Specs and Code Officials - Was "Isn't This Interesting"

Archive of Older Topics Archive - Specifications Discussions #3
1

Part of a discussion on another web site, as to whether or not code agencies should include specifications in their “plan” reviews, prior to issuing permits;

When I ran a code agency we asked for specs, etc. when we either knew more data existed or where we needed more inforamtion. By asking for specs we were able to drastically reduce the number of discrepancies and inquires we had to make to augment the drawings.

Maybe more agencies need to understand that it is PLANS AND SPECS that constitute contract documents, and not just drawings. And I would venture to say that they all have authority to ask for more information.

You simply cannot know all about a project, even for just code review purposes, with just the drawings.

Response to above:
hogwash. a project can be adequately reviewed for permit with just plans and no specifications. might need some care and additional notes, but it can be done. done it for years.

Hmmmmm!

2

In Wisconsin, the state review process requires 4 oringinals of the drawings, wet sealed and signed, and 1 original of the Project Manual, wet sealed and signed. I have yet to figure out why the different number, but at least they DO require the specifications (Project Manual).

Of course, you could put all the information from the Project Manual on the drawings, just as you could put all the information found on the drawings in the Project Manual - but why? Why mis-use one method of expression for another less able to convey the information? One picture may indeed be worth a thousand words, yet words are used on the pictures with the understanding that the picture alone can be misunderstood: rooms must be named and numbered, cladding described, etc. So unless the remainder of the information for those materials is placed on the drawings, some sort of written explanation needs to accompany the pictures/drawings, just as those pictures best explain where the materials go and how many there are.

3

I think for some its just a mater or how much paper they accumulate.

In the DC area the various county jurisdictions all have somewhat different requirements. Most do not want a copy of the project manual.

Many of them REQUIRE that the door hardware products section and the door hardware set schedule be put onto the drawings and will not review same in 8-1/2 by 11 format separate or in the PM. This makes us create a series of drawings that go only to them and no one else as we don’t want to issue these to the GC.

William

4

This old head can’t recall this morning, but isn’t there another thread on here about code agency requirments?

We are running into more and more strange requests in regard to what info is submitted and in what format.

To me this is a developing issue [as they say on TV news] that really is an imposing item on both professionals [in regard to fee and effort required] and our clients who must pay the added cost for no particular reason other than code agency convenience. That is not to infer [since I WAS A CODE OFFICIAL IN ANOTHER LIFE] that we should obviate or confound the agencies but there needs to be better understanding on botht sides-- idea; a CSI “conversation” [education session?],in depth, through our ICC contact!!Won’t chnage every agency but would provide better basis for those interested.

Also, professionals need to better understand the authority of the agencies and recognize unwarranted and improper requirements that need to be challenged!

5

One reason so many jurisdictions will neither read nor even accept specs may be that they are “plan checkers” (and proud of it…)

There are courses in “blueprint reading,” but do any of these include “spec reading”? Much of the construction industry, including the plan checking community, still regards specs as extraneous or emergency-use-only, like the instruction books that come with almost everything.

People tend to have a strong aversion to reading thick books, particularly those that aren’t page-turners–especially when dry and technical.

6

Ralph-

The Other Thread

http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/23/2575.html

7

When an agency decides not to review the specifications they have made a decision not to review and hence enforce certain portions of the building code. It might be interesting to ask them what parts of building code they will not be enforcing.

William what is the status of the door hardware schedule that you submit to the building department but not to the Contractor? If it is considered by the agency as part of the permit documents then the contractor would not have a full set of the Building Permit.

8

At the time it goes to permit, which is typically the 75% point, we do not have the hardware done at all. We do our door hardware internally, not by consultant. Many doors move around, get added/deleted, before the final goes. I like to do the door hardware in the last 2 weeks of the project.

So what goes to the permit review is a conceptual set. This is something made up in our master that provides different kinds of doors situations and whether they swing in or out. Typically that is fine by them. We only have one jurisdiction (currently) where they want to see the ‘real’ hardware sets.

Even when we do the final hardware and the permit required a ‘real’ schedule, at the time of the final there are so many differences that based on changed doors that these pages are obsolete anyway and are not related to any permit comments.

The sheets also state that they are reproductions of the specifications and include the section numbers on them.

There is no way that I am going to have the contractor holding drawings that have duplicated and obviously very conflicting information on them.

We don’t have a problem doing this in any of the various jurisdictions we practice in - Mid-Atlantic area, Texas and other southwest states.

