Specs and Code Officials - Was "Isn't...

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

Author Message Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 621 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 08:33 am:    Part of a discussion on another web site, as to whether or not code agencies should include specifications in their "plan" reviews, prior to issuing permits; When I ran a code agency we asked for specs, etc. when we either knew more data existed or where we needed more inforamtion. By asking for specs we were able to drastically reduce the number of discrepancies and inquires we had to make to augment the drawings. Maybe more agencies need to understand that it is PLANS AND SPECS that constitute contract documents, and not just drawings. And I would venture to say that they all have authority to ask for more information. You simply cannot know all about a project, even for just code review purposes, with just the drawings. Response to above: hogwash. a project can be adequately reviewed for permit with just plans and no specifications. might need some care and additional notes, but it can be done. done it for years. Hmmmmm! Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 578 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 10:09 am:    In Wisconsin, the state review process requires 4 oringinals of the drawings, wet sealed and signed, and 1 original of the Project Manual, wet sealed and signed. I have yet to figure out why the different number, but at least they DO require the specifications (Project Manual). Of course, you could put all the information from the Project Manual on the drawings, just as you could put all the information found on the drawings in the Project Manual - but why? Why mis-use one method of expression for another less able to convey the information? One picture may indeed be worth a thousand words, yet words are used on the pictures with the understanding that the picture alone can be misunderstood: rooms must be named and numbered, cladding described, etc. So unless the remainder of the information for those materials is placed on the drawings, some sort of written explanation needs to accompany the pictures/drawings, just as those pictures best explain where the materials go and how many there are. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 662 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 10:14 am:    I think for some its just a mater or how much paper they accumulate. In the DC area the various county jurisdictions all have somewhat different requirements. Most do not want a copy of the project manual. Many of them REQUIRE that the door hardware products section and the door hardware set schedule be put onto the drawings and will not review same in 8-1/2 by 11 format separate or in the PM. This makes us create a series of drawings that go only to them and no one else as we don't want to issue these to the GC. William Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 623 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 10:31 am:    This old head can't recall this morning, but isn't there another thread on here about code agency requirments? We are running into more and more strange requests in regard to what info is submitted and in what format. To me this is a developing issue [as they say on TV news] that really is an imposing item on both professionals [in regard to fee and effort required] and our clients who must pay the added cost for no particular reason other than code agency convenience. That is not to infer [since I WAS A CODE OFFICIAL IN ANOTHER LIFE] that we should obviate or confound the agencies but there needs to be better understanding on botht sides-- idea; a CSI "conversation" [education session?],in depth, through our ICC contact!!Won't chnage every agency but would provide better basis for those interested. Also, professionals need to better understand the authority of the agencies and recognize unwarranted and improper requirements that need to be challenged! Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 187 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 10:43 am:    One reason so many jurisdictions will neither read nor even accept specs may be that they are "plan checkers" (and proud of it...) There are courses in "blueprint reading," but do any of these include "spec reading"? Much of the construction industry, including the plan checking community, still regards specs as extraneous or emergency-use-only, like the instruction books that come with almost everything. People tend to have a strong aversion to reading thick books, particularly those that aren't page-turners--especially when dry and technical. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 171 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 10:49 am:    When an agency decides not to review the specifications they have made a decision not to review and hence enforce certain portions of the building code. It might be interesting to ask them what parts of building code they will not be enforcing. William what is the status of the door hardware schedule that you submit to the building department but not to the Contractor? If it is considered by the agency as part of the permit documents then the contractor would not have a full set of the Building Permit. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 10:44 am:    Ralph- The Other Thread http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/23/2575.html William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 663 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 11:12 am:    At the time it goes to permit, which is typically the 75% point, we do not have the hardware done at all. We do our door hardware internally, not by consultant. Many doors move around, get added/deleted, before the final goes. I like to do the door hardware in the last 2 weeks of the project. So what goes to the permit review is a conceptual set. This is something made up in our master that provides different kinds of doors situations and whether they swing in or out. Typically that is fine by them. We only have one jurisdiction (currently) where they want to see the 'real' hardware sets. Even when we do the final hardware and the permit required a 'real' schedule, at the time of the final there are so many differences that based on changed doors that these pages are obsolete anyway and are not related to any permit comments. The sheets also state that they are reproductions of the specifications and include the section numbers on them. There is no way that I am going to have the contractor holding drawings that have duplicated and obviously very conflicting information on them. We don't have a problem doing this in any of the various jurisdictions we practice in - Mid-Atlantic area, Texas and other southwest states. William J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 239 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 11:54 am:    The rationale I have heard from people that deal with the City of Houston is that they record (microfilm or digitize) the Drawings, but they think that doing the same for the Specifications would be exhorbitant. Design professinals in the Houston area get many requests for additional information that could be answered by having a copy of the specifications; however, many times the folks downtown want actual Product Data, not really understanding that many of these are comodity items for which there are a number of products that will meet the spec. They also don't really understand that at the time of the request, that particular item may not have been bought out so Product Data on the specific item to be used in construction is not really available. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 624 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 02:27 pm:    More insight [??????] from "Hogwash"! "....stop your preaching about "properly or prudently" [about document review], as there are cases when specs can cause more problems than they are worth." John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 717 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 03:48 pm:    He must've been a contractor before being a code official. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 580 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 03:52 pm:    Nah, if he were a contractor, he wouldn't know what the specs contained UNLESS he went to court where they read the specs. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 553 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 05:08 pm:    well for that matter, code officials can cause a lot more problems than they are worth -- Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 625 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 07:16 am:    Easy Ms. Whitacre-- been there; done that!!!! And was decent professional and effective. How about saying, "SOME code officials......" There, I agree Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 203 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 10:39 am:    Yea, I have one that "rewrote" exiting requirements without actually adopting them formally, and required empty TI space to be treated like an assembly occupancy. I guess there are idiots in every profession. But back to the main point. Project Manuals (or are they now "Specs" because the AIA said so) are now required to be stamped by the architect per new WA state law. Will that change code officials requirements? don't know yet. At least, unlike other architects and contractors, I know code officials can read. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 256 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 10:23 pm:    Maybe it's time to stop calling the service "Plan Review" and start calling it "Design Review," to emphasize that the code official has a responsibility to review the code compliance of the design, not just the portion of the design that appears on the drawings. Last thing I knew, a whole host of code related requirements appear in the specifications, rather than on the drawings, including: Special inspections provisions for Earthwork, concrete foundations and footings, engineered masonry, seismic anchoring of masonry, structural steel, steel joists, steel deck, engineered wood structures, EIFS, and fireproofing. Engineering design requirements for structural steel, steel joists, cold formed metal framing, stairs and railings, wood trusses. Metal railing live load requirements, stair and railing accessibility provisions, requirements regarding fire-retardant treated wood, vapor retarder use, fire performance of building insulation including plastic foam insulation, restrictions on use of EIFS, fire performance of roofing materials, use of thermal barrier related to plastic foam insulation, firestopping and fire-resistive joints. Positive pressure tested fire-rated doors/frames, intumescent seals for door stiles, egress requirements and opening limitations for doors, accessibility provisions for doors, safety provisions for automatic doors, Had enough? There's plenty more. A significant problem arises when a building official begins choosing from among this list and requires information to appear on the drawings "because our plan reviewers don't read the specifications." This happens a great deal, all around the country. It occurs because the code reviewers are not properly trained to review architects' instruments of service. As I've said before in postings, the work to resolve this problem will begin when CSI and ICC exchange liasons at the highest levels and maintain communication at all levels of their organizations. Until then, it's just late night postings in forums. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 722 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 09:13 am:    The International Code Council is contributing the the problem. They offer certification for inspection officials, and one such certification is "Building Plans Examiner." (Link: Building Plans Examiner) While it is clear that it is code-based, and many elements could not be determined from plans, the nomenclature still exists. On the other hand, it is true that the most basic elements of code review are found on the plans--use, occupancy, floor area limitations, egress--you do need the specs to go much further. I would be curious to know just how much about the organization of contract documents is included in the ICC's training. Does anyone know? Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 627 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 11:00 am:    I'll put a dime, John, on little if any at all. Their orientation is simply not in that direction.And there is EXACTLY where we spec writers need to be-- CSI? Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 463 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 11:37 am:    As an ICC Certified Building Plans Examiner myself, I can tell you that there is zero, zip, zilch on contract documents. The certification is based purely on interpreting and applying the building code to various situations. They did provide parts of drawings to use in answering some questions. I'm currently studying for the Certified Building Official (CBO) exam, and the materials they've provided also does little to promote understanding of contract documents. About three months ago I approached CSI president-elect Gene Valentine about me being a liaison with the ICC. Last year Gene mentioned CSI was contacted by ICC about forming some kind of relationship--I'm not familiar with the details, but it was the reason for my follow-up with Gene in February. Hopefully, there will be more to follow... Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 174 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 12:27 pm:    CSI needs to be more active regards ICC and the IBC. The issue of whether specifications are checked or what must be placed on the drawings is only part of the problem. We need to weigh in on building code provisions that make Masterformat irrelevant (see ACI 530.1) and provisions that potentially conflict with the General Conditions and Division 1 provisions. If CSI decides to take a more active role I would be willing to contribute. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 465 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 01:03 pm:    If you'll notice, this year's CSI Show and Conference has an unusually high number of code-related seminars, which is great. Having a closer relationship with ICC may bring some of their education programs to CSI. In turn, CSI could get more involved with ICC's educational programs. Each year there is an annual education conference that is tied with the ICC's annual conference (This year it is Sep 30-Oct 4). Probably too late for this year, but in the future this could be an opportunity for CSI to provide seminars on construction documents with an emphasis on specifications. This thread has got me all revved up--I'll start making some preliminary contacts with the ICC education committee. More to follow... Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 628 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 01:12 pm:    I'll help too, Ron. Maybe this will draw others-- ALPHABET SOUP-- ICC; IBC; CSI; CDs...YA, YAH!!!!!! by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Cincinnati, OH Grabbing the bull by the horns and striking while the iron is hot are both commendable tasks, as they face the risks but make attempts to resolve and make things better. They are the types of things that quite often simply must be done to make any progress at all. The long-standing “anxiety” between contractors and specifications continues, unabated, and in need of attention. The task here is to elevate understanding of specifications, and have them both respected for what they are, but also for what they contribute to project work-- and to defang, forever, the idea of punitive and “gotcha” implications that are attached to them. In a generally parallel situation, there is need for similar efforts to infuse the code administration community with the value of specifications, and what they do in assisting plan review and ensuring better understanding of, control of, and archiving of projects within all jurisdictions. As code administration has matured and become more sophisticated over the last few decades, it is rather amazing that specifications have received so little attention by the code officials. As more and more of the cue personnel have become registered design professionals, it would seem that specifications should become less of a “lost item” in the work. But apparently not so. We all have been “touched by” and impacted by some code officials who choose to act beyond their authority, and outside the propriety of their office. We have all seen personal opinions, personal agendas, patently misinterpretations, and unwarranted and unsubstantiated demands made by code officers. Too often, for the sake of other aspects of the work, we have acquiesced to their “requirements”, when in fact they were wrong. In addition, we all have received multiple page letters of code discrepancies, many of which ask about aspects of the project under review, that in reality are covered fully, in the specifications. In fact, the contract documents sent in for review, SHOULD include the specifications, as it is ONLY the combination of drawing and specification information that completely addresses the project-- one or the other is not sufficient. And that is by long-held definition of “contract documents”. On the code side, applications for permits are often submitted prior to completion. In that the applicant is eager to get on with it, and is pushing for quick approval. But in that, too, are the gaps and glitches in the documentation that often confounds good and rapid plan review. It’s hard to understand the reluctance to request and use the specifications, even if they too are incomplete. Most all Plan Examiners are quite astute in their work and their understanding of construction and its documentation. So, again, why the quirky attitude in regard to specifications-- in whatever form they may be—full length, short form, drawing notes, etc. Projects cannot be reviewed with information contained only in the minds of the design professionals, the D/B folks, or the contractors. Specifications are specifically formulated and created to augment and expand drawing information, including that which is code-related. A near impasse perhaps, but certainly a very fertile field for CSI to engage [and apparently has done with ICC]. The knowledge of specifications resides in CSI, so maybe there is both a need and an obligation to urgently reach out and engage the code administrators and provide a full array of pertinent specifications insight and assistance for their benefit. Now one caution-- there will ALWAYS be rogue personnel out there who will not embrace specifications for love, money, or the issuance of a permit! Their loss. Dennis G. Nolan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 01:04 pm:    As a code official (ICC certified plans examiner, building inspector) I DO understand that the owner and design team are the ones who work together to create the spec book. The 03 IBC defines construction documents; they include "written, graphic and pictorial documents...". That means plans, specs, AND calcs. If the construction documents include a spec book, and it is submitted to the bldg dept, I believe code officials are obligated to review the spec book in addition to the plans and the calcs. This text from page 8 of the 2003 Plan Review Manual pubished by ICC supports my statement: "Where there are specs, the plan reviewer must explore them fully during the review process because it is not uncommon to include information in specs that does not appear in the plans." Once your industry wrestles with plan review of specs, the next discussion will be "What are the inspectors doing with the approved specs?" Please don't pre-judge all code officials based on your experience with a few. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 629 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 01:26 pm:    DID YOU CATCH THIS, FOLKS, IN THE POST ABOVE-- "......the plan reviewer MUST [emphasis added] explore them fully during the review process because it is not uncommon to include information in specs that does not appear in the plans." Hoo-rah! and good for them!!!! I think this is the "crack in the door" for us, sent via an obviously sincere, and astute code official. I admire and revel in his spirit and insight!!! Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 467 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 01:32 pm:    Dennis: Glad to see you've jumped over the internet highway from the building code discussion group (BCDG) to join us here at 4specs.com. Welcome! Ron (aka rlga_AZ on BCDG) Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 486 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 11:40 pm:    As a follow up to this discussion, I contacted the ICC Education Programs Manager and received the following response: "ICC does solicit a Call for Presentations each year for the following years’ conference. While we have our complete selection of proposals for our 2007 Annual Conference, the Call for Presentations is going out fairly soon for our 2008 conference. We will provide the application on our iccsafe.org website sometime in June/July with a deadline around October/November 2007. Selections will be made in the first quarter of 2008." The Annual Education Conference will be in Minneapolis/St. Paul in 2008. I plan on submitting a request to talk about construction documents with an emphasis on specifications. If anyone is intersted in joining me as a co-speaker, please let me know. You can contact me via email at ron@specsandcodes.com. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 269 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 09:06 am:    Colin: Perhaps you could rename this thread to reflect the subject?