4specs.com    4specs.com Home Page

Forms on drawings that are not constr... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

4specs Discussion Forum » Specifications Discussions » Forms on drawings that are not construction documents « Previous Next »

Author Message
Mark Gilligan SE,
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan

Post Number: 957
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2021 - 02:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

A number of building departments require various forms be placed on the construction documents. A common example is the statement of special inspections (SSI) in Chapter 17 which the IBC 107 considers a submittal document. This is typically required to be placed on the structural drawings.

We will ignore for a minute the fact that not all special inspections are related to structural work.

My understanding is that the construction documents are part of the contract documents which define what the contractor needs to do. The problem is that the code says that the contractor cannot hire the special inspectors thus creating a conflict. The contractors responsibility is limited to notifying the special inspectors when inspections are needed and providing inspectors with access to the work. Thus the SSI should be an informational document that the contractor needs to have a copy of but it is not a contract document.

I will offer a proposal to resolve this but first would like to understand how others deal with such forms.
Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, CDT, AIA, LEED
Senior Member
Username: ecwhitby

Post Number: 541
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 07:19 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Personally, if it gets us a permit, I would tell the project architect to dress in a clown costume and dance the macarena if code officials requires that for a permit (this is perhaps a slight exaggeration). If the project is in a jurisdiction where we expect to do more work I also never argue with fire marshals: you can win such an argument with facts but if they chose any the fire marshal can find more items during occupancy inspections to require much additional work.
Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: michael_chusid

Post Number: 622
Registered: 10-2003


Posted on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 10:22 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I suggest adding a note above or below the form stating: Owner will submit form."
Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS 1-818-219-4937
www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru
John Bunzick
Senior Member
Username: bunzick

Post Number: 1858
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 11:03 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I think this could be done with notations or comments. The so-called "project manual" often has procurement information that would not form part of the contract documents, and these can be identified as such on the contents or an intermediate title page. Even if the forms are required to be on a drawing, I think that these could be noted as "informational" or some other term. Another approach could be, though a bit backwards, a listing in the contract of those items that are NOT part of the contract, even though they are in the manual or elsewhere
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan

Post Number: 1163
Registered: 05-2004
Posted on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 11:06 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I my 9secondhand) experience, most (nearly all) AHJs don't want to review specifications not do they really understand contract requirements. They do know what they want to see, and they nearly always want to see it on the Drawings. In some cases, they allow the information on 8-1/2 x 11 sheets stapled to the hard copy drawings. I have no idea how that works for those jurisdictions that are allowing or in some cases requiring electronic submission of permit documents.

I have instances where the person reviewing the permit documents (I don't want to call them construction documents or contract documents) wants "specifications," they want really want to see specific product data. Where the product in question is a commodity item, I have no idea how this gets handled during construction where the Contractor wants to use Product A rather than Product X (where the products are equivalent).

In my view, this is largely a manifestation of the attitude in the design community as a whole that specific product selection equals product specification.

I do agree with Elis' view. Give 'em what they want no matter what. It will get sorted out during construction, but by the way, if the Fire Marshall comes out to the job site and wants Product Q, you will generally rip out Product A ir X or whatever no matter how equivalent it is.
J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg

Post Number: 1399
Registered: 12-2006


Posted on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 11:40 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Mark, when I'm aware of this sort of thing (it often does not get communicated in advance) I am able to include Document 03 00 00 Available Information with the usual caveat along the lines of "The following information is furnished for use by Bidders and is not included as Contract Documents." If you can include geotech, existing data, hazmat, etc. I see no reason why you couldn't include mention of the Special Inspections information included on the Structural Drawings in that list of Documents. Perhaps you could include a note on your Drawings when you list the Special Inspections that "the following content is included in Available Information as listed in Document 00 30 00", or verbiage of a similar nature. I doubt the Code official would know or care what you're talking about and you will have excluded the content theoretically from your Contract Documents. At least until the opposing lawyer gets hold of it.
Mark Gilligan SE,
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan

Post Number: 958
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 12:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

My preference is similar to John's proposal

Not only do plan checkers not understand specifications and the product manual many civil engineers doing the designs are similarly challenged. One of my gripes are general notes on the structural drawings that duplicate or conflict with the specifications.

One of the failings of CSI has been its inability to be seen as relevant by many consultants on the project.

While I recognize the need to make compromises to get the permit I am concerned that a wholesale capitulation to give them what they want results in the propagation of a lot of bad habits.

Maybe there is a question regarding the primary purpose of the construction documents. Is the primary role to direct the contractor regarding what the owner wants or is the primary purpose to meet the needs of the building department.
Marc Chavez
Senior Member
Username: mchavez

Post Number: 628
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 01:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

well our license is all health and safety not construction. and our main paycheck is the permit. CA is a smaller percentage of our fee. so I think unfortunately, permit set wins. that is why 99.999% of all Revit models are crap. because we are paid for a permit set of pdfs or prints to the building department not a reliable model to construct with....that should change but architects continue to see their VALUE (not cost) as a percentage of construction cost, not anything based upon the value of our schooling: Use of space? standard metrics on O&M cost? number of people using the building per day? etc

I dont have the answer but until we are seen as more than just a sunk cost or a commodity we will never be able to argue that we need to be doing more than permit sets and unreliable models. Consequently doing things like pasting forms on sheets or as I've had to do ....copy entire UL wall assemblies onto sheets for every rated assembly.....'cause the fire marshal told me so.

but I rant.....back to work.
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC
Senior Member
Username: redseca2

Post Number: 699
Registered: 12-2006


Posted on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 03:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Special inspections do have Contractor scope because they may impact the project schedule and sequencing, and may require the Contractor to facilitate access and control site conditions for the inspections to take place. So the Contractor needs to be aware of them for bidding and scheduling. For that reason need to be in or on the bidding documents.
Mark Gilligan SE,
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan

Post Number: 959
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 03:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

According to the IBC The statement of special inspections is a submittal document as is the construction documents and the geotechnical report.

