# Engineer's minimum lumber grade callout



## 4thorns (Aug 25, 2016)

Hello everyone.

I have a few of questions regarding your inspection of residential, structural wood framing based on call outs on an engineered, stamped set of plans. 

If it says on the plan (eg.) "All framing lumber to be SPF #2 or Better" or  "All floor framing lumber to be SPF #2" (notice the lack of "Or Better" for floor frame) does this restrict me to using only that?
I feel that "Or Better" means anything above and beyond what's called out. To me, if the engineer calls out an SPF #2 2x12, but experience tells me that I can use a Southern Pine 2x10 then I should be able to use it.

Going beyond that, do I have to go back to the engineer to prove to you that the 2x10 works? Suppose I ask you if the 2x10 meets code. If the member species, spacing and load criteria are in the IRC can you make the decision as to whether it meets code or not?

I hope this doesn't sound like I'm bashing anyone.I'm just curious how you would normally handle this simple change of materials to something other than what was called out on the stamped plans.

Thank you.

Doug


----------



## ICE (Aug 25, 2016)

I would agree to using a better grade of lumber but not to a smaller size.


----------



## 4thorns (Aug 25, 2016)

Thanks for the reply ICE but would you be willing to share your reasoning for this decision?


----------



## ICE (Aug 25, 2016)

An engineer put his or her name on it and that deserves some respect.  Beyond that I am not a fan of value engineering.  I am almost always willing to add to a design but I seldom take anything away.  There have been hundreds of cases where I tossed in a little something.  You know...you look at the work and say, "This is good but adding ???? would be better".  More than one engineer has been upset about that but it's what I do.


----------



## 4thorns (Aug 25, 2016)

Here's an example of my thinking. 

IRC 2006-table R502.3.1(2) Live load 40psf-Dead load 20psf

Stamped Engineered plans specify:
 2x12 floor joists-SPF #2 @16" o.c.- IRC says Max. span is 16'-3".

For whatever reason (maybe this all that is available locally) I want to use:
 2x10 floor joists-Southern Pine #1 @16" o.c.- IRC says Max. span is 16'-4"

I agree 100% that the engineer deserves respect. I've spent several years learning what they do (self teaching) and it's not an easy task. 
But...(you knew the "but" was sure to follow) if I come to you and say that the code book tells me that the smaller member with higher design values
will suffice, would you let me use it? I guess what I'm asking is, if the IRC code book is your "Bible" as a code official then can you override a stamped
document from an engineer?

I too (as a designer) may try to lead a perspective home owner or engineer in a different direction based past experiences. Some of them, as you said, will get upset, but those with an open mind will at least think about what we say and maybe have a change of heart. 

Thanks for your time ICE.

Doug


----------



## Msradell (Aug 25, 2016)

In this case I certainly agree with ICE. There may be other reasons that the engineers specified the use of a 2x12 other than just the allowable maximum span. Deflection and several other factors also come into effect. I really don't believe that under any circumstance a contractor should downsize the material used without the engineers consent. Think of the quality of the material itself is one thing if you are going to a better grade of material but changing the sizing is a completely different matter.


----------



## Keystone (Aug 26, 2016)

I'm in agreement with Ice & Msradell, lumber upgrade good, size downgrade bad no good. Beit an owner or contractor or whomever wanting this change, I would ask to be provided with a document from the engineer, not necessarily a full blown plan revision but at minimum a brief letter.


----------



## ICE (Aug 26, 2016)

I can't override a stamped engineered plan.  I can reject it in its entirety.  Now and then there is a fatal flaw or hardware that did not function as envisioned and I have to send the engineer back to the drawing board.  It is rare but it has happened.  Contractors get pretty wound up over it because their engineer and my engineer approved whatever it was.  The usual resolution is a phone call to their engineer and he asks me what I want to see on the plans.  A few have thanked me.


----------



## JBI (Aug 26, 2016)

You could try using something labeled 'or better', but changing the species and the size would be a change that would require design professional approval. Once the plans have been accepted for construction, only the design professional can authorize the change. 
Even if you convince a Code Official to ignore his duty under local (and often state) law, any issues with the as constructed building will *not* be a liability for the design professional, but would be a HUGE liability for the contractor AND the Code Official. 
The proper way to handle it would be to have the design professional submit the change for approval if you feel that strongly about it.


