# Boiler plated plans



## gbhammer (Nov 3, 2011)

Am I in the minority for requiring RDP's to remove general and keyed notes that that do not apply or are not actually located on the page?


----------



## brudgers (Nov 3, 2011)

Minority or majority doesn't matter...you are still in the wrong. I'm not saying it's good practice, I'm just saying that enforcing good drawing practice is outside the scope of the typical building department's authority.


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 3, 2011)

So do you think that comments should even be written?

For instance the DP is doing some commercial work because the housing industry has taken a dive, and he throws every general note he has ever used on the set of plans. Now this nice little commercial building is being designed to the IRC or maybe BOCA or probably a mix of both, just saying he should get a comment back telling him to remove the bogus notes.

You think I should just send it back and say 'Not Approved please see the submitted complaint to the Architectural Review Board'.


----------



## mjesse (Nov 3, 2011)

If there is conflicting or incorrect information, is should be removed. That is different than "enforcing good drawing practice"

I see a lot of boiler plate info, if it is extraneous or not applicable I don't have a problem with it. If it's "wrong" it needs to go.

mj


----------



## cda (Nov 3, 2011)

so when you see a comment like will meet ""city of BBBB" requirements  and they are building in the " city of LLLLLL"    does the comment need to be changed??


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 3, 2011)

I get it.

We should not be "enforcing good drawing practice", it just drives me nuts to read a set of plans 100 pages thick and find that every other page has 10-20 extraneous keyed notes. I read them all I look for them all and if they aren't on the page it is a big waste of my time, and when I stamp them and send the plans into the field it may be create a waste of the inspectors time.

At what point is our time worth a comment to the RDP. :banghd


----------



## atomahutna (Nov 3, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Minority or majority doesn't matter...you are still in the wrong. I'm not saying it's good practice, I'm just saying that enforcing good drawing practice is outside the scope of the typical building department's authority.


Comment # 423:  Please revise note: "code analysis per IBC 2006 U.N.O." to reflect the currently adopted code year.


----------



## mjesse (Nov 3, 2011)

cda said:
			
		

> so when you see a comment like will meet ""city of BBBB" requirements  and they are building in the " city of LLLLLL"    does the comment need to be changed??


In my opinion, yes.


----------



## righter101 (Nov 3, 2011)

I have dealt with this issue a lot.  Similar to the "stairs to be build per code".

If there are a ton of outdated boiler plate notes, one option is to note that the cited references are incorrect and current codes will apply and the contractor is responsible for knowing them.

Another option, that I have used, is found in chapter 1 of the IRC (similar in the IBC)

R106.1.1 Information on construction documents. Construction

documents shall be drawn upon suitable material.

Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted

when approved by the building official. Construction documents

shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location,

nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail

that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant

laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined

by the building official.

Sufficient clarity to indicate ........that it will conform to the provisions of THIS code.

You can infact request that they change or update them.

One issue though, is that the project may have been in for design under 2006, but when submitted, we had adopted 2009.

Sufficient clarity.  I use that as a catch all for generally poor submissions.

Just my $0.02


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Nov 3, 2011)

IMO...If it is a conflicting or non-applicable code/standard being referenced for design criteria that is not specifically called out in the submitted construction documents, then you are not wrong to have them remove it (i.e., handrail requirements in the IRC are different than the IBC and have no place being in a commercial plan set).  I would also add, that if an RDP is going to reference a design based upon an adopted code from another jurisdiction, it is the RDP's responsibility to equivicate the referenced code with that of the jurisdiction they are working in, especially in regards to amendments.  It is not the plans examiners job to verify that the State of Florida's 2007 IBC and amendments is equivalent to that of a local jurisdictions 2006 IBC and amendments in Nebraska.   On the other hand, if it is an additional reference, and is noted that the locally adopted codes are to be adhered to in the event of a conflict, or as the most stringent, then they could write in their mama's name as a part of their boiler plate and I wouldn't care.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 3, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> , it just drives me nuts to read a set of plans 100 pages thick and find that every other page has 10-20 extraneous keyed notes.


  I doubt the plans are why you are nuts...


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 3, 2011)

:agree Takes one to know one....



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> I doubt the plans are why you are nuts...


----------



## brudgers (Nov 3, 2011)

I'm not just a member...


