Not for the sake of being right individually, please look at
and see if you agree..
If so, please post your opinion, agreement or comments. This is a good chance [read- golden opportunity] for us!
Sorry-- you may not know about the link noted above.
It is the Building Code Discussion Group. Great resource good info;; good place to get answers.
You will need to log in to use or input the site-- please do so!!
This is a response posted on the site mentioned above;
“Put it this way: If the code authority was to issue ALL code requriements in purely GRAPHIC Form as a set of Drawings, then I might try to issue my permit application documents in purely graphic form as well. But if the code I need to confrom to need to be written out in a code book, I probably need a spec book too”.
Interesting concept and comment!!!
"
I posted a response on the NAFFA Codes forum that I think should be repeated here in part:
The IBC Commentary explains further under the definition for Construction Documents:
“To determine whether or not proposed construction is in compliance with code requirements, it is necessary that sufficient information be submitted to the building official for review. This typically consists of the drawings (floor plans, elevations, sections, details, etc.), specifications and product information describing the proposed work.”
IBC recognizes the role that specifications play as part of the construction documents.
It’s too bad the code officials don’t. Only one city in my region that I know of wants to see the project manual (spec.)
I’ve had to add duplicate info to drawings 'cause they can’t read a book.
Why does that surprise me? Architects, with rare exception, can’t read and write, they can only draw - poor dears.
Marc:
Let’s not simultaneously fool ourselves and alienate architects. They can, with rare exception, read and write. So can contractors.
Architects can write something that I cannot - my paycheck.
I am happy that they need specification writers.
Marc, I’m really interested to know your list of architects who CAN read and write-- please post since it apparently is a very short list. Thanks
Bye-the-bye, so glad to see all those architects and others who seem to be able to read and write working on this site!!!
I guess I should take umbridge with Marc’s comment since I’m an architect who writes specs. That means Marc that I can read, write, and draw. All of that without a computer.
I wrote an article on this topic, it’s expected to appear in “The Construction Specifier” in December.
You can download the article here. It’s listed under the “What’s new at specsandcodes.com” at the bottom of the page.
Ron, did you also submit it to the ICC for publication in their BUILDING SAFETY mag? I know you’ve had some conversations with them on similar issues, but this would be a great outreach for them and CSI.
Yes, I did. They acknowledged receipt of the article, but did not give me a publication date.
Great article. I do wonder, as stated in the last paragraphs the “duty” of the plans examiner. I’m sure that they have some kind of generalized civic responsibility but if they miss something - even something major - my understanding is that it’s still my butt on the line.
I have to jump through their hoops (for weeks on end) concede to requirements that are clearly inconsistent with the code (not city ordinance mind you but absolutely NOT what the book says) and they have no liability or responsibility what-so-ever.
Now Im off topic and ranting. Dont even get me started on fire marshals! My God! Mumble mumble mumble..
PS Im an architect too and, I can read, write, draw, fight with contractors, and still drink beer with them afterwards
And I sing and dance but that’s another story; He said modestly.
The word is spelled “umbrage.”
Marc:
From a “legal” point of view, “duty” is exactly what what the plans examiner has when reviewing the construction documents–review is required by law. However, like design professionals, that duty doesn’t require perfection. If a plaintiff can prove negligence on the part of the AHJ, they can be sued in some states. The typical law that covers this is called “Public Duty Doctrine” (See my article on inspections, which covers this subject). In most cases, if the law doesn’t expressly give immunity to building departments and their staffs, then they can be sued for negligence.
Holly-
It’s umbrage, unless you are a fan of Harry Potter, where J R Rowling created a wonderfully evil character with the cleverly pun-full name of Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton in the recent movie). I vote we change the spelling!
I didn’t say I could spell.
Marc: I would think being able (and willing) to sing and dance are as important as any other ability you may have. Enjoying life and having fun are more important than the job to me.
Inspectional Services may have a duty to properly review documents and to perform site inspections. However, their familiarity with the design cannot possibly be as thorough as the architect, nor–like the architect–are they on the site continuously, or even as often as the architect. So if they have provided a reasonable level of effort to do the job, it would be difficult to demonstrate negligence. An example is the Station nightclub fire in Rhode Island. The town was accused of inadequate inspections because they never cited the flammable urethane foam on the walls–in place for at least three years. (The foam burned after being ignited by pyrotechnics. 100 people were dead in less than 90 seconds.) To my knowledge, the town was never found liable.