----------



## rogerpa (Aug 26, 2016)

4thorns said:


> IRC 2006-table R502.3.1(2) Live load 40psf-Dead load 20psf


Be aware that most structural  lumber has been de-rated in the 2015 edition.
http://codes.iccsafe.org/app/book/content/2015-I-Codes/2015 IRC HTML/Chapter 5.html


----------



## steveray (Aug 26, 2016)

If I can verify it in the IRC, I could approve it....Do the plans "need" to be done by an engineer? Maybe he upsized to allow the plumber to drill a bigger hole?


----------



## mark handler (Aug 26, 2016)

steveray said:


> If I can verify it in the IRC, I could approve it....Do the plans "need" to be done by an engineer? Maybe he upsized to allow the plumber to drill a bigger hole?


So, you would disregard the engineered drawings, without knowing why, he/she upsized it?


----------



## tmurray (Aug 26, 2016)

steveray said:


> If I can verify it in the IRC, I could approve it....Do the plans "need" to be done by an engineer? Maybe he upsized to allow the plumber to drill a bigger hole?



Bingo. The real questions is why are the plans stamped. if everything meets the prescriptive code, then change at will, but if the floors joist are supporting an element that can not be accounted for under the prescriptive code, you can't change it at all. I'm going to go against the grain here, you cant even use larger members than stated. The engineer may have calculated the dead load of the structure and specified load bearing construction that only meets what he/she designed (value engineered). When I see a sealed set of plans, that is exactly what you are building. any change must be accompanied by written approval from the individual that sealed the plans.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 26, 2016)

This is a pet peeve of mine and the story goes like this: 
Once upon a time a commercial project was going on and I was called out to do an inspection. Right out of the box (pun intended) I saw redheads (anchors, not girls) boxes all over the place being used and I just reviewed the plans before climbing to the top. 

The plans called out Hilti anchors. I asked the GC why their not following the plans and I got a strange look and a Q, "What you mean?" these anchors are not to specs or design and your also using the wrong length. A. That's what the lumberyard had in stock? Come on guys! Have your engineer inspect and send me a letter allowing this size and brand as an alternate anchor or replace them!

Got a letter the next day allowing alternate anchors with a stamp and signature.

If there's plans done buy an engineer then "Engineers Rule Dude!" It's there tail (butt) on the line not mine!

pc1


----------



## my250r11 (Aug 26, 2016)

I'm not an engineer so if stamped, letter or submit draws for change from the engineer. It is as said earlier in the thread more for liability and C Y A!


----------



## pyrguy (Aug 26, 2016)

Engineered plans means only the engineer makes changes. Those changes must come back to plan review before going to the field.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 27, 2016)

I will entertain suggestions and questions but Contractors who claim they know better and believe they can make changes without getting them approved scare me.  These contractors are cowboys and should be run off of any construction project.

When we see damage from tornados I will suggest that much of the damage is the result of  contractors doing it their way.  It has been suggested that this same attitude contributed to some of the failures of newer buildings as a result of the recent Italian earthquake.  When individuals die because of this attitude does this not make the contractor a murderer?


----------



## conarb (Aug 27, 2016)

Mark K said:


> I will entertain suggestions and questions but Contractors who claim they know better and believe they can make changes without getting them approved scare me.  These contractors are cowboys and should be run off of any construction project.
> 
> When we see damage from tornados I will suggest that much of the damage is the result of  contractors doing it their way.  It has been suggested that this same attitude contributed to some of the failures of newer buildings as a result of the recent Italian earthquake.  When individuals die because of this attitude does this not make the contractor a murderer?