While it needs to be a bidding document it should be an informational document and not a construction document. The problem is when the building department requires it be on the construction documents.
Ronald L. Geren, FCSI Lifetime Member, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSC, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman

Post Number: 1600
Registered: 03-2003


Posted on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 04:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Minor correction, Mark, it is a "construction" document, but it is not a "contract" document.
Ron Geren, FCSI Lifetime Member, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSC, SCIP
Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: michael_chusid

Post Number: 623
Registered: 10-2003


Posted on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 04:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Upon further reflection --

Just put the for in the drawings and don't say anything about it. The Contractor will (or should) know it is not responsible for special inspections required of the owner.
Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS 1-818-219-4937
www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru
Mark Gilligan SE,
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan

Post Number: 960
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 05:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I believe that there is a difference between what CSI considers as a construction document and how the IBC uses the term.

From the perspective of the IBC construction documents include the construction drawings and specifications. In this context a construction document is a contract document not vice versa

My understanding is that according to CSI an informational document would be provided as Information available for bidders and thus a construction document but the IBC does not include bidding documents as construction documents.
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg

Post Number: 1400
Registered: 12-2006


Posted on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 05:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

2018 IBC:
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. Written, graphic and pictorial documents prepared or assembled for describing the design, location and physical characteristics of the elements of a project necessary for obtaining a building permit.

I don't see where it says anything about Bidding or Contract Documents or that it necessarily negates the CSI definition on Construction Documents.

As I tried to note earlier, if you are able to define the content on your Drawings as "Available Information as defined in Document 03 00 00" I question whether the Code officials would notice it or care. You will have met their requirements to include the Special Inspection language on the Structural Drawings in order to be awarded the permit. I'm not sure this is a problem or, in this context, subjecting you to liability since you're specifically excluding it from the information that you are including under your seal. If they say something, tell them that your E&O insurance will void your policy of you try to seal something you didn't prepare. I'd love to hear their reply to that.
Mark Gilligan SE,
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan

Post Number: 961
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Monday, August 23, 2021 - 07:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

The discussion about the definition of construction documents is in response to Ronald Gerenís correction of my terminology and is not about how to respond to the building department.

I have a CSI Manual of Practice (I know it is old) that defines construction documents as including both bidding documents and contract documents. But in the context of the IBC bidding documents cannot be construction documents as defined by the IBC since the building permit can be issued before there are even bidding documents.

In the IBC a construction document is a Contract Document but according to CSI a contract document is a construction document. There is an inconsistency.

In the context of the IBC a Statement of Special Inspection should be a submittal document but in the context of the Owner Contractor Agreement it should be a bidding document.
Guest (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2021 - 12:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I don't see the issue with including the statement of special inspections as a part of the construction documents used to obtain a permit (it is a code requirement after all) or the contract documents used to form the basis of the construction contract. As was stated previously, the information they contain is necessary for the contractor to do the work (coordination, access, etc.). I do acknowledge that the contractor is precluded from engaging the services of the special inspector, but I don't think that means the statement of special inspections is somehow not worthy of being part of the contract. AIA A201 has language that states, "the Owner shall directly arrange and pay for tests, inspections, or approvals where building codes or applicable laws or regulations so require," so it seems pretty clear from the basic general conditions that the contractor isn't paying for some tests and inspections ... even if those tests and inspections are included on the drawings for the benefit of the building official and/or contractor.

A Division 01 section that covers quality requirements (such as tests and inspections) can then further clarify that the owner will engage a special inspector to conduct tests and inspections indicated in the statement of special inspections. Does it need to be more complicated than this?

It shouldn't matter then that the building official doesn't see the specifications including this indication in Div 01. They need to see that the documents submitted for permit include a statement of special inspections ... it's there on the drawings or it could be elsewhere if the building official would look at anything other than the drawings. Then the contractor can see how that figures into the work by way of reading the entirety of the contract documents including the general conditions, general requirements, and the statement of special inspections on the drawings.
Paul Sweet (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2021 - 12:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Adding to Steven Bruneel's comment, the Contractor is usually responsible for coordinating and scheduling inspections with the Special Inspector. Few architects want to get calls from the Contractor at 6 AM saying "Get your inspector out here right away because I'm pouring in 30 minutes."
Mark Gilligan SE,
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan

Post Number: 962
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2021 - 03:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Nobody is saying that the contractor should not have a copy of the Statement of Special Inspections(SSI). My understanding is that in the context of the Contract Documents the SSI would be an informational document.

In the content of the IBC the SSI is listed as a submittal document separate from the construction documents. The concern had to do with the requirement by the building department that it be included on the drawings. That the SSI is a code requirement is not in contention, but the building department requiring the SSI be placed on the construction drawings is not a code requirement in the IBC.

I have assumed that the project manual would address the interaction of the contractor and the testing agency supplying the special inspectors.

The message I am getting is that since it is likely that the contractor will not assume that he has to pay for the inspectors we should not worry.

I have trouble believing that the plan checkers do not make similar demands that information be placed on Architectural drawings that the contractor does not need to do his work. If this information is needed by the plan checker it could be provided to the plan checker separately similar to structural calculations.

If the information the plan checker requires on the architectural drawings is duplicated in the project specification is this not a concern even if because of the need to revise the specifications so as not to duplicate the requirements

Maybe the more fundamental questions are whether the drawings and specifications are to direct the contractor or do these documents exist as a depository of other documents that are a part of the permitting process.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Password:
E-mail:
Options: Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration