary difference is the review requirements for the drawings and the competed project by the TDLR.
Posted for Jean Tessmer:
If your project is being planned and designed after March 2012, you are required by the DOJ to use the 2010 standard.
If you want a copy of a barrier free quality control specification, I can send you a copy used by the the DoD and NPS since they now use the same 2010 standard as the public.
To avoid confusion with your client you should have a disclaimer that states “the plans and specifications are limited to the construction or alterations standards of the ADA”. You want to do this to avoid the Ellerby Becket problem when the DOJ suddenly decided line of sight (which was not a part of the written code), was now a part of the construction standard.
Jerome, I wonder why you are working so hard on this difficult project without a signed contract. At the onset of my career as a consultant, an attorney told me “don’t ever work without a signed agreement”. If I need to, I repeat that to my client, which makes meeting their schedule is their problem, not mine.
Jo, the client lives in Long Island and was unavailable most of the week, I had previously agreed to deliver draft specs by a certain date after receiving a retainer payment for 33% of the fee. Until the GC mark-up the specs to convert them to as-built specs the specs are worthless to the developer, right now that process is ongoing, however I am not proceeding until I receive an executed agreement and will not issue any more ‘finished’ specs until I receive a progress payment. This has been a unique project, typically I do not work without a retainer and executed agreement.
Besides Jo, how often do you get paid a 33% retainer…with cash flow low that was a great opportunity, and now I am in the drivers seat, the client has to execute the agreement or they will get no further work from me…and fortunately my agreements are very thorough and very protective. Also the agreement is a lump sum, I was not sure what to expect grom the GC in mark-ups, I trusted my instincts and experience, but working with a GC that I have no experience with there was a possibility there would be a huge amount of mark-ups that would blow out my budget. So far the mark-ups are doable within the budget, if these mark-ups continue following the same mentality this work will be completed soon..other than some bureaucratic bs in the beginning and some unconventional procedures, I might actually make a few dollars on this project.
If you submitted a proposal that addressed the key contractual issues, or better yet an agreement for signature by the client, and have received a progress payment you will likely find that your proposed language will be binding. Verify this with your attorney but this is what I have been told.
While a signed agreement is best you can have an enforcable contract without a signed agreement if you can show that there was an agreement. The payment by the client, after receiving the proposal, barring other communication, would show that there was agreement.