Wow Mark, I am not seeing that at all, I can only presume it is the difference between Southern California and The Bay Area.  I actually get several Structural Observations from the structural Engineers to protect myself, the owner, and even the AHJ, when I present the observations to the field inspectors I tell them it's for their protection, it greases the way through inspections. With all the required Special Inspections we are required to get I don't see how any contractor could get by with much if anything.  I have more a problem with the plan checkers trying to override the engineers, I told the story a few years ago of a SE degreed plan checker demanding more ridged column connections, the AHJ didn't even have the computerized program the building was designed with, even providing nodal points so she could use a generic program didn't work, I finally brought my SE in with the program in his laptop to demonstrate compliance, she then wanted calculations for seismic compliance  from 4 directions instead of 2, then superimposed wind loading in all 4 directions. She was demanding engineering for a 1,000 year event, one night about 6:00 when I was arguing with her at the counter I guess I raised my voice (we hard-of-hearing people all tend to do that) and the CBO came out and stood behind her, I said: "If a Japan style earthquake occurs right under this house it could cause the connections to crack rather then flex, the owner will sue me, I will cross complain against the engineer, and he will cross complain against you for forcing him to change his design", the CBO kept telling her that I was right, when I returned a few days later with the agreed upon changes she just stamped everything telling me she was told not to demand any changes. 

As to your comments about the Italian earthquake I didn't even see an pictures of newer buildings, it would be interesting to see any examples.


----------



## ICE (Aug 27, 2016)

Mark K said:


> When we see damage from tornados I will suggest that much of the damage is the result of  contractors doing it their way.



Tornadoes don't leave much in the way of evidence.  Oh and mobile homes are built in a factory.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 27, 2016)

Plan checkers who ask for more than what is in the building code are a separate problem.  These plan checkers typically are not acting out of ignorance but rather are trying to impose what they think should be required.  As such they should be considered to being involved in the moral equivalent of extortion in that they increase the cost to the Owner and cause the engineer to spend additional time he or she is not compensated for.


----------



## HForester (Aug 28, 2016)

I always have a problem with "or equal" or "or better". How is that really determined? And by whom?  Better to say, "Minimum Vertical pull out of Xlbs in concrete and Minimum Horizontal shear resistance of X lbs. Product example is Redhead Part X123."
Or something along those lines. Basically, they write a performance specification so as to not be "sole sourcing" a product.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 31, 2016)

When dealing with lumber "or better" is clear.  For example in the case given No. 1 or Select Structural would be acceptable.

In general "or equal" is not clear unless specific criteria is given to determine what is equal.  In the case of concrete anchors because the values are based on testing it gets real complex and may require information regarding the type of loading that the designer has not shared.  In these situations it is better to send the proposal to the engineer.

In the case of mechanical anchors, unless it is not possible to obtain what was specified, I suggest providing what was specified.  The cost of the engineering time to evaluate an alternate can very easily be more than any saving in purchase price.


----------



## conarb (Aug 31, 2016)

It was always my practice to give the field inspector ICBO Reports on all bolts and anchors whether what was being used was specified or I was using an alternative.  "Or equal" is always required or manufacturers' reps will bribe architects and engineers to specify their products.  If "or equal" is not specified and a brand name is required the architect or engineer better have good reason not to allow an alternative.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 1, 2016)

What contractors have a hard time understanding is that it costs the engineer time and as a result money to evaluate the alternates.  In the case of mechanical concrete anchors this is not as simple as comparing numbers in the catalogs.  The engineer could increase his fee to evaluate alternates or the contractor should be asked to reimburse the Owner for the engineers time, but the engineer should not be expected to do this for free.  At a certain point it is cheaper overall for the project if one product is specified and the contractor provides what was specified.

There are also some Owners who have this quaint idea that if the substitution will save the contractor money that the savings should be shared with the Owner.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Sep 1, 2016)

A lot of times this substitution issue hits you right here in river city in the ol' back yard. 

Deck joist hangers filled with drywall screws, deck screws, wrong nails and I've even seen electrical staples used in the joist hanger holes. Some hanger manufactures do not want these foreign fasteners in their hangers. In most case will not warrant the hanger if there's a failure. I'm not seeing hanger fasteners being prescribed for hangers being spec'ed out on plans for commercial decks. I have to go to the hanger manufactures guides for this information.

pc1


----------



## JBI (Sep 1, 2016)

Pcinspector1 said:


> I'm not seeing hanger fasteners being prescribed for hangers being spec'ed out on plans for commercial decks. I have to go to the hanger manufactures guides for this information.



As it should be.


----------



## steveray (Sep 1, 2016)

The problem is the contractors have no clue what nails to use, and is is difficult to tell after the fact...


----------



## JBI (Sep 1, 2016)

steveray said:


> The problem is the contractors have no clue what nails to use, and is is difficult to tell after the fact...



