I have spoken with Colin as to the most logical discussion heading for this issue. He suggested the Specifications section because of the heavy traffic volume.
I have witnessed and encountered (and bled all over) a disturbing trend by firms and drafters to re-write sections of codes as notes on the drawings.
Here is an example and I quote: “THE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE ICC/ANSI A1178.1 - 2003 CODE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE, EVEN IF NOT SPECIFICALLY DETAILED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.”
I particulary like the second sentence. In effect, the contractor shall provide at his/her option anything not detailed or specified but which could be reasonalbly be inferred as being requried by the Work. Gag.
The first note after this opening salvo of a weasel clause is “1. FLOOR SURFACES SHALL BE STABLE, FIRM, AND, SLIP RESISTANT.”
When I read this drivel, it leads me to conclude the contractor will provide a floor surface that is stable, firm, and slip resistant. The list goes on and on transfering the design to the contractor.
I could go on but I bore you.
Have all y’all encountered these notes and what have you done to prevent them from reoccuring?
Thanks,
Wayne (Freezing in Seattle)
PS Please excuse the rant. I have not been able to ride my H-D for over 7 days and I am getting testy.
Actually, all this does is give the contractor the automatic out of ‘conflict of documents’. That is, it tells him he has to comply in one place and tells him elsewhere (if poorly designed) that he does not.
The bit about, ‘even if not specifically detailed’ only applies if there is no detailing at all. If it is incorrectly detailed, you have the conflict of documents and the contractor is off the hook entirely.
And if the contractor feels that it is too difficult an instance to comply with, he sends in an RFI stating that the options are too varied, that he has priced a minimal solution, and anything else is an extra.
There are many other ways that a contractor who so wished could use this to their own interest and at the architects or owners expense.
If you choose to put the burden on the contractor for something that is not purely performance, then you are likely to get just what you asked for, not what you intended.
You need to move to DC for the winter - we had the 70s here today. From the past several weeks of weather, we have some trees blooming, daffodils are up some 6 inches tall.
I hear you. I have these eliminated as much as possible. The problem as I see it is that sometimes the jurisdictions require these ridiculous notes. The worst offender I’ve encountered is the Division of the State Architect (DSA) in California.
I’ve been involved in a similar discussion on the Building Code Discussion Group where I made a similar complaint. On that discussion, I used the requirement by many jurisdictions to show details of firestopping using specific UL system numbers. The response I received was that it makes it easier for the inspector to verify the installation.
The problem with this is that, 1) UL systems are very proprietary, and, unless you’re working on a non-public project, you could spend hours researching multiple systems to keep it competitive; 2) even if you specify just one system, what are the chances the contractor will make a request for substitution if permitted to do so? (very likely); and 3) unless the project is very small, there is a limited chance that you’ll be able to detail and provide UL system numbers for every conceivable penetration that the contractor will likely create.
Because of those situations, providing the information on drawings will more likely confuse the inspector and create problems. Let the inspector inspect based on approved submittals, which the contractor is required (or should be required) to keep at the project site.
My solution would be to specify the types of products you’ll accept, and let the contractor submit systems that comply the type of penetration and fire-resistance rating.
But firestopping isn’t my only issue. However, like Wayne, I don’t want to bore you (I probably already have).
Oh, indeed it is the jurisdictions - but regardless of who requires the notes, if the design not compliant, then it leaves a whole for the contractor.
Most of the jurisdictions that we practice in have now started requiring actual copies of the UL Designs be put on the drawings. And that they be contract drawings issued to the contractor, not just for permit purposes. It is notl imited to fire stopping, but includes all the wall partition types…and the requirement is to put the full UL design on the drawings. So we download the pdf from the UL site and put it right on the drawings.
They won’t issue the permit without it, and again, its not just a drawing for permit review but for actual issuing to the contractor.
And the reason is just like Ron states. Each jurisdiction has said that they want it there for the use by their inspectors so that they don’t have to carry around the UL book and to assure that the actual UL requirements are right there on site for them.
From a design point, it makes us go to additional lengths to assure that the UL design that we copy onto the drawings is one that covers the specified products and applications shown. Some tests exclude some manufacturer’s. So we sometimes list multiple test for the same assembly just to get the manufacturer’s covered.
And of course they often list products and manufacturers that we don’t specify - and sometimes definitely don’t want. So we add a note that the listings are for the UL designs only and are specifically not a listing of manufactuers and products - that the only acceptable products/manufacturers are in the project manual.
Firestopping though is a whole different can of worms since each UL designation is a separate manufacturer and product. But we just choose one for these pages and put it there.
I see and hear no end to this continuing nonsense of uninformed code officials dictating design professionals’ practices that are counter to the national standards that we spend so much time teaching to the industry. We need to find some positive steps to take to reverse this liability-ripe trend. On a local and personal level: inviting code staff to participate in CSI membership and CDT education. On a national level, a commitment from CSI to provide liason to the relevant code bodies. This is a decade long project. The alternative is contractual chaos and a continuing erosion of design professionals’ authority over their own work.
I would re-prioritize Mr. Gilligan’s list into 2), 4), 3), and then 1)
We have to know what we want and what we are talking about, specifically, and beyond personal pet peeves. We need a unified position and direction. And this needs to be strongly founded.
Also, we need to face the fact that while we may talk to ICC and other “groups”, the individual code official is still autonomous and can act in ways he/she sees fit and which the jurisdiction supports. This, of course, has been the crux of the lack of uniformity in codes for years-- the local “amendments” and the local officials. This cannot be allowed to be unfettered, however.