----------



## chris kennedy (Nov 3, 2011)

I recently finished a large commercial project and one of the boiler plates said;

"Contact UNCLE before any excavation."

UNCLE hasn't been our locators for about a decade. Makes me wonder which notes I really need to comply with when I see kind of garbage.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 3, 2011)

chris kennedy said:
			
		

> I recently finished a large commercial project and one of the boiler plates said;"Contact UNCLE before any excavation."
> 
> UNCLE hasn't been our locators for about a decade. Makes me wonder which notes I really need to comply with when I see kind of garbage.


Boy did you bring back memories with UNCLE. I remember talking with Mr. Shelton when he was starting up his locator company. He was ahead of the times back in the 80's


----------



## ICE (Nov 3, 2011)

How about the extraneous drawings?  What's green about wasting all that paper?  Is it all about the sizzle because the steak is meager?

Goofy things like a front elevation for a rear addition that is obscured, a complete floor plan of the house for a patio cover, section drawings that have nothing to do with the proposed work, thirty-six detail drawings with fourteen referenced, makes me think that the DP is up to something.

I have encountered several pages of elevator details on a single story building plan.

Recently, I pointed to a footing detail that showed the depth to be 24".  The "contractor" pointed to a different detail that showed the depth to be 18".  The 18" detail was for an interior footing which this building lacked.  The contractor thought that the plans are a smörgåsbord of choices and he picked that one.  That is not the first time, nor will it be the last.  We know the difference but this industry should appease the lowest common denominator.

I was inspecting a senior housing complex and found an acoustical note that stated that all plumbing pipes shall be isolated from framing.  Unfortunately I found it during a roughs inspection and the builder missed it.  His argument for missing it was the size of the plans and that there were notes scattered throughout.  The rolled plans must have been ten inches thick.  I advised him that when he approaches my office manager he should remind him that most of the future occupants can't hear anyway.


----------



## peach (Nov 5, 2011)

I have no problem with boiler plate plans.. just scratch out the details which don't apply (if it happens to be the entire sheet, please pull it out).  Same with standard notes and details.  No need to have 50 pages of plans for a simple tenant fit out.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 5, 2011)

I ask for the applicant to clean up the submittal. If I don't need it or don't want it, I ask for it to be remove and resubmitted. All three sets. I actually like to have just one set submitted as a pre-review so I am not throwing out so much paper. I can't think of too many projects that go through without some amount of reworking.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 7, 2011)

ICE said:
			
		

> Goofy things like a front elevation for a rear addition that is obscured, a complete floor plan of the house for a patio cover, section drawings that have nothing to do with the proposed work,


All part of the minimum requirements checklist of a building department somewhere and without which plans shall not cross the counter.


----------



## permitguy (Nov 7, 2011)

I don't call it enforcing "good drawing practice".  I call it enforcing "sufficient clarity".  Sorry, but you aren't going to bog down the operation of this department and cost the taxpayers more money than justified all so you can bill your client a few more dollars than the project was actually worth.  If due dilligence can catch an unpublished code interpretation, it can certainly catch which boiler plate details may be omitted from a drawing before submittal.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 7, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> I don't call it enforcing "good drawing practice".  I call it enforcing "sufficient clarity".  Sorry, but you aren't going to bog down the operation of this department and cost the taxpayers more money than justified all so you can bill your client a few more dollars than the project was actually worth.  If due dilligence can catch an unpublished code interpretation, it can certainly catch which boiler plate details may be omitted from a drawing before submittal.


Sure handling resubmittals and processing them through the building department saves the taxpayers money...and you get to make people dance.

But then again, maybe it is costing too much because you are overpaid?


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 7, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Sure handling resubmittals and processing them through the building department saves the taxpayers money...and you get to make people dance.But then again, maybe it is costing too much because you are overpaid?


The last thing I want to do is ...."make people dance".

It is absolutely wrong to come off as hostile to the general public and design professionals.

Do some AHJs get jaded and move in that direction; sure they do.

You have to ask why that happens, because most maybe not all of us who go into public service, enter into our jobs with nothing but the best of intentions.

I believe that most of the design professionals have every intention to the best job they can when they sit down do design a set of drawings. Some however slip just like some AHJs.