The problem is illiteracy. The requirements are printed on the connector package. 
After-the-fact can be (somewhat) verified by the empty fastener boxes in the sweep pile/trash container.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Sep 1, 2016)

This may have been addressed but I have a question?

If you see screws being used in a joist hanger and the screw does not meet manufactures requirements (like a drywall screw) and you request that the screws be removed. 

If a proper Joist Hanger nail is now installed would the nail be subject to pull out being installed in the same hole that the screw had made? Is there any testing done on this situation? I worry that the condition may be worse.


----------



## ICE (Sep 1, 2016)

Pcinspector1 said:


> This may have been addressed but I have a question?
> 
> If you see screws being used in a joist hanger and the screw does not meet manufactures requirements (like a drywall screw) and you request that the screws be removed.
> 
> If a proper Joist Hanger nail is now installed would the nail be subject to pull out being installed in the same hole that the screw had made? Is there any testing done on this situation? I worry that the condition may be worse.


Make them use common nails per the manufacturer's installation instructions.... and go a little longer if you are concerned.  As far as verifying after the fact...if I wonder about the nails I ask them to pull one.


----------



## tmurray (Sep 2, 2016)

conarb said:


> It was always my practice to give the field inspector ICBO Reports on all bolts and anchors whether what was being used was specified or I was using an alternative.  "Or equal" is always required or manufacturers' reps will bribe architects and engineers to specify their products.  If "or equal" is not specified and a brand name is required the architect or engineer better have good reason not to allow an alternative.



I think the biggest issue I see is that the designers will only pull from one catalogue. It doesn't matter what is on the shelf at the hardware store. If they were more knowledgeable about the commercial availability or the preferences of the contractor of the items they are specifying, alternatives generally wouldn't need to be evaluated.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 2, 2016)

Engineers cannot let the local hardware store decide what is an acceptable product.   While the engineer needs to be concerned with the ability of the product this should not be a problem if one of the 3 or 4 national brands of post installed anchors, for example, was specified.

If there are real problems with availability of product the engineer will typically consider alternates.  On the other hand if the contractor is lazy and cannot work with other distributers then maybe this was the wrong contractor for the project.


----------



## conarb (Sep 2, 2016)

tmurray said:


> I think the biggest issue I see is that the designers will only pull from one catalogue. It doesn't matter what is on the shelf at the hardware store. If they were more knowledgeable about the commercial availability or the preferences of the contractor of the items they are specifying, alternatives generally wouldn't need to be evaluated.



T Murray:

You are 100% correct, Sweets Catalogs published what eventually became a 27 volume set of books, these were given to architects and to contractors who were doing a volume of one million dollars a year or more, small contractors received a two volume set.  To get upgraded I couldn't wait until I qualified for the 27 volume set.  Go into any architect's office and you could see them specifying from the ubiquitous green books, they were free to the industry because manufacturers paid to get their literature into the volumes and all had recommended specifications that the architect could copy and place into their specifications.  

A good example of manipulating the system was Simpson, in the 50s we had nothing but Teco clips that were the equivalent of the Simpson L90, Barclay Simpson took his window screen business and started creating not only simple clips but joist hangers and eventually the full product line we have today.  Many cheaper competitors sprung up, the biggest one was Silver around here, today Teco and Silver no longer exist and Simpson dominates the industry, they didn't just submit literature and pay Sweets, they did great engineering, created great catalogs, and started distributing them to all lumber yards as well as architects.  

BTW, I'll have to research it but there are laws requiring architects to specify "or equal", I don't remember whether they just apply to public projects or all construction projects, or whether they are just California laws.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Sep 2, 2016)

I'm full of stories on this thread, Story #2. Contractor at the window with deck permit application. After a quick plan review at the window then the discussion turned to the deck ledger lateral load connection, you know that threaded rod through the ledger into the customers "weed growing room" on the other side. F... that he sez, your the only one enforcing that! 
So I call my Simpson guy, What's up with this resistance to the new code, I was told, no box stores have this DTT2Z ties? He said the contractor can order them direct if he wants them......ok... The box stores don't stock the new DTT1Z either.

So the market dictates or I'm the only one enforcing the code...kinda like a handrail on a deck. 