Fundamentally, the code official accepcts the documentation submitted, but has the authority to ask for added data to illustrate points of needed compliance. We and particularly our younger colleagues, need to understand and resolve in our own minds what should be shown to both code official and contractor to establish the compliance required.
Yes, I am a former code official, also!
For any one interetsed i did a monogrpah for CSI several years ago about codes and their concepts that impact the documents-- will share.
With regard to the “uninformed code officials dictating design professionals’ practice”, I recently suggested, only half jokingly, that we buy a copy of the Building Code and staple it to the Project Manual as an annex to the contract. It would at least avoid the long list of AHJ required notes that clutter our drawings.
I’ve always wondered if Architects and Engineers were the only professionals to undergo the type of outside scrutiny in order to do our jobs. Can you imagine needing an operation to remove a tumor and the doctor is delayed because some public agency doesn’t like the direction of his proposed cut? Why are we the only professionals that are not allowed to apply their professional expertise without the interference of outside agencies? Makes one wonder.
With regard to the UL designs on the drawings, a most ridiculous requirement, have any of the AHU’s heard of Palm Pilots? We have project managers that download the pdf of the Project Manual onto their PDA’s and have them available when they are at the site on the fifth floor of a building. This could be done by AHJ’s for the UL books and other documents, as well. The cluttering of drawings with details that are published elsewhere is a waste of time and energy, not to mention paper.
But all kidding aside, this needs to be a CSI directed project, on a national scale, to attempt to get the AHJ’s to understand good professional practice.
Any and all discussion is good, but we need to really understand the whole of the situation. I am not, in this, defending the errant code officials but neither in this arena can we be unfettered-- regulations are in place!!
Will advertise, though, the convention education session [Friday, June 22, 2:15PM, Legal/Regulation track]] when a session will be presented on the very issue of codes-- and their “fit” with specs. The speakers might surprise you, the information may amaze you-- and you might find the time well spent!!
Thanks, Ralph, for the plug for our presentation! [BTW, we need to start cranking on it ;-)]
Actually, I believe the beginnings of Mark’s No. 4 (liaisons with code writing organizations) has already started. At the SW Region conference last year, Gene Valentine (CSI President-Elect) mentioned that CSI was contacted by the International Code Council (ICC) about creating some form of relationship; however, he didn’t have any details to relay. I expressed that I wanted to be involved as much as possible.
Hopefully, this could lead to resolving problems such as those mentioned above.
The purpose of step 1) was to gather intelligence on the problem, not to convince anybody. Failure to gain insight can result in the effort being misfocused and potentially failing.
I would also add step “2a) Obtain support for position from other organizations”. The more organizations supporting this initiative the more effective we will be.
The focus here has been on placing unnecessary information on the drawings but we should also be addressing the policy of some jurisdictions that they do not check the specifications and that the specifications are not part of the permit documents.
The AHJs are influencing the methodologies we use to prepare constuction documents and many requirements fly in the face of reasonable and well established deleivery methods for output.
Part of the problem is “exculpatory” notes on drawings that to me give the appearance of shifting responsibility to the contractor.
The economy is vibrant in my area and there is dearth of experience to fill the roles. Anyone who is vertical and has a heart beat is hired.
When I see notes such as “1. FLOOR SURFACES SHALL BE STABLE, FIRM, AND, SLIP RESISTANT.” inexperienced interior designers or architects will assume it is not their responsibility to select the floor surface but that the note was included for information for the AHJ (like a reminder we actually read the regs). This practice blurs the division of responsibility. The result, we receive RFIs from contractors requesting clarification. Under practical circumstances these RFIs would be considered frivilous.
I do not want to air my dirty laundry in this thread but I am looking for advise on how to rid the drawings of exculpatory notes.
Don’t put them on your drawings.
And influence your office peers to follow your lead.
This is a perfect example of the lack of education and understanding of construction basics and how they need to be presented on contract documents. CAD and BIM cannot solve this so long as they need human input. And best we get better at training and educating humans early in their academic careers about all this. This is NOT an electronics problem-- it is a people, education, experience and knowledge problem!
Wayne, you need to bring this to the attention of the principals in your firm and get their backing. This shouldn’t be a hard sell, particularly since they presumably must seal these drawings. Be ready to educate the staff.
I know I am preaching to the converted and the choir but I had to vent my spleen.
CAD has compounded the problem. No one since the early 90’s is trained in hand drafting, composing sheets, saying it once in the most logical location, imperative language, schedules, the list goes on. Colleges and universities should require hand drawings (freehand and with drafting machine) for two years before students are let loose with any CAD software, on any platform.
Thanks for listening.
Perhaps we can create a firm with minimum age of 50 and pay very handsomely.
Had a colleague a few years ago who asked, “How is it that years ago we were able to do twice the work, in half the time, with 1/3 of the staff?”
To me, and as others noted in this thread, this is but one aspect of practice that CSI can and should “engage” with our colleagues [and distractors] in the other professions. And there is no reason not to expand that effort to a much wider approach, i.e., contract documents production as a whole.
The issues involved impact far too many people and in adverse ways. But to clean up one document or one aspect is not going to cut it. For our professions to survivie we need to create a “locked-arms” combine from academics to code officials and their politicos to re-direct how construction is approached-- in the really big picture.
Speak to me-- any time; any one.
This is serious and important stuff!!!
On a similar note…Division of State Architect (DSA) in CA will no longer accept any roll of drawings over 25 pounds. Most of our projects are at least three vols because of that requirement. Apparently there are several workman comp claims their staff has filed because of back and hand injuries.
Another argument for electronic submittals and reviews!