# Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans



## jar546 (Dec 16, 2009)

How do you folks handle this?

For arguments sake, lets go with commercial jobs first.

Contractor makes a change that is code compliant but is not what is on the approved plans that are stamped by a design professional.  Here are some examples:

1) Electrical engineer designs a grounding system with 3 5/8" 10' rods in a triangle, 10' apart.  Electrician installs a concrete encased electrode and one rod which isnt even needed at this point.

2) Lightframe construction for a doctor's office has 10" thick footers specified on the prints with 4,000psi strength concrete.  The contractor installs 7-1/2" footers with 3,500psi strength concrete.  Both installs by the contractor are determined to exceed the prescriptive code as adopted but don't meet the specs of the prints.  Although the contractor deviated from the prints, what they did actually exceeded the code requirements prescriptively for light frame construction.

In both instances, the contractors tell you that you are there for code compliance only and not there to enforce issues beyond the code minimum.  They state that this is a contractural issue between the contractor and the owner and that you as a code official are only there to ensure that the minimum code has been complied with, nothing more.

In PA we have the PA-UCC which addresses this issue.  We did not adopt Chapter 1 of the IBC and ours states:



> _Work shall be installed in accordance with the approved construction documents. The permit holder shall submit a revised set of construction documents for approval for changes made during construction that are not in accordance with the approved construction documents_.


We use that reference to cite those that question what we are there for.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 16, 2009)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

Do you seal the modified plans?


----------



## jar546 (Dec 16, 2009)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Do you seal the modified plans?


No, commercial changes must come sealed by an architect or engineer and I will review them for code compliance.


----------



## Bryan Holland (Dec 17, 2009)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

In the two examples you provided, I would approve the installation on a "proceed at your own risk" notice.  However, revisions (sign and sealed) to the original approved plans must be submitted to the building department before next inspection.  This would be the case for any alteration or change made in the field from the approved plans that remains in compliance with the code and is at least equivalent design.

If the approved plan call for a design that exceeds code and the contractor chooses to alter the work BELOW that design, it would not be approved without revised plans.

In some cases, I have had to request the engineer to meet me on site to see the changes made as I felt he was not supervising the changes being made and was allowing the contractor to "re-engineer" the job to how they wanted to do it.

I would always side to the more cautious approach as I believe that is our obligation to the industry.


----------



##  (Dec 17, 2009)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

In the example of the elimination of ground rods I would ask for a wet stamped revision from the engineer.

In the example of the lesser footing I would ask for a wet stamped revision to be submitted for review and a letter from the owner giving permission.  I include building owners in the process because they have contracted for a given product and now they should be notified that they are getting something different than what they agreed to.

Some changes don't require wet stamped revisions or review but still require approval of the owner.  For example, a window is two feet from where the plans show it.  The contractor tells me that the owner wanted it moved but actually the framer screwed the pooch.  It may make no difference structurally but a huge difference to the owner's wife.  Get a letter from the owner.

As to contractors telling why I am there; well then, that's the tail wagging the Tiger.  Stay away from my tail.


----------



## jj1289 (Dec 17, 2009)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

I would require a letter from the electrical engineer of record regarding the grounding system change and revised plans from the structural engineer for the foundation changes.

Even if both case meet or exceed the bulding code, they are not constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

Both engineers may have a particular reason for designing the systems the way they did that the BO, GC and owner may not be aware of.

A simpler approach is a home owner submits an application and plans for a deck that call for 2x10 joists @ 16 o/c.  In the field he opts to use 2x8 @ 16 o/c, and is allowed by the span tables for load.

I always ask for revised plans in these situations.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 17, 2009)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

Jar,

ICC Building Code, 107.4  Amended Construction Documents; requires any changes made during construction that are not in compliance with approved construction documents to be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of construction documents; and your PA-UCC seems to have the same requirements.

When we replace the Engineer's requirements with minimum standards of the code; *we are exceeding our authority*, and presuming that minimum codes are "always" sufficient in all construction applications; which we should all know is not true.

Uncle Bob


----------



## Mac (Dec 17, 2009)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

Yes I would require a stamped revision, including plan & spec changes.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 17, 2009)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

Looks like we are all on the same page with this one.


----------



## fatboy (Dec 17, 2009)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

I'll just throw a "yup' to that.........