Back to the OP: the whole point was to see if I was going too far by asking for the extraneous notes to be removed from the plans. The notes that might confuse or waste the time of ‘any’ one involved in the processes of reading the plans.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Nov 7, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Sure handling resubmittals and processing them through the building department saves the taxpayers money...and you get to make people dance.


Not requiring plans to be submitted at all would save the taxpayers the most money, but then again maybe the RDPs are overpaid.


----------



## permitguy (Nov 7, 2011)

> Sure handling resubmittals and processing them through the building department saves the taxpayers money.


It takes me almost no time to tell you to remove notes and details that do not pertain to the project, or to tell you to correctly reflect the edition of the code the project was designed to.  Doing so will save much more time than it will cost the many individuals involved in the remainder of the project, including those who hold positions funded by taxpayers.  This thread already contains examples of the problems caused by "boiler plating".



> Back to the OP: the whole point was to see if I was going too far by asking for the extraneous notes to be removed from the plans. The notes that might confuse or waste the time of ‘any’ one involved in the processes of reading the plans.


No, you aren't going too far.  It is absolutely appropriate to do so.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 7, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> It takes me almost no time to tell you to remove notes and details that do not pertain to the project,


  Yes. That's probably why you do it rather than the job you are paid to do.


----------



## permitguy (Nov 7, 2011)

But it _is_ the job I'm paid to do.  There can be too little information so a reviewer can't verify compliance, or there can be so much gibberish present that a reviewer can't verify compliance.  Either plan should be rejected on the grounds that it lacks sufficient clarity.  If there are a couple of boiler plate notes that aren't wrong and don't hurt anything, then I wouldn't sweat it.  If they are so extraneous that I can't figure out what's going on (skilled as I am    ), then I'm going to have them removed.  I know you don't like it, but for the purpose of this discussion, that's just the way it is.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Nov 7, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Yes. That's probably why you do it rather than the job you are paid to do.


one more time for the record...and in your opinion, what is the job a plans examiner is paid to do?


----------



## tbz (Nov 7, 2011)

There is a jurisdiction we work in locally that has a simple letter that the submitter of the permit package is required to read and sign with each application.

It simply says, you the applicant have reviewed all the documents, all required documentation is within the documents and plans and that no unwarranted information is within the documents.

You will be billed for the review of all information submitted.

If you submitted documents with elevator information, they will bill you for that document to be reviewed, thus if there is no elevator in the building, you will still pay for the review and by the way, you will get the documents back to be re-submitted.

If you are a submitter that provides a long list of garbage to read your documents take a long time to be reviewed.

If you present a very well laid out set of documents, plans and engineering, your stuff just seems to fly through the department.

When they first started the clamp down, many a DP complained, but in time they just came around to it because clients started making the DP's reimburse them for the additional charges for the documents provided.

Like it or not, boiler plate documentation needs to be there for what is needed only, it takes less than an hour to do a basic document review and strike garbage for a DP who is organized on most light IBC and IRC projects.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 7, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> But it _is_ the job I'm paid to do.  There can be too little information so a reviewer can't verify compliance, or there can be so much gibberish present that a reviewer can't verify compliance.  Either plan should be rejected on the grounds that it lacks sufficient clarity.  If there are a couple of boiler plate notes that aren't wrong and don't hurt anything, then I wouldn't sweat it.  If they are so extraneous that I can't figure out what's going on (skilled as I am    ), then I'm going to have them removed.  I know you don't like it, but for the purpose of this discussion, that's just the way it is.


   Let me get this straight...you are certain which notes don't apply, but somehow cannot verify compliance because of their presence on the plans?  Yeah right.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 7, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> one more time for the record...and in your opinion, what is the job a plans examiner is paid to do?


   Determine if the design complies with code.   Let's be clear.

  The original argument wasn't that such a determination could not be made.

  It was that the code official has better things to do that to make that determination.


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 8, 2011)

Just to be clear, I started this post because I felt that the current set of plans that I am reviewing has far too many boiler plated keyed notes on each page. When you have a set of plans 134 pages thick, a spec manual as thick as the IBC, and almost every architectural page of the plans has boiler notes in excess of 10-20 notes that are not located on the page or they are wrong because they boiler plated the notes instead of creating notes that pertained to the document. It becomes a bit of a seek and find, and its no where near as fun as finding Waldo. I have not completed my review yet have not sent comments, and still: The architect just sent me a 63 page pdf with revisions, because the plans went out to bid and the contractors called him out on his mistakes. He has changed a few of the keyed notes that were blatantly wrong, but does not indicate that he will remove the notes that do not appear on the page.


----------



## mjesse (Nov 8, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> The architect just sent me a 63 page pdf with revisions, ...


That's a whole 'nuther problem right there.

I don't think Officials are asking too much to get a "complete" set to be stamped Approved.

That +/- 50% "do-over" would be enough for me to reject the entire first set. How can I approve pages 1-5, 27, 63-82, 95-98, and 134 when half are paper and half are PDF?

Brudgers, I agree with you on many things, but it's not reasonable to assume that EVERY DP has his act together, and it's ALWAYS the BO's problem. Just by percentages, there has to be some good BO's out there, no?

mj


----------



## brudgers (Nov 8, 2011)

mjesse said:
			
		

> That's a whole 'nuther problem right there.  I don't think Officials are asking too much to get a "complete" set to be stamped Approved.  That +/- 50% "do-over" would be enough for me to reject the entire first set. How can I approve pages 1-5, 27, 63-82, 95-98, and 134 when half are paper and half are PDF?  Brudgers, I agree with you on many things, but it's not reasonable to assume that EVERY DP has his act together, and it's ALWAYS the BO's problem. Just by percentages, there has to be some good BO's out there, no?  mj


  If you go back to my original response, I did not indicate that I believed the architect had his act together. Only that not having his act together was not a legitimate basis for denying a permit.  However, dealing with less than perfect plans is indeed always the BO's problem. It's why they make the big bucks.

  Look, I'm not unreasonable...63 pages of revisions is worthy of a "you can come down, pick up your plans and resubmit them with the changes, or you can wait for me to finish my review of the previous submittal and you can resubmit revised drawings addressing these comments along with any other when I'm done in a week or two," phone call.


----------



## permitguy (Nov 8, 2011)

> Let me get this straight...you are certain which notes don't apply, but somehow cannot verify compliance because of their presence on the plans? Yeah right.


I'll rephrase.  If they are so extraneous that I can't figure out what's going on (skilled as I am    ) in a reasonable amount of time, then I'm going to have them removed.  Sure, I could eventually verify compliance, but I do have responsibilities beyond this one set of plans.



> Look, I'm not unreasonable...63 pages of revisions is worthy of a "you can come down, pick up your plans and resubmit them with the changes, or you can wait for me to finish my review of the previous submittal and you can resubmit revised drawings addressing these comments along with any other when I'm done in a week or two," phone call.


Now you're getting it!  At some point it makes more sense to tell the architect that the project will get approved more quickly and the project will proceed much smoother if the gibberish is removed.

Granted, any two building officials may have different opinions about that tipping point.  I understand how that is frustrating, but at least we all agree that the tipping point exists.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 8, 2011)

No doubt that the cleaner the submittal, the faster it gets processes. This is not rocket science.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 8, 2011)

Any owner that signs a contract with the contractor before he has a permit is setting himself up for significant change orders but that is not the concern of the building official.

Brudgers is right in that the focus of the building official should be on reviewing the documents for compliance.  Where notes cause confusion or suggest nonconformance with the code it would be appropriate to ask for clarification.  It is not appropriate to impose your idea of drawing purity.

Project manuals twice as thick as the IBC are not uncommon and this is not proof of unnecessary boiler plate.

What you are seeing may be the result of an Architect who doesn't have his act together but in many cases it is made worse by the project owners desire to finish the project by a certain time.


----------



## permitguy (Nov 8, 2011)

I don't want to pull this off topic, but it reminds me of the debate over when to terminate an inspection as "not ready".

Some jurisdictions are perfectly comfortable being a checklist agency for contractors who call for inspections prematurely, and will spend hours on-site writing up page after page of violations.  Contractors in these jurisdictions continue the practice because they are allowed to.

Other jurisdictions refuse to put up with this, and will stop the inspection after it becomes apparent to them (based on experience) that the contractor wasn't ready.  Contractors in these jurisdictions quickly learn to make sure they are ready before they call.

