# Bypass door hardware @ Adaptable units



## Chnelson (Jun 17, 2021)

In order for a unit to be considered adaptable do the bypass closet doors need to have ADA compliant pulls or can they be added later when converting an adaptable unit to accessible?


----------



## RLGA (Jun 17, 2021)

ANSI A117.1-2009 does not have any requirements for storage facilities within Type B units. So, I would say the doors can also be adaptable by adding hardware only if needed.


----------



## Yikes (Jun 17, 2021)

Hi, and welcome.  You question is a bit confusing, because you ask about "ADA compliant pulls" but your subject line refers to "adaptable units".
The word "adaptable" implies that it is subject to CBC 11A for privately funded housing, and not subject to ADA for public housing units.

Assuming it is private housing, maybe your question is: can bypass closet doors be installed in an 11A adaptable dwelling unit without requiring the ability to grasp the opening hardware?

If so, look at 1132A.8 for 11A adaptable hardware.  The scope of this is particular to "Latching and locking doors that are hand activated and on an accessible route".  Assuming for the moment that you have a conventional shallow bedroom closet (for example, about 28" deep) it is not designed to have an accessible route through the doorway and inside the closet.  Therefore since it is not on an accessible route, the scope of 1132A.8 does not apply, and the hardware does not need special accessibility features (such as the kind of "ADA"-type pulls that would be found on accessible public housing).

Loom forward to hearing the opinions of others.


----------



## Chnelson (Jun 17, 2021)

RLGA said:


> ANSI A117.1-2009 does not have any requirements for storage facilities within Type B units. So, I would say the doors can also be adaptable by adding hardware only if needed.


Thank you for your input!!


----------



## Chnelson (Jun 17, 2021)

Yikes said:


> Hi, and welcome.  You question is a bit confusing, because you ask about "ADA compliant pulls" but your subject line refers to "adaptable units".
> The word "adaptable" implies that it is subject to CBC 11A for privately funded housing, and not subject to ADA for public housing units.
> 
> Assuming it is private housing, maybe your question is: can bypass closet doors be installed in an 11A adaptable dwelling unit without requiring the ability to grasp the opening hardware?
> ...


I apologize for any confusion. The project is a privately funded apartment complex. The bypass closet hardware spec was for recessed finger pulls, the owner of the project wanted to change to a different style of pull for these doors. It created a lot of added work because the doors were already prepped for the original hardware that was in the specifications. The pull they changed to happens to be ADA compliant. All the units in the project are 'Adaptable'. They are rejecting the change order for the pulls they changed to and are claiming that the original pulls, in the specification, were wrong because they were not ADA compliant and that adaptable units must, by code, have ADA pulls on bypass closet doors. We are looking for good data to refute this and everything we're seeing regarding what makes a unit 'adaptable' does not address this issue. Further, it is our understanding that converting a unit from adaptable to accessible is something that needs to be able to be done without major 'reconstruction' and should be able to be completed in a couple of days. Certainly installing ADA compliant wire pulls on bypass doors doesn't take a lot of time.


----------



## Yikes (Jun 18, 2021)

Chnelson, you still didn't say where the project was located.  I will continue to assume it is in California.
When CBC 11A requires private covered multifamily dwelling unit to be adaptable, and the unit is permitted and constructed and received a certificate of occupancy in compliance with CBC 11A, you have met all the requirements of CBC 11A.  There are no post-construction accessibility requirements for the architect or contractor in CBC 11A.
At this point, the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and takes over, and in California also the Unruh Act.  The apartment tenant must make a request to the Owner for a "reasonable accommodation" to further modify their apartment to help them with their disabilities.  At the end of their residency, the tenant can even be held responsible (via security deposit, escrow, or other negotiated means) for the cost of restoring the apartment back to its original condition.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 18, 2021)

Yikes said:


> Hi, and welcome.  You question is a bit confusing, because you ask about "ADA compliant pulls" but your subject line refers to "adaptable units".
> The word "adaptable" implies that it is subject to CBC 11A for privately funded housing, and not subject to ADA for public housing units.
> 
> Assuming it is private housing, maybe your question is: can bypass closet doors be installed in an 11A adaptable dwelling unit without requiring the ability to grasp the opening hardware?
> ...


If intended for a disabled tenant it is still best practice for "all" operating hardware to be accessible and the closet would require low height clothes poles too.


----------



## Yikes (Jun 18, 2021)

ADAguy, in post #5, the original poster made it clear this was not about a specific intended future tenant with a disability.  It was about an owner wanting different closet pulls and then trying to make the contractor (and/or architect?) pay for it by claiming that it was required by code and somehow missed in the original construction.