----------



## rktect 1 (Dec 17, 2009)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

We have an amendment form that gets filled out describing the change and require a sheet(s) signed and sealed by the DP, reviewed by the village, which goes into our archived set as well as one that goes to the field.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 17, 2009)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

Jar,

Of course we are; it's Christmas time; a time of miracles.    

Uncle Bob


----------



## JBI (Dec 17, 2009)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

Absolutely require amended/revised plans (possibly a letter _with seal/sig_ if 'minor'). NYS has similar language in Chap 1 as well.

As a general rule, contractors have no clue what our role and responsibilties are. Most just think we are there to cause problems for them. (BTW, tigerloose - LOVE IT! "Stay away from my (tiger) tail!" LMAO)


----------



## brudgers (Dec 17, 2009)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans



			
				jar546 said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Do you seal the modified plans?


No, commercial changes must come sealed by an architect or engineer and I will review them for code compliance.

Do they fail the inspection until you receive the sealed plans?


----------



## cboboggs (Dec 17, 2009)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

I'll have to follow suit with everyone else. We do the same here, the changes would require signed and sealed revisions.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 18, 2009)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> jar546 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do they fail the inspection until you receive the sealed plans?

Yes, I either fail the inspection if we find out at the inspection OR if they notify me of what they did, tell them to get it in writing/stamped&sealed from the DP before the inspection.

I cannot pass something that is not compliant with the plans, even if it is code compliant.


----------



## Min&Max (Jan 6, 2010)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

This is late but---I only inspect to code minimum. If the designer wants more its up to him to make sure he gets it. I do not work for the designer. In the example given I would approve and let the contractor and designer fight it out.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 6, 2010)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans



> ---I only inspect to code minimum


Sorry but if you where looking for a job i would not hire you

As UB already posted 106.4 Amended construction documents.

Work shall be installed in accordance with the approved construction documents, and any changes made during construction that are not in compliance with the approved construction documents shall be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of construction documents.


----------



## JBI (Jan 6, 2010)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

OUCH! That's gonna hurt...


----------



## Min&Max (Jan 7, 2010)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

mtlogcabin,

Why would I want to work for you? I certainly have no desire to go backwards.

As far as the section you quoted, I amended it out along with a couple other administrative BS sections. The design professionals may not like it because they can no longer use and abuse me like a rented mule. My approach may be unconventional but it works.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jan 7, 2010)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

*Alrighty then....... lets get back to keeping it civil folks :!: *


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 7, 2010)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

Min&Max

 My experience is on the majority of homes and small commercial projects most design proffessionals provide a set of construction drawings and that is it. They do not oversee the project and what the contractor is doing.

If you ammended that portion out locally that's fine.

The code normally gives minimum requirement not maximum

The designed plans shows a 30' x 40' two story home. The exterior wall footings supporting two floors and a truss roof is xx wide and the interior footing supports two floors only and is yy wide. The contractor forms all the footings at xx width which meet the minimum code. Do you pass it?


----------



## Min&Max (Jan 7, 2010)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

Here those plans would be submitted and accepted with or without design stamps since the stamps are not required by the state. If the plans are stamped the designer is required, by state law, to verify that his design criteria has been met by making periodic inspections of the project.

Yes it would be accepted and noted as meeting minimum code requirements.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 7, 2010)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans



> If the plans are stamped the designer is required, by state law, to verify that his design criteria has been met by making periodic inspections of the project.


That's good it would ensure the designer stays active in the project and sheds more light on why you inspect the way you do. I apologize for my previous deragatory comment directed at you it was uncalled for.



> Yes it would be accepted and noted as meeting minimum code requirements


My understanding is if these plans where not stamped then there is no requirement for the designer to make periodic inspections. In this scenario I agree with you the contractors increasing the interior footing width meets "minimum" code however by not following the designed plans he may have created a differential settlement issue with the foundation because the interior footings are carrying a lighter load than the exterior wall footings.


----------



## Min&Max (Jan 7, 2010)

Re: Compliant vs. what is on the approved plans

mtlogcabin,

No problem from my end. My initial reply was not as respectful as it could have been but I tend to trade shot for shot. That whole wrestling with a pig thing I guess. I do what I do because it works here and results in a high quality finished product.


----------