Whether we're talking about plan reviews or inspections, this is all a matter of the jurisdiction making a decision about the resources they're willing to dedicate to their processes.  There isn't going to be a black and white designation on what is appropriate for everyone.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 8, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> I'll rephrase.  If they are so extraneous that I can't figure out what's going on (skilled as I am    ) in a reasonable amount of time, then I'm going to have them removed.  Sure, I could eventually verify compliance, but I do have responsibilities beyond this one set of plans.    Now you're getting it!  At some point it makes more sense to tell the architect that the project will get approved more quickly and the project will proceed much smoother if the gibberish is removed.  Granted, any two building officials may have different opinions about that tipping point.  I understand how that is frustrating, but at least we all agree that the tipping point exists.


   The revisions are a legitimate reason to require a resubmittal.   On the other hand, if you've figured out that the notes can be removed, then there is no reason you cannot determine compliance with them on the page.

  As much as I would like to agree with you, these are two separate issues.


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 8, 2011)

I'm sure as a designer that when you use KEYED NOTES on a page it is because you want everyone reading the plan to understand that there is something worthy of notation and that the something is in need of immediate attention for the proper application of your design.

Ever hear of the "boy/DP who cried wolf"?

When you put 36 KEYED NOTES on 5 pages, 12 on another 4 pages, 23 on 6 pages ..... (as you can see theses notes are not the same throughout the document, note 3 might be one thing for 5 pages but be something all together different for the next 6 no consistency) Now take into account that you may use all the notes on the page or 1 of the notes, as a reviewer or as the contractor it is our duty to look for every one of those important/need immediate attention notations so that we can properly review/apply your design.

As a reviewer who is conscientious of the job I perform, I will be absolutely sure to not skip a note until I’m absolutely sure it is not on the page.  The contractor in the field may not be as conscientious, and I hate to say but neither may the inspector.

I would much rather remove the chance of failure during plan review than hope everyone past me is more competent than the negligent DP.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 8, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> I'm sure as a designer that when you use KEYED NOTES on a page it is because you want everyone reading the plan to understand that there is something worthy of notation and that the something is in need of immediate attention for the proper application of your design.   Ever hear of the "boy/DP who cried wolf"?  When you put 36 KEYED NOTES on 5 pages, 12 on another 4 pages, 23 on 6 pages ..... (as you can see theses notes are not the same throughout the document, note 3 might be one thing for 5 pages but be something all together different for the next 6 no consistency) Now take into account that you may use all the notes on the page or 1 of the notes, as a reviewer or as the contractor it is our duty to look for every one of those important/need immediate attention notations so that we can properly review/apply your design.  As a reviewer who is conscientious of the job I perform, I will be absolutely sure to not skip a note until I’m absolutely sure it is not on the page.  The contractor in the field may not be as conscientious, and I hate to say but neither may the inspector.   I would much rather remove the chance of failure during plan review than hope everyone past me is more competent than the negligent DP.


  Nothing you mention is at all relevant to plan review because none of it indicates the non-compliance of the plans with the building code.  And the duties of a contractor are irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## tmurray (Nov 9, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> I'm sure as a designer that when you use KEYED NOTES on a page it is because you want everyone reading the plan to understand that there is something worthy of notation and that the something is in need of immediate attention for the proper application of your design. Ever hear of the "boy/DP who cried wolf"?
> 
> When you put 36 KEYED NOTES on 5 pages, 12 on another 4 pages, 23 on 6 pages ..... (as you can see theses notes are not the same throughout the document, note 3 might be one thing for 5 pages but be something all together different for the next 6 no consistency) Now take into account that you may use all the notes on the page or 1 of the notes, as a reviewer or as the contractor it is our duty to look for every one of those important/need immediate attention notations so that we can properly review/apply your design.
> 
> ...


We take two sets of plans, one gets returned to the applicant with any minor mark-ups and the other one stays in the office to be used for inspections. Anytime there is any boilerplate notes that aren't applicable to a page/project I cross them out on our set so I know they aren't important when I'm doing the inspection. The more irrelevant information they submit the longer it takes to get through plan review.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Nov 10, 2011)

Some jurisdictions want lots of notes, and different jurisdictions look for different notes on the drawings.  If a DP works in multiple jurisdictions it's easier to just put all of the notes that anybody requires on the drawings than to have a project rejected because a note was missing.

Some jurisdictions are equally guilty of excessive notes.  I've had plans returned with multiple rubber stamps saying to show smoke detectors and other items that were already shown on the drawings.

