Codes and Specs

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

Author Message Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1186 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 07:39 am:    100428 CODES AND SPECS by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT, Cincinnati, OH Want an interesting read? Try, http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/Documents/PR-Bldg.pdf Now please understand my position in this discussion—I am an architect, a specification writer and a former building code official. Not that that makes me a unique individual [although I am!!!], but it does position me to see both sides of this “codes and specs” issue. Why is it even an issue? Professional practice requires compliance with the law. And the building code IS standing local law. Contract documents include BOTH drawings AND specifications, and we are all quite familiar with their close interrelationship, and their complementary and supplementary status. We see them as inseparable, as you cannot build with just one. And we agree there are innumerable variations that can be formatted for various size projects and scopes of work. Recently, more and more, local code agencies have been “imposing” new demands in the form of “administrative requirements” [????] that require certain formats for information, certain locations, and added things that have not been required before. They want the “game” played their way, despite the fact that adjusting or creating new documents, just for them, is a burdensome money item in the design offices. Perhaps a time/money situation for the code agencies too, but often outside their granted authority. Code agencies must operate solely within the bounds of their enacted authority!!-- be it in submittals required, forms required, procedures followed, inspections required, etc. Really, the time for “huffing and puffing” and bureaucrat demands is long past—no one benefits from them or can afford them. While there is latitude in these, the agencies and their personnel cannot “free-lance” at will. Often this becomes a contentious issue-- a test of wills if you will. All too often personal opinion is portrayed or misrepresented as the law or the requirements, and when challenged, is stridently defended [although basically they are indefensible!]. But you are ALWAYS entitled to a written analysis and statement of exactly what the code document and/or the administrative procedures requires-- book, chapter and verse! but in legal, code enacted terms. For some unknown reason, now, use and review of specifications by the code personnel has become an issue. There is NONE! The IBC unfortunately requires simply “written and graphic” documents, but does not mention specifications. Even in its definition [in Chapter 2] this word is lacking. But in a glitch that needs resolution, the professional minds that wrote the code commentary do openly include “specifications” in the code review checklist criteria in IBC Code and Commentary, Vol. 1, 2006; which usually has a counterpart in any locally modified code]. If required in one document, why not in both? Why are the specs not then utilized by plans examiners? Because the needed information does not IMMEDIATELY jump off the page to the reviewer’s eye. Some code agencies have time allocations [i.e., so many projects MUST be reviewed in a day’s time] While wholly improper and often far inadequate for good and proper review, this still “happens”. So where the information is not THERE, NOW, the reviewer will NOT search the specs—period! Boom! A letter of discrepancies is sent asking for information already contained in the specs! And yet another glitch is in place that allows the code agency to require additional documents from the professionals [at whose cost?] This situation requires attention understanding, tolerance, mutual respect for the position of others, tighter control of authority invested and errant actions of personnel and full resolution to reasonably meet the needs of all involved The solution to all this-- the meeting of, and agreement between reasonable, professional minds, covering all issues on both sides and a firm, positive resolution! And to re-establish the validity, legitimacy and importance of construction specifications. Problem! Every local authority with jurisdiction will not buy into any changes, choosing to do “as they please” based on the authority given them. In that they are free to amend their version of the code or administrative procedures as they alone see fit. Most unfortunate, when the code is really a well formulated, expertly fashioned and with reasonable expectations for all concerned! But still, good practice can and should be expressed by the major organizations that deal with codes and documents-- i.e., right is right-- for ALL! The end result is a matter of public safety and should not be some sort of “political” football! Specifications are purposeful and useful! This is a meeting that is really necessary to once and for all resolve this situation for all parties involved. The “riff” and jockeying for position is silly, fruitless and only serves to add distance between parties that should be working for better and more expeditious projects [that serve all parties far better]. But who’s going to call that meeting to order? Who should be “asked” to attend? Who can speak for whom? This really, seriously, needs doing! And now! It’s a SPECIFICATIONS thing! A CSI Interagency Outreach initiative???