Story #3, "How bout those FPC breaker boxes?"

pc1


----------



## Mark K (Sep 2, 2016)

There were and possibly are laws requiring specification of multiple products on public projects but they are not always enforced.  There are also exemptions.

First you must ask what is equal.  This is not as easy as you may think.  When competitors products are not identical specifying multiple products could require spending more time showing the corresponding changes to various details resulting in more cost to design than the contractor saves by buying another product.


----------



## conarb (Sep 2, 2016)

Mark:

About 10 years ago I had an architect specify a Simpson stainless steel post cap, there were 10 of them, nobody had them so I contacted Simpson, they had to custom fabricate them and wanted $750 each for them.  Shouldn't architects know what things cost before they specify them?

BTW, the owner does pay, in almost all upper class housing the work is done on a cost + fee arrangement, nobody knows what changes are going to be made, fixed price contracts are riddled with change orders. Look at government contracts, cost overruns are known to run way over estimates.



			
				Kamine Law said:
			
		

> The “or-equal” requirement has been California law since at least 1961 when former Gov. Code § 4380 was added.  The current statute is Public Contract Code § 3400 (almost identical language also appears in the State Contract Act, Public Contract Code § 10129).  It prohibits any public works contract from limiting “the bidding, directly or indirectly, to any one specific concern, or … calling for a designated material, product, thing, or service by specific brand or trade name unless the specification is followed by the words ‘or equal’ so that bidders may furnish any equal material, product, thing, or service.”  The requirement is applicable to every “agency of the state … political subdivision, municipal corporation, or district … [and] to any public officer or person charged with the letting of contracts for the construction, alteration, or repair of public works.”
> 
> The requirement has been incorporated into the two most widely used standard public works contracts, Caltrans’ Standard Specifications (California Department of Transportation, 1999) section 6-1.05, and Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (BNi Publications, Inc., 2003) section 4-1.6.
> 
> ...



¹ http://kamineconstructionlaw.com/publications-and-articles/california-or-equal-requirements/


----------



## rogerpa (Sep 2, 2016)

Pcinspector1 said:


> I'm full of stories on this thread, Story #2. Contractor at the window with deck permit application. After a quick plan review at the window then the discussion turned to the deck ledger lateral load connection, you know that threaded rod through the ledger into the customers "weed growing room" on the other side. F... that he sez, your the only one enforcing that!
> So I call my Simpson guy, What's up with this resistance to the new code, I was told, no box stores have this DTT2Z ties? He said the contractor can order them direct if he wants them......ok... The box stores don't stock the new DTT1Z either.
> 
> So the market dictates or I'm the only one enforcing the code...kinda like a handrail on a deck.
> ...


Those are NOT required by code! They are a suggestion!
Michigan deleted the figure from the 2015 code because too many people were "reading" the picture and not the text.

2009  IRC
R502.2.2.3 Deck lateral load connection. The lateral load
connection required by Section R502.2.2 *shall be permitted*
to be in accordance with Figure R502.2.2.3. Hold-down tension
devices shall be installed in not less than two locations
per deck, and each device shall have an allowable stress
design capacity of not less than 1500 pounds (6672 N).

FWIW, a 1/4-20, grade 2 bolt, has a design capacity over 2000 pounds in tension.

From summer 2013 issue of *Wood Design Focus from the Forest Products Society*.

Tests from Dr. Bender, Dr. Woeste and their peers reveal the truth. Properly connected ledgers with lag screws resisted four times the lateral load that could be generated by humans and they stopped the test because the joists ripped down their center. Here's some quotes for you.

"Deck ledgers were attached with 0.5-inch diameter lag screws in a staggered pattern as specified in IRC Table R502.2.2.1. The research basis for the IRC provisions was Carradine et al. (2007;; 2008). The deck ledger-to-house attachment appeared to be adequate for the conditions studied. When no tension hold-down connectors were used, the outer two lag screws carried most of the withdrawal load with no visible signs of failure (Figure 6)."

"These results point to the effectiveness of 0.5-in diameter lag screws when selected and installed per the IRC deck ledger connection provisions in Table R502.2.2.1 (ICC 2009b)*."