I agree that any notes that conflict with the code need to be removed, and extraneous notes should be removed.  However, having a meaningless note that doesn't conflict with the code is no reason to reject a set of plans.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 24, 2012)

I will resurrect this thread since I never saw it initially and we have a lot of architects joining this board in increasing numbers.

Plan Review is about working together to accomplish a goal in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable amount of money.  With that being said, here is where I see the problems: IMHO

1) Most prints but not all do have tons of boiler plate crap that appears to be primarily for the liability protection of the DP.  I like a lot of it because I often have something to point to when a contractor wants to argue.  I can always point out that it is on the prints, why did he/she not read it?

2) We often want more info than what the plans call for.  This is a proactive approach to dealing with contractors.  Whenever we write up a contractor, their first response is "Its not on the plans".  I tell them the plans don't tell them how to pound a nail either but at some point you have a responsibility to know what you are doing.  It is for this reason that we would rather proactive.  Our dilemma is that when we ask for more info, the architect says his customer is already complaining about the costs but if we don't, the contractors are not smart enough to know what to do.  I believe it is easier to ask for more detail to eliminate delays and problems later.  One of my most requested items is for the location and details of tactile exit signs.

3) Whenever there are major problems with plans, I just stop and send them back.  I'm not here to to what the design professional should have done before the prints left their office.  I think that sometimes they save money by letting us do that and they can just make the changes.

4) Resolution.  We all need to step back and evaluate our positions sometimes.  Too many times I find myself hell bent on one direction and developing tunnel vision.  It is at that point of self observation that I step back and actually listen.  That needs to be a 2 way street.

5) Selling a stamp.  Still seeing that happen and I think that the next time, I will just send the plans to the licensing review board.  I still cringe when I think about the time a received a set of prints to place a bar in a basement with an occupant load of 200 and no egress to the exterior without going back up through the 1st floor bar/restaurant and no sprinkler system and one unisex toilet and no mechanical ventilation or natural ventilation.  I was not too nice to the architect on that one.  I actually asked him if business was that bad that he had to do that.  "That's what the owner wanted" is not an excuse from a professional.  At some point, you have to learn to say no to customers.

OK, just wanted to get this ball rolling again.  This was a good thread.


----------



## pyrguy (Dec 24, 2012)

We hot a set of plans a few weeks ago that had more notes than plans. They had notes for every city in a 200 mile radius. They had a cow when asked to limit the notes to only ones applicable to us. There were also structural call outs for notes not on the plans.


----------



## lunatick (Dec 27, 2012)

Fairness in savaging.

What do you say of AHJ that do the same with plan reviews? Placing comments about anything, like requirements for special inspections, etc. If/When there is no need to provide, etc?


----------



## Mark K (Dec 27, 2012)

The AHJ should focus on code compliance.  If extra information is provided that does not compact code compliance the  agency should not require changes.  If the excess information creates confusion as to an issue related to code compliance AHJ can and should require clarification.

A plan checker that provides CYA notes especially regarding things already addressed in the documents loses my respect.

Similarly a plan checker should not require special inspection when not required by the code.


----------



## codeworks (Dec 28, 2012)

there are some places that could attach a code book to every sety of "plans" that come in, you still wouldn't get compliance. A lot of the "trouble" is that some ahj's will accept anything as a submission, and try to "crystal ball" the project from there. poor way to do it,but it happens. we still get whole houses with no electrical circuit diagrams, no load calcs, no plumbing riser diagrams, no info on what the prefab fireplace will be, or the hvac unit will be, heat sterips or no, or what? and, we can't turn it away from the counter. thats unfreindly


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 28, 2012)

> A plan checker that provides CYA notes especially regarding things already addressed in the documents loses my respect.


If by documents you mean the construction drawings I agree. If by document you mean buried in the spec book somewhere the I humbly disagree. I do not have time to read all portions of a spec book.



> Similarly a plan checker should not require special inspection when not required by the code.


Agree except for 1704.5. I ask which exception applies and the response 9 times out of 10 is a special inspector is required. I do not know why but that is the response

My pet peeve is when a DP references a UL or GA number for a fire resistive assembly and does not put the detail on the drawings or the fastener requirements. The installer in the field needs the info on his working drawings not buried on a website somwhere.


----------



## Mark K (Dec 28, 2012)

The specifications are just as much a part of the construction documents as the drawings.  If the checker cannot find something it is always permissible to ask where the information is provided but it is not appropriate for him to say where or how the information is presented.