Here's the reference from the FHA Design Manual regarding modifications that exceed code requirements:


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 18, 2021)

Trying to pass the buck as most of them do.


----------



## Chnelson (Jun 21, 2021)

Yikes said:


> Chnelson, you still didn't say where the project was located.  I will continue to assume it is in California.
> When CBC 11A requires private covered multifamily dwelling unit to be adaptable, and the unit is permitted and constructed and received a certificate of occupancy in compliance with CBC 11A, you have met all the requirements of CBC 11A.  There are no post-construction accessibility requirements for the architect or contractor in CBC 11A.
> At this point, the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and takes over, and in California also the Unruh Act.  The apartment tenant must make a request to the Owner for a "reasonable accommodation" to further modify their apartment to help them with their disabilities.  At the end of their residency, the tenant can even be held responsible (via security deposit, escrow, or other negotiated means) for the cost of restoring the apartment back to its original condition.


Yes, it is in California. Once the COO is granted we are really no longer involved...typically. Our main interest at this point is being able to establish that the bypass pulls in an adaptable unit are not required by code to be ADA compliant. The pulls called for in the hardware specification were not ADA compliant and we provided what was specified. As I mentioned, they changed them after the contract was awarded and it resulted in additional costs. We submitted a changed order to cover those costs and they are now rejecting that change order. Their rejection is based on their claim that the pulls should have been compliant from the beginning, that we should have known that, and the contract requires us to meet the code.


----------



## Chnelson (Jun 21, 2021)

Yikes said:


> ADAguy, in post #5, the original poster made it clear this was not about a specific intended future tenant with a disability.  It was about an owner wanting different closet pulls and then trying to make the contractor (and/or architect?) pay for it by claiming that it was required by code and somehow missed in the original construction.
> 
> Here's the reference from the FHA Design Manual regarding modifications that exceed code requirements:
> 
> ...


Making the Architect pay? That would be a first! They want us to eat the cost, which included repairing all of the doors that had been prepped for the originally specified pull, prepping them for the new pull, along with buying the new pulls after already purchasing the originally specified pulls. Jamming it down our throats, so to speak. We are the 'little, lowly' subcontractor and they are the big, powerful developer/builder. They are flexing their muscle by simply declaring we 'should have' known and superseded what the Architect had called for because of it being a code issue. Incidentally, this is not our first rodeo, we have done thousands of adaptable units where the bypass pulls have not been required to be ADA compliant. There is no precedent for this and that's based on our experience in these matters. Unfortunately, from all we can see, the code doesn't specifically state that 'bypass pulls do not have to be ADA compliant in an adaptable dwelling' so it leaves it to interpretation and, of course, their interpretation is that it is required.


----------



## RLGA (Jun 21, 2021)

Chnelson said:


> Making the Architect pay? That would be a first! They want us to eat the cost, which included repairing all of the doors that had been prepped for the originally specified pull, prepping them for the new pull, along with buying the new pulls after already purchasing the originally specified pulls. Jamming it down our throats, so to speak. We are the 'little, lowly' subcontractor and they are the big, powerful developer/builder. They are flexing their muscle by simply declaring we 'should have' known and superseded what the Architect had called for because of it being a code issue. Incidentally, this is not our first rodeo, we have done thousands of adaptable units where the bypass pulls have not been required to be ADA compliant. There is no precedent for this and that's based on our experience in these matters. Unfortunately, from all we can see, the code doesn't specifically state that 'bypass pulls do not have to be ADA compliant in an adaptable dwelling' so it leaves it to interpretation and, of course, their interpretation is that it is required.


Was an AIA construction agreement and general conditions used for the project?


----------



## Chnelson (Jun 21, 2021)

RLGA said:


> Was an AIA construction agreement and general conditions used for the project?


They used the AIA document as a basis but made several changes to it


----------



## Yikes (Jun 21, 2021)

Chnelson said:


> They are flexing their muscle by simply declaring we 'should have' known and superseded what the Architect had called for because of it being a code issue. Incidentally, this is not our first rodeo, we have done thousands of adaptable units where the bypass pulls have not been required to be ADA compliant. There is no precedent for this and that's based on our experience in these matters. Unfortunately, from all we can see, the code doesn't specifically state that 'bypass pulls do not have to be ADA compliant in an adaptable dwelling' so it leaves it to interpretation and, of course, their interpretation is that it is required.


How does it leave things open to interpretation?
Flip the discussion: Ask them to provide a code citation where it explicitly IS required.
And RGLA's comment is especially pertinent: the AIA A201 docs do not require the contractor to possess design/interpretation knowledge.