*Table R507.2 (ICC 2012)

*Ledger Connection Testing by Virginia State.*

The same researcher that conducted the ledger connection tests that were the basis of the ledger fastening table in the 2009 IRC performed this research.  Two 12 x 12 decks were constructed identically with perpendicular decking.  One deck had lateral hold down anchors installed, the other did not.  The decks were fastened with a strut along the center of the 12 ft. joists spans to simulate the resultant location of a uniformly loaded deck.  The decks were pulled laterally at this midpoint to a displacement of 17 inches, far greater than anything the occupants in the previously described test could generate.  The following text from the research report describes the damage observed by these large loads.


“In both tests, splitting of the top edges of the deck joists was the main source of damage, and was caused by the couple from the deck screws that induced stresses perpendicular to the grain. Splitting propagated along the longitudinal axis of the wood. Each deck joist completely split, to the depth of screw penetration, from the load drag strut to the ledger board. Significant yielding and fracture of deck board screws was also observed in this region. Minimal joist splitting and screw yielding was seen in the region from the load drag strut to the outer deck beam. In both tests, no damage was observed in the deck ledger to house rim board connection. A maximum separation of 0.1 inches when hold-downs were used and 0.15 inches when hold-downs were not used was recorded between the deck ledger and diaphragm rim board at the tension chord of the deck. No damage was observed in the simulated house diaphragm.”


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Sep 2, 2016)

rogerpa, 
excellent points!, the word shall is all over that section R507, "shall be positively anchored", "shall be designed and constructed", "shall be placed in accordance", "shall be supported" and so on. R507.2.3 sez: shall be permitted. 

IT'S NOT mandatory.

I should have said if I was enforcing that part of the code I would have be the only one doing so.

pc1


----------



## Mark K (Sep 2, 2016)

Besides only applying to public contracts the California Public Contract Code in many cases does not apply to Charter Cities since the matter could be considered a municipal affair.  There is also an exemption in the following paragraph of the PCCC that allows only one product to be specified when there is no equal.

And  while arguably I may not have always adhered to the letter of the PCC does it benefit the owner when I design for multiple products thus spending more on design fees than possibly saved by using another product?

There is case law in California that states that "Competitive bidding laws are passed for the benefit and protection of the taxpaying public, not for the benefit and enrichment of bidders"

Who decides what is equal?  Unless criteria is provided to define the basis for equal then the only way to determine whether it is equal is to ask the designer.  Thus stating "or equal" does not provide enough information to allow the contractor to determine whether his preferred product will be considered equal unless he gets clarification prior to bidding.

Regarding the stainless steel post caps there are situations commonly associated with certain types of exposures and the use of treated wood where the designer might be found negligent if he did not specify stainless steel or something comparable.  In terms of Simpson having to custom fabricate the products my experience has been that they do this fairly rapidly.

Whether the stainless steel post caps are worth the cost is a matter for the Owner and the designer to deal with not the contractor.


----------



## conarb (Sep 3, 2016)

Mark:

I don't mean to argue with you, I have the greatest respect for architects and won't build without one, but you claim that the owner should not have to pay you to research the costs before you specify, back when I did bid competitively something like 8 out of 10 projects never went up because the costs were over budget, of those that did go up a contractor was called in to "value engineer" and many items were changed by the architect in consultation with the contractor.  We contractors don't bid every joist hanger and every bolt in a project, we bid by formula and we don't find out the costs of each individual item until we actually order them.  If we did price out before we actually had a contract suppliers would soon stop pricing for us, we have to be known as contractors who actually have jobs to develop relationships with suppliers so they are bidding materials for a job that is actually going to go up by the contractor requesting the quote.  

As a matter of fact owners get very mad at architects for designing projects that go way over budget, they have had to pay the architect for designing buildings that they never get. For this reason many owners go to the contractor they want before the architect, and ask the contractor to recommend an architect that designs buildings that are actually buildable. The last house I built the owner came to me and I recommended an architect, as the process went on the owner became very disillusioned with the architect, finally the owner asked me to take over and select another architect, we ended up asking 5 architects to submit proposals, the owner offered to pay each architect $3,000 for his proposal, after all proposals were in the owner and I sat down and reviewed them, his wife preferred one, he preferred another, I gave him my opinion as to relative costs and ability to get through the Design Review and Planning Commission and an architect was selected. I always tell my owners: "Architects do not know prices, even I don't know prices, nobody actually knows prices, even after we start prices can change."


----------

