Construction Documents for Permit Review

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 268 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, May 29, 2015 - 12:32 pm:    I remember a discussion on this forum regarding some code reviewers requiring information normally found in the Project Manual to be included as notes on Drawings so the Project Manual was not needed (or rejected) to be submitted for the Permit review. Could not find so am starting a new thread. Yesterday I attended a panel discussion at the Richmond CSI Products Show. Representatives from local code departments were on the panel. I asked about this issue, ie Why are specifications often not required (included) in the construction documents submitted for code review? and what was their policy? The answer received was: Specifications are accepted as part of the Construction documents for the review, however because of time constraints, the PM is often placed on a shelf and not reviewed unless a specific issue is not addressed on the drawings. Conversations after with other attendees confirmed some of this. Exception was the State rep BCOM, They do review the PM as they are also the "Owner" as well as the code official on the project. What is your take and/or experience on this issue? Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 213 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, May 29, 2015 - 12:48 pm:    I personally have had multiple AHJ's refuse to take specifications as part of the building permit in California. Archiving costs and effort and/or time were the main reasons given. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 739 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, May 29, 2015 - 12:50 pm:    Some jurisdictions are less enlightened and claim that the specifications are not part of the approved construction documents. The drawings without the specifications are inadequate to document compliance with the building code. The mentioning of time constraints is another way of saying the permit fees are not adequate. There is nothing preventing the jurisdiction from charging sufficient fees. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 479 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, May 29, 2015 - 01:31 pm:    I have had the same experience that Alan describes. We have been told by various AHJ's that the "cost of making microfiche copies of 8.5 x 11 inch text documents" is too high, so the issue for them is being stuck with a dated record keeping technology. One AHJ also noted that they use a perforation type stamp on all approved for permit document pages and this is "too time consuming" to do once again to 8.5 x 11 inch text documents. I guess we should be glad that they at least have dispensed with wax seals and the king's signet ring. That being said, the AHJ will then insist that some pieces of information that you would normally put in a specification Section must be put on the drawings. This causes all sorts of problems because for every project we still provide a full specification as a Contract Document. This results is a bit of cherry picking bits of the spec and reformatting it onto the drawings. Items the AHJ's typically want to see on the drawings are bits of information from specification articles like "Reference Standards", "Quality Assurance", "Submittal Procedures" and sometimes pieces of Part 3 "Installation Requirements". Now you have duplicated information in two places with distinct methods of organizing the information that you must keep track of through the normal changes that occur in bidding, substitution requests, value engineering, ASI's and Change Orders. The AHJ's often combine (or have trouble differentiating) these requests with the requirement that you also burn into the drawings copies of ICI reports, ASTM standards and UL assembly reports. This may get messy because you may technically need three separate versions of each report for each of the three different products you list in the spec (that they won't look at). Do we put all three in? No, its a waste of paper. So we start talking in the spec about something being a "Basis-of-Design" for agency review. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 214 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, May 29, 2015 - 02:23 pm:    Steven, The main thing that I have had arise as a required spec item that they want on the drawings was the door hardware schedule. How we resolved it was that we put a very condensed schedule. We would just list things like like hinges, latchset or lockset, panic hardware, closer, etc. Then we would have the complete schedule in the spec. I also have run into the UL and ICI reports and evaluations, but never had to do ASTMs. The UL stuff we would include on the code sheets. Many times they want the ADA requirements, too. I have never run into the AHJ wanting Reference Standards, Quality Assurance Submittal Procedures or Installation Requirements. To avoid duplicate information, many times we would refer to the drawings when the information was provided on the drawings. Glass was one that we would do that with. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 480 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, May 29, 2015 - 03:14 pm:    Alan, For our projects in these no-specs-please locales, I see the AHJ asking for the cherry picked spec items I mentioned for spray applied fireproofing and firestopping, particularly edge-of-slab firestopping. The information usually will include Engineering Judgments for any application that is not strictly per the listed assembly. For door hardware, our solution has been to include a comments column on the drawing door schedule where we list the things they want to check, even though the column adjacent to it provides the hardware group, they want to see panic hardware, closers and anything that needs to link with a fire/life safety system. Its good that you mention glass. With ever tightening energy requirements, the AHJ's are looking at glazing performance data that previously would be buried in our glazing specifications. The same holds true for passive insulation products. Finally, a lot of our work is in California and often in special air quality districts with specific requirements beyond those in the CBC that apply statewide. So we have been asked to submit VOC data as if it was a LEED project, but once again, burned into the full size drawing sheets. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 40 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - 06:57 pm:    Why not put the specifications on large size sheets and bind them along with the drawings. When specs were produced with a typewriter and reproduced with mimeograph, and drawings were produced with pencils and reproduced by diazo, it made sense to put one on 8-12 x 11 inch pages and the other on large format sheets. But now they are all digitized and laser printed. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 269 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - 08:15 pm:    That may work with some of the technical sections, however to include the Admin and Quality requirements found in the front end docs, They would be "lost in translation". I was requested to create front end docs (GC and Div 01) for such a sheet spec job recently. I included criteria in the Div 01 to cover the admin portions of the technical information on the sheets, I believe the architect will have the QC/QA "hammer" needed to protect the Owner's interests. I would only do this for the simplest of projects. BTW - Thanks to all of you who responded to my original post. I've passed this thread on to the panel presenters, who I hope will take your comments to heart. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1351 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - 10:13 pm:    Michael, one of the complaints I constantly receive is that the specs are too long. I've also received complaints that there are too many drawings, though I am never responsible for issuing drawings. One of my reasons for not issuing sheet specs is the eventual length of the contract documents will increase to a point where they will no longer be manageable. I don't see where it matters, eventually drawings will no longer be used on a job site, and whether specs are issued on drawings or in book form, it won't matter, they will all look the same electronically.