----------



## RLGA (Jun 21, 2021)

Have them look at Section 3.2.3, if they did not delete it or modify it:

“*The Contractor is not required to ascertain that the Contract Documents are in accordance with applicable* *laws, statutes, ordinances, codes, rules and regulations, or lawful orders of public authorities*, but the Contractor shall promptly report to the Architect any nonconformity discovered by or made known to the Contractor as a request for information in such form as the Architect may require."​


----------



## Chnelson (Jun 21, 2021)

Yikes said:


> How does it leave things open to interpretation?
> Flip the discussion: Ask them to provide a code citation where it explicitly IS required.
> And RGLA's comment is especially pertinent: the AIA A201 docs do not require the contractor to possess design/interpretation knowledge.


Good stuff and we will use it! Thanks


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 21, 2021)

Yikes said:


> How does it leave things open to interpretation?
> Flip the discussion: Ask them to provide a code citation where it explicitly IS required.
> And RGLA's comment is especially pertinent: the AIA A201 docs do not require the contractor to possess design/interpretation knowledge.


Yes, but at a minimum he is expected to know code, no?
He is supposed to inform AOR if he runs into an issue like this before proceeding.
Wasn't AOR suppose to receive and approve submittals?


----------



## RLGA (Jun 21, 2021)

ADAguy said:


> Yes, but at a minimum he is expected to know code, no?
> He is supposed to inform AOR if he runs into an issue like this before proceeding.
> Wasn't AOR suppose to receive and approve submittals?


Q1: It depends. An electrician and plumber, for example, know what is code as to the installation of their respective systems, but they are not required to review the documents to determine whether the electrical engineer or plumbing engineer properly sized the wires or pipes for the design loads or demands. A glazer typically knows that Cat II safety glass is required within doors, even if the contract documents do not show it.

Q2: The problem here is that the doors are not required to be ADA-compliant, so there is no need to inform the architect of the "issue" since there technically is no "issue"--the developer/owner is making it an issue. There is no way for a contractor or subcontractor to foretell that such an issue will occur.

Q3: This depends on what is required in the contract documents. Some architects hate submittals and reduce them down to the bare minimum. Just because a submittal is required or not, does not relieve the contractor from complying with the contract documents. If the contract documents call for one type of pull and the contractor changed it thinking the specified pull was wrong for the situation, the contractor would be liable for any costs to correct it to comply with the contract documents. If the contractor provided what was on the contract documents and the owner wants to change it, then the cost is on the owner. If the contractor submitted the pull per the contract documents before ordering them and preparing the doors for them (which they should), and the architect reviewed and approved it, it would be difficult for the owner to make a claim that it was the wrong pull.


----------



## Yikes (Jun 21, 2021)

ADAguy, note that the original poster did not say that the inspector wrote up a correction.  He did say the units were were privately funded, so therefore they are not ADA units.  Knowing the code he would not need to provide ADA compliant pulls in order to meet code.

Now, if the construction documents (CDs) that are part of the construction contract actually said "provide and install ADA-compliant hardware at ALL doors", then he would be under a contractual (but not code) obligation.  This assumes of course that a set of plans was explicitly referenced in the contract for construction.  He would be wise to ask for clarification as to what constitutes ADA-compliant hardware prior to signing the contract.
*
Let's use another example to explain that:
Suppose the CDs said, "all interior doors shall be painted red, primer + 2 coats semigloss latex".  You do it because that was stated on the plans that were referenced your contract.  You might send an RFI saying "what color red?", or "how thick are the coats?"  But there is little question that you need to paint the doors, because it is in the contract.
However, if the CDs said "interior door finish of all doors shall comply with the California Building Code", then you don't need to paint the doors at all, because the California Building Code does not require interior doors to be painted.
*
In this case the CBC does not require accessible closet pull tabs.  In fact, it probably doesn't require any door hardware at all at the closets.
It is possible that the original poster's problem might not be that cup pulls were installed in lieu of ADA pulls;  the problem (if the owner were to play this game) might be that hardware pulls were installed if/when none were called out on the plans.   The owner could say, "hey, you ruined my perfectly smooth flat closet doors by cutting holes in them to install hardware that the CDs did not ask for.  Fix it, or give me a credit".  Now, if the architect directed the contractor to install cup pulls, then the contractor may have recourse to removing the cups and patching the doors.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 21, 2021)

Anyone read 1126A.6 Hand-Activated Door or gate hardware? What good is it to provide a door if you can't open it?
Door hardware in this case is an element of the new construction. It has not risen to the level of accommodation. 
Did the project have specifications separate from the DWG's? Did the owner signoff on them?
Could have used bifolds in lieu of sliding and "U" pulls could have been specified.
Yes the project is not under ADA, it is under FHA HUD and CBC except for any public use spaces (leasing office, community room, etc.) which are.
This could have been caught early on but now the owner is making a mountain out of a molehill.
Did the developer have prior experience, own many units?