Realize that many plan checkers insist that information be shown on the plans and will not look in the specifications.  What they are saying is that they are only interested in compliance with a subset of the code requirements that they are personally  concerned about.  I expect compliance with all of the code requirements and if I had to denote all of these requirements on the drawings the drawings would be impossible to read.

I appreciate that the plan checker may focus on only certain aspects of code compliance but the design professional is still required to address all of the code requirements.

If you want all of the information on the drawings with no specifications then adopt a building code that is short enough that this is possible.  If not get real and deal with specifications.

Section 1704.5 in the 2012 IBC deals with structural observation. Structural Observation is not an inspection.  Are we talking about the 2009 IBC and masonry  construction?


----------



## brudgers (Dec 28, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> If by documents you mean the construction drawings I agree. If by document you mean buried in the spec book somewhere the I humbly disagree. I do not have time to read all portions of a spec book.


  Legally, the construction documents are the construction documents. They may include a project manual, or not.   Either you are in a position to review the plans thoroughly, or you aren't. These are not code compliance issues, and the design professional has no control over them.

  If one wants to know why there are boilerplated plans, ridiculous demands by plans examiners are a contributing factor.


----------



## Yankee (Dec 28, 2012)

It is the specs that prevail over the drawings in the case of omissions, errors and conflicts.


----------



## MtnArch (Dec 28, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> If one wants to know why there are boilerplated plans, ridiculous demands by plans examiners are a contributing factor.


I once had a plan check engineer demand that I include a note on the drawings even though it had NOTHING to do with the project, didn't provide any clarification to the project, and didn't have anything to do with code compliance.  His response when I told him there was no reason to add them was "Just add note, Alan ... just add note."  Eventually I just added the note to get our permit - since he was also the acting CBO at the time.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 29, 2012)

Yankee said:
			
		

> It is the specs that prevail over the drawings in the case of omissions, errors and conflicts.


  Horse****.


----------



## Yankee (Dec 29, 2012)

Maybe you could reply with something more educational. Maybe not.


----------



## Yankee (Dec 29, 2012)

Apparently Not.

This article is more or less the way I learned it (to show what trumps what)

http://www.jurispro.com/files/documents/doc-1066204835-article-1518.pdf


----------



## Mark K (Dec 30, 2012)

It is a good idea to clarify this in the construction documents but the specifications do not govern over the plans unless the contract documents says so.

My preference is to state that in the event of a conflict the contractor will notify the designer who will resolve the conflict.  I then say that the Contractor will be responsible for the cost associated with either option.  The reason for this is that I do not always know in advance where I will make a mistake.


----------



## Wayne (Dec 30, 2012)

Re: Boiler plated plans

I've known some architects to write the greater quantity or quality prevails.


----------



## lunatick (Dec 30, 2012)

Yankee said:
			
		

> It is the specs that prevail over the drawings in the case of omissions, errors and conflicts.


That is CSI BS. the documents are complimentary.

That stated, there are some firms that keynote their drawings. The keynotes reference the specifications.

But remember the two documents serve separate and yet complimentary purposes. Which is to describe the work to be performed.


----------



## Yankee (Dec 30, 2012)

It's interesting that I posted something with some meat to it (arguably), and people disagree with nothing in return to back up their opinion.


----------



## lunatick (Dec 31, 2012)

Yankee said:
			
		

> It's interesting that I posted something with some  meat to it (arguably), and people disagree with nothing in return to  back up their opinion.


It comes down to the contract, etc.

I will bring you something to nibble on from two different sources.

1.* AIA.* (their pdf's are locked, otherwise I would have cut and past the information)

A201-1997 General Condition of Owner/Contractor Agreement

A1.2 Correlation and Intent of the Construction Documents.

you can read this section here http://www.aia.org/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aias076835.pdf

This  states the Construction Documents are Complimentary. The Construction  Documents are comprised of the Drawings and the Specifications

2. Mark Fridlander, Attorney

Friedlander, Mark C.

Architecture 544 - Spring 2012 | schiffhardin.com

 Day  6, Feb 13. The Zip File contains a 2 hour audio file. Start at about 19  minutes 30 seconds and listen for about the next 15 minutes.

