After sharing this thread with some others that I thought would find it of interest, a friend with whom I serve on a professional committee asked me to submit the following comments:
For almost 3,800 years architects have been ranting about CDs and local jurisdictions - ever since King Hammurabi wrote his Code of Laws circa 1792BC. The Building Codes & Regulations Committee of our professional organization has a checklist of what the code says is supposed to be on the CDs for complete documents. This checklist is being used by many local architects and jurisdictions and has just recently been endorsed by the Code Officials Conference of Michigan. It is expected to be endorsed by the State of Michigan in the near future and may well become a standard of care for architects and building officials.
The checklist itemizes the code section numbers for what is supposed to be on the CDs; plan reviewers are not supposed to ask for anything beyond the checklist (Special conditions exempted). We all have to remember that building codes address many issues: one is the content of the CDs, the design of the building and its construction are other facets. Plans and specs need only show what the code requires and how we show it is our decision - at least in Michigan. Anyone wanting a copy should contact Gale Forbes at www.ghfaa@aol.com.
“…checklist of what the code says is supposed to be on the CDs for complete documents.”
I discussed this topic at our recent Specifiers Share Group luncheon. It appears not all AHJs in my area play by the same rules.
Theoretically, we all include what is required in or on the CDs with much of the required information in the Project Manual, not on the drawings.
Several AHJs want the code requirements rewritten verbatim somewhere on the drawings even though it is adequately covered in a technical spec section or Division 01 of the PM.
We have projects in many local jurisdictions (Seattle, Bellevue, Kirkland, Bothell, Issaquah, Kent, Renton, Everett, etc). We have defaulted to the worst case scenario jurisdiction. Everybody gets the same package.
We have the problem that Wayne notes also. I had one Plan Review Consultant who served many communities once tell me that he never opened a spec book for info - although since discussing this issue in more depth, he has revised his approach.
The goals of the “Checklist” approach was to be a reference document that the various communities would have available for Architects and Engineers to obtain before starting a project to know what that community’s expectations were regarding construction documents before starting a project. It was developed and reviewed to be compliant with specific code requirements for construction document content - not more and not less. It also does not dictate method unless there are specific requirements in the code in this regard. An additional goal was a tool for jurisdictions to raise the bar for those who submitted very inadequate documents.
Gale’s e-mail address is GHFAA@aol.com. He is semi-retired from the firm that bears his name - however he recently told me that he goes in to the office every day. The “Checklist” was a major interest to him, so I am sure that he will respond as soon as he has an opportunity.
I endorse your idea of raising the bar. Infact Seattle DPD has a preferred list of submitters who routinely submit clear, concise, complete and correct building permit documents. Such firms are assigned a unique ID number.