ADAAG versus local Building Code

Archive of Older Topics Archive - Specifications Discussions #5
21

A few years ago, Jean Tessmer, of Space Options in Hawaii, proposed a Division 01 section to address ADAAG tolerance requirements for DoD and National Park Service. It appeared as Section 01-4117 - Barrier Free Quality Control. Jean says, “It has since been used by the FHWA, State of Hawaii DOT, large shopping centers, parks and zoos from Hawaii to California. The ADA design training (which included tolerances) for all disciplines and the specifications save their bacon. The contractor had 156 ADA violations on the punch list and all the designers were in very strong position to defend their compliant plans, submittals, and specifications. It was all in the contract documents.”

Download Section 01-4117.

Jean’s contact information:
Jean Tessmer, RME, ASID Federally Qualified Barrier Free Consultant
Space Options Inc
PO Box 29
Kula Hawaii 96790
(808) 298-3802 cell
design@spaceoptions.com

Given the special consideration for “sustainable” design, Jean’s suggestion to have a special Division 01 section has merit, but the MasterFormat maintenance team rejected the idea, saying ADA requirements could be specified under 01-4116 Laws.

One could say the same thing about “sustainable” design, yet that subject gets:
its own submittal section, 01-3329 - Sustainable Design Reporting, even though those requirements could be specified in 01-3300 - Submittal Procedures
its own closeout section, 01-7853 - Sustainable Design Closeout Documentation, even though those requirements could be specified in 01-7800 - Closeout Submittals
its own basic requirements, 01-8113 - Sustainable Design Requirements, even though those requirements could be specified in 01-8100 - Facility Performance Requirement.

But USGBC has all the press, so they get special attention. :wink:

22

I would only add that the desire to add a division 01 section on ADA compliance should be done with caution. I have seen language added to specs that require the contractor to provide full accessibility to individuals with disabilities. In theroy this is a nice idea but the ADA is and was concieved to be a means of making “reasonable accomodation” for individuals with disabilities. The definition of “reasonable accommodation” is potentialy up to the court system if someone files a complaint.

If you provide 36" wide doors everywhere in the hotel but someone who is as wide as they are tall wants to check in they could argue that you have not made proper accommodations for their individual disability. I have seen far to many architects make claims that they have made renovations to a facility to make it “fully compliant with the ADA”. ADA compliance is a moving target and is always one complaint away from being a lie.

The law was written by lawyers, designed to keep lawyers busy, arguing with other lawyers.

23

Sheldon-

There was a presentation at the last NCR conference (or the one before) on the consolidation of the various accessible codes, and the “new” ADA. You may not have been there - I think you had a presentation elsewhere that day - but one of the features that was mentioned was that tolerances were being built into the ADA.

I haven’t had reason to get into the new document in depth, so I don’t know how or where they address tolerances, measurements, etc., but from the overview presentation it appeared that ADA is moving toward dimensional ranges, rather than absolutes. If so, that seems to me to be a step in the right direction toward mitigating some of the post-construction disputes that we have seen in the past.

Even so, I would agree that if a project warrants inclusion of a section like the one you shared, it could go in Division 01 by itself. Seems to me to be a narrow scope / broad scope choice whether there is enough stuff to justify a stand alone section, or inclusion in Laws. Either way, it certainly would clean up referring to AADAG in seemingly every other section.

24

Sheldon, I have a problem with dumping off the code and the law onto the contractor. In essence that is what this section does. In fact it actually goes directly against what the Architect’s B101 contract says in paragraph 3.2.1 and the A201 general conditions in paragragh 3.2.3. The contractor is to execute what are in the contract documents. 3.2.3 states that the contractor will inform the architect if made aware of any issues.

Why do I have a problem with it? The contractor has not had the educational training necessary for life safety and public policy. That is why the states have the architectural license. If a contractor is required to do the same, then there is no need for the state license. Then what you have is the wolf guarding the hen house as the contractor has different incentives driving his work than the owner and the architect.

25

The new ADA Standards do provide more ranges in regard to dimensions, but many of the required dimensions and slopes are based on either minimums or maximums. So what happens if you’re slightly under the minimum or slightly over the maximum?

The new ADA standards–similar to the old ADAAG–states that “dimensions are subject to conventional industry tolerances except where the requirement is stated as a range with specific minimum and maximum end points.”

Aside from the various “violations” of SectionFormat, PageFormat, and the “Construction Specifications Practice Guide” (I understand this is a Government spec), this specification seems to cover those dimensional instances. But I think the quality control article in PART 3 could cover those requirements just as well, or point to a section like this to avoid repeating the same requirements in multiple sections. The question I have is whether or not the tolerances in this specification conform to the “conventional industry tolerances” as stated in the ADA standards. I have no problem specifying tighter tolerances, but they usually come with a price.

Additionally, I think this section goes a little too far in some areas, like the detectable warning requirements, for example. The requirements for detectable warnings are more appropriately specified in a Division 32.