----------



## Yikes (Jun 21, 2021)

ADAguy said:


> Anyone read 1126A.6 Hand-Activated Door or gate hardware? What good is it to provide a door if you can't open it?



1126A.6 is part of Section 1126A, which is in Div. III - "Building Features".  This is for areas outside of the dwelling unit, or as 1126A.1 puts it, for "doorways which provide access to common use areas or multifamily dwellings".

Once you are inside the dwelling unit, Division IV "Dwelling Unit Features" takes over, including section 1132A for doors.
1132A.2 says "interior doors intended for user passage and secondary exterior doors shall comply with THIS section" - - more proof that 1126A is not applicable inside a dwelling unit.
Furthermore, as per post #3, a shallow clothes closet (less than 4' deep, which is the designed wheelchair depth) is not intended for "passage", so even section 1132A.2 doesn't apply in that particular situation.  It gets treated like the door on a kitchen cabinet in CBC 11A - - no hardware required. 
So yes, inside the dwelling unit, cup hardware has risen to the required level of accommodation, because no accommodation is required by applicable codes or regulations.

To answer your question, "what good is it to provide a door if you can't open it?", their are plenty of people who can pull or drag a sliding closet door with their fingers, whether with a cup pull or even with no pull at all.  At home, I have a bedroom closet with sliding doors and no pulls at all.  The hardware glides are so smooth that the minor friction of your palm or fingers on the door face is enough to slide it open.
You might ask, "but what about the tenant that has no fingers, using a closet door that does not glide so easily?".  See the FHA answer in post #5: that tenant can always make their own post-construction "reasonable accommodation" request to the owner.

Remember, the problem in the original post is that the owner is claiming the contractor is on the hook to provide ADA pulls for free because the code or other applicable regulations require it, even though the plans didn't call for it.  I challenge anyone to cite anywhere in the scope of CBC 11A or FHA where a regulation applicable to privately funded housing requires (not merely "recommends") accessible door pulls on non-passage clothes closets inside a private covered multifamily dwelling unit.
I can't find it.

Can you?


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 22, 2021)

accepted: 2020 FHA Design manual differs to ANSI 4.13 Req. 3


----------



## RLGA (Jun 22, 2021)

ADAguy said:


> accepted: 2020 FHA Design manual differs to ANSI 4.13 Req. 3


"2020 FHA Design manual" - HUD still shows the 1998 version on its website. Do you have a link to this document?

Also, to which ANSI standard edition are you referring? Several editions are considered safe harbors, which means that if the safe harbor differs from the Design Manual, then complying with the safe harbor document is all that is necessary (unless the FHA Design Manual is specifically included by reference).


----------



## Yikes (Jun 22, 2021)

ADAguy said:


> accepted: 2020 FHA Design manual differs to ANSI 4.13 Req. 3


----------



## Rick18071 (Jun 23, 2021)

I guess it will break the bank to put plastic accessible handles on the closet doors.


----------



## Chnelson (Jun 23, 2021)

RLGA said:


> Q1: It depends. An electrician and plumber, for example, know what is code as to the installation of their respective systems, but they are not required to review the documents to determine whether the electrical engineer or plumbing engineer properly sized the wires or pipes for the design loads or demands. A glazer typically knows that Cat II safety glass is required within doors, even if the contract documents do not show it.
> 
> Q2: The problem here is that the doors are not required to be ADA-compliant, so there is no need to inform the architect of the "issue" since there technically is no "issue"--the developer/owner is making it an issue. There is no way for a contractor or subcontractor to foretell that such an issue will occur.
> 
> Q3: This depends on what is required in the contract documents. Some architects hate submittals and reduce them down to the bare minimum. Just because a submittal is required or not, does not relieve the contractor from complying with the contract documents. If the contract documents call for one type of pull and the contractor changed it thinking the specified pull was wrong for the situation, the contractor would be liable for any costs to correct it to comply with the contract documents. If the contractor provided what was on the contract documents and the owner wants to change it, then the cost is on the owner. If the contractor submitted the pull per the contract documents before ordering them and preparing the doors for them (which they should), and the architect reviewed and approved it, it would be difficult for the owner to make a claim that it was the wrong pull.