This thread has exposed a deep and prevailing need for some new insight and education about codes, code agencies, and the legal status of all concerned parties.
If design professionals ignore the code, the code folks should not provide desigN services using public funds-- period! They should reject the project or list code compliance discrepancies [with no solutions]and return to the dp!
The code inspector carries the duty to inspect for compliance of actual work to approved[!!!] documents [plans and specs,by defintion-- see Ron’s comments].
Owners persist in revising their faciltieis [i.e., flammable foam, etc.] as they see fit or the need. It is selfish greed as well as hazardous, and most of the time perceived as “fix-up-paint-up” work, and thus not subject to permit. Often, WRONG!!
We also need to separate duties of buiding code officials and fire officials. Basically the dividing line of their responsiblity is the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Once the project is CO’d and becomes standing building stock, it “belongs” to the fire service.
That is not an accusation or exuse, but the fire service is as much strained for funding, support, people and time for inspections as the code folks. Raise fees and taxes to support their necessary[!!!] work-- sure, if you can withstand the “fire in the kitchen” of public comment, neigh on to disdain.
We all on the design side, get one chnce to get the project right-- in our documents; and remember though, NO BUILDING IS SAFER THAN AT THAT MOMENT JUST PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY!!!
Much more can and should be said-- nowhere near enough time here.
Oh, yes, I’m a former code official too, among my many sins!
Gonald
Comments on your article for the Code corner.
Your support of the use of contract documents that differ from the permit documents is likely to be the most contentious concept in your article. Please note that there are several agencies in California OSHPD and DSA that are prepared to shut the job down if they find the Contractor using documents that do not have their approval.
I agree some individuals are creative with issueing interpretation sketches and there is probably no completed projects were there are not some understandings between the designers and the Contractor. But the legal reality is that any change to the CD’s should be submitted for the AHJ’s review.
When you issue drawings without Building Department review you are making a judgement that the change deals with something that does not impact code compliance. While you may be right you can cause a lot of difficulty if later the building official disagrees since it is his decision to make that determination.
If when the buiding official later finds out about the differences and requires the work be corrected you might find your firm liable for the cost of the correction. Is it worth it.
Gark 
All my articles are written based on the IBC “as published” and do not include amendments that may me adopted by local jurisdictions–and California seems to have more than all the other 49 states put together.
It may be contentious, but if Section 106 is left unamended, a jurisdiction would be hard pressed to find a provision in the section that “requires” the contractor to use the documents that were “approved.” Is the contractor or owner going to be required to reproduce the approved, stamped set for issuance to all the subcontractors? Hardly. The approved set must be on the jobsite, but it doesn’t need to be in the hands of the contractor and every subcontractor during construction.
The drawings cannot indicate every conceivable condition the contractor may face in the field. So, if the contractor asks for a detail to clarify a condition, the architect can do it, so long as he doesn’t make a change that is “not in compliance with the approved construction documents” (Section 106.4). The detail technically “changes” the construction documents (a contract modification per A201), but it doesn’t really “change” the project’s compliance with the approved construction documents–it just provides further information for the contractor. Does the building officially really want to see every ASI, CO, or CCD that is issued during a project? Does he really want to see that sketch that shows the tile pattern in the restroom? The likely answer will be “no.”
However, the architect needs to use his/her professional judgement when issuing changes. For example, the contractor encounters a unique joint condition in a fire-resistance-rated wall that isn’t covered in the CDs; he issues a RFI. The architect, after reviewing page after page of the UL Directory, cannot find an assembly with a similar condition. So the manufacturer of other joint systems on the project prepares an “Engineering Judgement” or “EJ.” It would be in the architect’s best interest to have the EJ reviewed by the building official before issuing it to the contractor.
What the code provisions are trying to avoid are changes that materially modify the construction documents that may have an impact on the compliance with the code: move a wall (could affect egress width or occupant load of a space), change wall or ceiling finishes (could affect surface burning characteristics), change wall construction materials (could affect fire-resistive requirements), etc. And, as I stated in the article, even if the documents show a condition that exceeds the requirements of the code, if a change is issued that modifies that condition to “just meet the minimum requirements” also needs to be approved.
Depending on the jurisdiction, there may be a policy procedure in place for submitting changes. It could be as easy as having the jurisdiction’s field inspector review the proposed change.
But, there is doubt, get it approved.