26

From my collection of miscellaneous CSI stuff: Ten years ago, CSI considered forming a group to analyze issues related to ADA construction tolerances.

History and Issues

Document Outline

27

To Mr. Ronald Geren.
I appreciate your feedback. The specification for the USS Arizona Memorial Replacement Visitor Center, was a first shot. Unlike the green building code it all ended up in Division 1 and deleted out of other sections.
ADA touches just about every aspect of design and construction, from the owners, to professional disciplines, all contractors, and requires functional usability inspection for acceptance. At that time the limits imposed on where the Barrier Free Quality Control Section would be was up to someone else.
The mandate was to make sure the work in the end was a flagship of accessibility so any individuals with a disability would be able to participate independently at this iconic National Memorial Cemetery.
It can and should be revamped in a similar way to the USGB spec. In addition, it should be placed in all appropriate locations within the specifications with all appropriate functional usability inspections and test conducted prior to acceptance, based on the original research from the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign.
If you open the front page of the ADA and you will see that it is essentially the ANSI A117.1 sans scoping. The secretariat at the time was Dr. Timothy Nugent who was the lead and principal investigator for the original standard.

28

To - Mr. Alan Mays, AIA

I think you are correct when it comes to the different scopes of responsibility between a licensed designer and a licensed contractor. One builds to the drawings and specs and the other designs and specifies the work in the contract document. It seems from experience that specifying all work needs to be in “ADA compliance” as a blanket statement tends to reverse these rolls with the contractor trying to figure out how to lenghten a land locked hypotenuse of a slope so he can build it successfully based on his experience. This also goes for placement of components and submittals in specifications they too must allow for some tolerances in order to provide for a successful outcome.

29

To: Mr. George A. Everding

The work to provide reliable best practices for buffers in barrier free design have been established by field experience in repeated layouts using various barrier free compliant surfaces that are smooth, stable, firm, and slip resistant, such as raised boardwalks (with less than spacing), asphalt, concrete, and on site mixed surfaces with hardener (the last is not very long lasting requiring a high level of maintenance). The method used was to lower the incline incrementally from providing a 0.2% buffer until the ramp surface, using minimal traditional concrete flatness techniques could be placed quickly and reliably in ANSI A117.1 compliance. The tool used to measure the layout and acceptance cost about $300.00 and is manufactured by MD Tools, called an ADA Slope Walker. The MD module is extremely reliable and used by the DOJ for site evaluation and has been accepted in Federal ADA court cases. Some Bosch levels also incorporate the MD module.

An accessible route as with other specialized surfaces should be specified to be compliant with the ANSI A117.1 standard. The layout and buffers incorporate workmanship and materials.

The maximum allowed buffers are from 0% to 8.3%, 0% to 5%, and -2.1% to +2.1%. The 2.1% can undulate plus or minus equaling a 2.1+ plus 2.1- overall waviness allowed with no abrupt vertical changes in elevation. Barrier free compliance is not based on geometry or averaging, it is based primarily on the physics of gravitational and frictional forces working on the subjects.

In field studies over the last 12 years the most successful design and layout buffers for an 8.33% ADA slope, is 7%,.for the 5% max. 4%, and for the 2.1% max., it is 1%. Minimal flatness techniques are required and limited manual work is stressed for concrete, to reduce undulations after strike off. These buffers traditionally attain about 98 to 99% compliant sloped surfaces. Reference Portlands Cement CT-011- 2001 - How to Build a Flat Ramp (revised 2010). The buffers work for the ranges of surfaces referenced in the first paragraph and include ceramic tile with less than grout lines.

The original standard criteria is based on a wide range of disabilities, and written by professionals specializing in disability such as; physical therapist, ergonomist, and bio-mechanical engineers.

The board of regents of the University of Illinois required the research to assure the components placed to facilitate access did not harm anyone. Acknowledgement is given here to the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign for the barrier free studies conducted from 1948 to about 1986, used to develop the ANSI A117.1 adopted by the feds for MGRAD, UFAS, ABA, and ADA.

30

An important thing to keep in mind is that the building official will not enforce ADA compliance or look for it in the permitting plan review.

31

That is NOT the case in California, Land of the ____ists.

Building officals were required to take on this charge as part an update to the Unhruh Act (1971, later in Chapter 11 in the code ~1981) and the ADA by an opinion of the State Attorney General in 1993~4.

32

Calif AG Opinion 93-203 makes it clear that the building departments do not have the authority to enforce the ADA but they are required to enforce the provisions of the ADA that have been adopted into California law and building standards.

http://search.doj.ca.gov/AGSearch/isysquery/8c432f76-f178-4acb-bb20-0ed8b5949793/1/doc/93-203.pdf#xml=http://search.doj.ca.gov:8004/AGSearch/isysquery/8c432f76-f178-4acb-bb20-0ed8b5949793/1/hilite/

33

Thanks for looking it up.