Ron, yes, material was included in the submittal package per the hardware sets provided by the Architect. The submittals were approved, at which point the hardware was purchased. When the doors were ordered, ahead of any changes, they were prepped to receive the approved hardware.


----------



## Chnelson (Jun 23, 2021)

Yikes said:


> 1126A.6 is part of Section 1126A, which is in Div. III - "Building Features".  This is for areas outside of the dwelling unit, or as 1126A.1 puts it, for "doorways which provide access to common use areas or multifamily dwellings".
> 
> Once you are inside the dwelling unit, Division IV "Dwelling Unit Features" takes over, including section 1132A for doors.
> 1132A.2 says "interior doors intended for user passage and secondary exterior doors shall comply with THIS section" - - more proof that 1126A is not applicable inside a dwelling unit.
> ...


I totally forgot the other issue that the developer/builder is trying to jam down our throats - same project in California, plans called for flush doors at the laundry closets/rooms, no mention of required ventilation through the doors, no call for louvered doors. Our submittal package matched what the plans and specs called for and were approved, flush doors at the laundry closets/rooms. The owner changed them to louvers and we submitted a change order as louvered doors cost more than the flush doors. Now that the project is complete the owner is rejecting the change order for the louver doors on the basis that we should have checked the Mechanical plans and noticed that venting out of the doors would be necessary. Our response is that we have no expertise in reading and/or interpreting ventilation requirements in the Mechanical plans. Further, we have done several projects where louvered doors are not used/required at laundry closets/rooms so it is not an 'automatic' that laundry closets/rooms always get louvered doors. Based on the replies regarding the bypass hardware question it would seem that we followed standard/accepted protocol in providing what the plans called for.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 23, 2021)

"C" I take it you are architects? The dryer is gas? 
If so, the responsibility is with you to be aware of these things, no?
Licensing board would find this to be a standard of care issue.


----------



## Chnelson (Jun 23, 2021)

ADAguy said:


> "C" I take it you are architects? The dryer is gas?
> If so, the responsibility is with you to be aware of these things, no?
> Licensing board would find this to be a standard of care issue.


No, we are not the Architect on the project. We are a subcontractor and were awarded the door/hardware package and that's what we do, doors and hardware.


----------



## e hilton (Jun 23, 2021)

ADAguy said:


> "C" I take it you are architects?


I think he is the GC and the customer is being an ass.  Trying to get something fof nothing.


----------



## e hilton (Jun 23, 2021)

Rick18071 said:


> I guess it will break the bank to put plastic accessible handles on the closet doors.


First, its not their place to install handles for free, regardless of cost.  And if they use inexpensive handles they will be getting warranty calls for the next year as they break.   And if they capitulate and install plastic handles, thd customer is going to jump on that, say "see, you admit you should have installed handles" ... and then reject them as being wrong and demand better quality.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 23, 2021)

There in lies the initial issue, a sub to a GC. It appears the GC did not do his dilligence on this item.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Jun 24, 2021)

It sounds like a lot of people didn't do due diligence.

Unfortunately you-know-what flows downhill, and the sub or supplier is usually at the bottom of the heap and least able to do anything about it.


----------



## Yikes (Jun 26, 2021)

Chnelson said:


> I totally forgot the other issue that the developer/builder is trying to jam down our throats - same project in California, plans called for flush doors at the laundry closets/rooms, no mention of required ventilation through the doors, no call for louvered doors. Our submittal package matched what the plans and specs called for and were approved, flush doors at the laundry closets/rooms. The owner changed them to louvers and we submitted a change order as louvered doors cost more than the flush doors. Now that the project is complete the owner is rejecting the change order for the louver doors on the basis that we should have checked the Mechanical plans and noticed that venting out of the doors would be necessary. Our response is that we have no expertise in reading and/or interpreting ventilation requirements in the Mechanical plans. Further, we have done several projects where louvered doors are not used/required at laundry closets/rooms so it is not an 'automatic' that laundry closets/rooms always get louvered doors. Based on the replies regarding the bypass hardware question it would seem that we followed standard/accepted protocol in providing what the plans called for.


Your response is correct.  

Also, not that you need any further justification, but FWIW, a typical 4" diameter residential duct has a little under 13 sq. in. of net free area.
A 1/2" undercut on a 32" wide flush door has 16 sq. in of net free area.  The air supply could have been achieved with a simple undercut on the flush door, instead of louvers.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Jun 28, 2021)

A residential dryer typically exhausts around 200 CFM.  You would need at least a 1" undercut to transfer that much air.

Did the mechanical drawings show a symbol for louvered or undercut doors?  It is good practice to check the mechanical drawings for this.


----------