Again,  CSI is about specification. They like to have people see them as being  THE thing. It helps to promote job security, etc. I don't want to  dismiss this part of the Construction Documents or their importance in  the industry. It is just necessary to understand how the parts comprise  the whole. And that the drawings at times offers more specificity than  the specification.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 31, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> My pet peeve is when a DP references a UL or GA number for a fire resistive assembly and does not put the detail on the drawings or the fastener requirements. The installer in the field needs the info on his working drawings not buried on a website somwhere.


yes, I agree.  This always causes problems at inspection time.


----------



## Yankee (Dec 31, 2012)

> lunatick said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For others who don't want to skim the whole thing, Section 1.2 is particularly helpful in understanding the concept

Thanks jar


----------



## brudgers (Dec 31, 2012)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Apparently Not.This article is more or less the way I learned it (to show what trumps what)
> 
> http://www.jurispro.com/files/documents/doc-1066204835-article-1518.pdf


His position is premised upon:



> In order to deal with Defective or Incomplete or Inadvertent Errors in Plans &
> 
> Specifications, owners and their architects have put in provisions in the contract usually
> 
> ...


That sort of language is absent from many industry standard contracts - e.g. AIA A101 and the general conditions referenced as AIA A201. In terms of AIA A101, these would be placed as Supplementary Conditions to the contract.

Now, the question as to why standard contracts do not contain a hierarchy is pretty obvious to anyone with a will to think about it.

Suppose the project requires a 90 minute door in a two hour rated wall for life safety, and these are noted on a drawing.

Suppose the project manual only specifies non-rated doors and one hour rated walls.

Life safety would be compromised if the "specs govern" hierarchy is placed in the contract.

Thus, standard contracts require the documents to be treated as a whole, with both the plans and specs given equal weight in communicating the design intent.

And that is why your statement is horse****.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 31, 2012)

Yankee said:
			
		

> It's interesting that I posted something with some meat to it (arguably), and people disagree with nothing in return to back up their opinion.


The argument against horse**** is that it is horse****.


----------



## Yankee (Dec 31, 2012)

Well Brudgers,

I learned something from this thread but it wasn't from you.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Dec 31, 2012)

The reason specs usually prevail in case of conflicts is because most lawyers & judges can't read drawings!


----------



## Mark K (Dec 31, 2012)

From the point of view of the building official the order of precedence in the construction documents is not relevant.  During plan check the building official should require any identified conflicts related to code issues be resolved.  During construction any code violations should be required to be corrected.

Orders of precedence are intended to deal with whether or not the Contractor can claim an additional service in the event a conflict is identified.

That the drawings and specifications are complementary is separate from any issue about order of precedence.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 31, 2012)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Well Brudgers,  I learned something from this thread but it wasn't from you.


  Well at least now you'll stop making everyone else dumber.


----------



## Yankee (Dec 31, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Well at least now you'll stop making everyone else dumber.


 , , , You're a peach * ). . . Oh, , sorry Peach! ; p


----------



## ICE (Apr 7, 2013)

Engineers can be forgiven for producing boilerplate plans.   Architects are supposed to have an imagination.

Yahoo!


----------



## mark handler (Apr 7, 2013)

.....and then there are plancheckers that want every section of the code called out on the plans... as in copying and stapling a code book to the plans....sheets and sheets of notes that noone reads, including the planchecker.


----------



## Yikes (Apr 18, 2013)

I'm really late to the party here, but here's my 2 cents: don't confuse CONTRACT documents with APPROVED PLANS.

The AHJ-approved set of plans is juust ONE part of the overall set of CONTRACT documents.  The AHJ-approved set of plans (drawings, notes, energy calcs, whatever) is the ONLY thing the building department has to check and verify.

When a set of documents lists an order of precedence in event of conflict, it is only for contractual /business reasons, NOT for code compliance reasons.

For example:

The city-stamped plans call for 3000 psi concrete.  The same city-approved plans say that in event of conflict, the specs govern.

The non-city-reviewed spec book calls for 2500 psi concrete, in conflict with the city-approved plans.

The solution:

Contractor must use 3000 psi per the city approved plan.  The city doesn't care what the spec book says, because it didn't review the spec book.

However, contractually speaking, the Contractor is also now entitled to a change order, because the spec that "governed" the scope of the contract told him he only needed 2500 psi.


----------

