Document Reviewers

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

Author Message Randall L. Cox Senior Member Username: randy_cox Post Number: 31 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 10:07 am:    Has anyone worked with independent "plan" reviewers (ideally in the New England area) that they recommend? We've worked with a few, but our go to guy is not available. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 672 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 11:07 am:    Are you looking for code review? or peer review? Randall L. Cox Senior Member Username: randy_cox Post Number: 32 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 11:45 am:    We are looking for a peer review. I think that a peer review that included a code component along with coordination and technical quality would be a good thing. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 263 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 01:43 pm:    I have gone through nearly a whole drum of industrial-strength Preparation H due to "independent" plancheckers. As far as specifications are concerned, I have receive NO (none, zip, nada) comments regarding the technical content of the specifications in over 5 years of putting up with these plancheckers. They perform a clerical check, almost exclusively regarding cross-references of specification numbers and titles. Yes, if there are errors they should be corrected. But the galling thing is that the "error" is magnified out of proportion in that a copy of the Project Manual is marked up and the "error" is listed one or two additional times in reports. And the tags on the Project Manual are big pieces of paper so that the results over-emphasize the matter. When it comes to Code compliance, the plancheckers I've encountered make the most conservative interpretation. The wildest example I've recently encountered is a demand from an access compliance planchecker that the fire extinguisher cabinets have lever-handle latches. This defies a rational basis. If the person opening the cabinet door cannot grasp, then what are they to do with the fire extinguisher? Independent plancheckers justify their fee and their importance by making the architect and engineers look bad. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 412 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 02:03 pm:    In defense of us "independent" plan checkers, we usually have to take the conservative route initially; mainly because we are not familiar with the common interpretations of the local jurisdiction. However, I never identify elements that go beyond what the code requires, and neither should the AHJ. However, I'll identify certain items for my client where there is potential for approval on a code modification for an alternative material or method. Some jurisdictions are very restrictive on code modifications, while others are very flexible and informal. Relying on a loose interpretion of a code requirement could land your client in some very hot water with the AHJ, the owner, or both. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 821 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 02:16 pm:    Randall, Are you talking about "constructibility" reviewers or building envelope consultant reviews? The recent project I just finished had both consultants hired out by the owner. The consultants commented on the drawings and specs. Some of the spec comments were very good and I changed my master. Some of the comments were just wordsmithing and some of the comments were just plain wrong. More and more it seems like architects are "giving away the store" by having other people do the tasks that traditionally architects did. I figure in the future that architects will be like general contractors and have a core group of people and just "sub" everything else out. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 7 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 02:21 pm:    Many of my clients (architects) and their clients (owners) regularly use RediCheck Associates for document review. I have seen a number of their reports and the comments are on point, useful, and comprehensive (including comments for specs). Their system is especially good for identifying cross-discipline coordination issues. RediCheck is a national firm with regional offices that are affiliated w/ the central organization but independently owned. The New England office is in New Hampshire. www.redicheck-review.com Randall L. Cox Senior Member Username: randy_cox Post Number: 33 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 03:56 pm:    David, We are looking at both constructability and building envelope in the sense that we are trying to improve our documents and reduce the number of surprises that our clients receive during construction. Regarding your "giving away the store" line. I don't think there was a golden age when architects did the level of review that we are hiring consultants to do now. I think we are more coordinated with our civil, landscape, structural and MEP drawings and specs now than John Ruskin could imagine. (insert smiley emoticon). Not only is the technology for the buildings a lot more work to coordinate, but all the other technology makes coordination harder and more critical. When I was a young job captain, I (could have) looked at the day's work on each of the drafting tables to see where we were and know what details were missing or needed adjustment. Now that opportunity is gone, and more of that review happens in one big push at the end of CDs. Construction technology has changed too. Those changes have made construction workers more productive, by pushing more work outside the jobsite, making construction faster and review harder. Thanks for letting me pontificate! Randy Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 31 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 08:12 pm:    We get good results by hiring former senior employees to do peer reviews. Fortunately we have a collection of really skilled people to draw upon that know us because thye helped make us what we are. We often see a massive time waste in independent reviewers working for the client, with a clear effort being made to go for quantity of comments. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 237 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, March 09, 2007 - 08:53 am:    My most recent experience with document reviewers has been with envelope consultants, who have emerged as specialists in our region in the last 5 years. They are typically engineers. They often have useful comments on flashing details. However, they seldom understand basic specification practices, so their specification review comments are inappropriate and often appear to be report padding. I've recommended the CDT program to several of them. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 822 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, March 09, 2007 - 12:54 pm:    I forget to add that the real thorn in my side is the large amount of time it takes to formally answer the reviewer's comments. I'd rather spend the time writing specs and researching materials than justifying why I did this or that. I know that the reviews have to "justify their pay" to the owner. They do this by "bleeding" all over the specs and drawings. The more red ink the better service, right? The owner looks at all the comments and gets the false impression that those big bucks were well spent. The owner also gets the false impression that the architect is incompetent and not to be trusted. Unfortunately the reviewers create more, and sometimes needless, work for the architect. Anonymous   Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 08:43 am:    I think a big AMEN from the crowd is warranted here! Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 115 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 09:10 am:    There's been good news and bad news. Sometimes they find things that could be coordinated or detailed better. Many times they act in the way David describes above. And sometimes you just get the feeling that they are in the pocket of a certain manufacturer and recommend a change in a detail or spec, just to get the manufacturer into the job. Call me a cynic.... David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca Post Number: 44 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Monday, March 12, 2007 - 10:57 am:    To John Regener: Your example of the fire extinguisher is a classic. We had a bizarre experience here in Ohio in which a reviewer stated that we needed UL fire testing performed on a sculpture installed in a building lobby. The hours it takes to battle such absurdity destroys motivation.