William

9

The rationale I have heard from people that deal with the City of Houston is that they record (microfilm or digitize) the Drawings, but they think that doing the same for the Specifications would be exhorbitant.

Design professinals in the Houston area get many requests for additional information that could be answered by having a copy of the specifications; however, many times the folks downtown want actual Product Data, not really understanding that many of these are comodity items for which there are a number of products that will meet the spec. They also don’t really understand that at the time of the request, that particular item may not have been bought out so Product Data on the specific item to be used in construction is not really available.

10

More insight [???] from “Hogwash”!

“…stop your preaching about “properly or prudently” [about document review], as there are cases when specs can cause more problems than they are worth.”

11

He must’ve been a contractor before being a code official.

12

Nah, if he were a contractor, he wouldn’t know what the specs contained UNLESS he went to court where they read the specs.

13

well for that matter, code officials can cause a lot more problems than they are worth –

14

Easy Ms. Whitacre-- been there; done that!!!
And was decent professional and effective.

How about saying, “SOME code officials…”

There, I agree

15

Yea, I have one that “rewrote” exiting requirements without actually adopting them formally, and required empty TI space to be treated like an assembly occupancy.

I guess there are idiots in every profession.

But back to the main point. Project Manuals (or are they now “Specs” because the AIA said so) are now required to be stamped by the architect per new WA state law. Will that change code officials requirements? don’t know yet.

At least, unlike other architects and contractors, I know code officials can read.

16

Maybe it’s time to stop calling the service “Plan Review” and start calling it “Design Review,” to emphasize that the code official has a responsibility to review the code compliance of the design, not just the portion of the design that appears on the drawings.

Last thing I knew, a whole host of code related requirements appear in the specifications, rather than on the drawings, including:

Special inspections provisions for Earthwork, concrete foundations and footings, engineered masonry, seismic anchoring of masonry, structural steel, steel joists, steel deck, engineered wood structures, EIFS, and fireproofing.

Engineering design requirements for structural steel, steel joists, cold formed metal framing, stairs and railings, wood trusses.

Metal railing live load requirements, stair and railing accessibility provisions, requirements regarding fire-retardant treated wood, vapor retarder use, fire performance of building insulation including plastic foam insulation, restrictions on use of EIFS, fire performance of roofing materials, use of thermal barrier related to plastic foam insulation, firestopping and fire-resistive joints.

Positive pressure tested fire-rated doors/frames, intumescent seals for door stiles, egress requirements and opening limitations for doors, accessibility provisions for doors, safety provisions for automatic doors,

Had enough? There’s plenty more.

A significant problem arises when a building official begins choosing from among this list and requires information to appear on the drawings “because our plan reviewers don’t read the specifications.” This happens a great deal, all around the country. It occurs because the code reviewers are not properly trained to review architects’ instruments of service.

As I’ve said before in postings, the work to resolve this problem will begin when CSI and ICC exchange liasons at the highest levels and maintain communication at all levels of their organizations. Until then, it’s just late night postings in forums.

17

The International Code Council is contributing the the problem. They offer certification for inspection officials, and one such certification is “Building Plans Examiner.” (Link: Building Plans Examiner) While it is clear that it is code-based, and many elements could not be determined from plans, the nomenclature still exists. On the other hand, it is true that the most basic elements of code review are found on the plans–use, occupancy, floor area limitations, egress–you do need the specs to go much further. I would be curious to know just how much about the organization of contract documents is included in the ICC’s training. Does anyone know?

18

I’ll put a dime, John, on little if any at all.

Their orientation is simply not in that direction.And there is EXACTLY where we spec writers need to be-- CSI?

19

As an ICC Certified Building Plans Examiner myself, I can tell you that there is zero, zip, zilch on contract documents. The certification is based purely on interpreting and applying the building code to various situations. They did provide parts of drawings to use in answering some questions. I’m currently studying for the Certified Building Official (CBO) exam, and the materials they’ve provided also does little to promote understanding of contract documents.

About three months ago I approached CSI president-elect Gene Valentine about me being a liaison with the ICC. Last year Gene mentioned CSI was contacted by ICC about forming some kind of relationship–I’m not familiar with the details, but it was the reason for my follow-up with Gene in February.

Hopefully, there will be more to follow…

20

CSI needs to be more active regards ICC and the IBC. The issue of whether specifications are checked or what must be placed on the drawings is only part of the problem.

We need to weigh in on building code provisions that make Masterformat irrelevant (see ACI 530.1) and provisions that potentially conflict with the General Conditions and Division 1 provisions.

If CSI decides to take a more active role I would be willing to contribute.