How About a Little [or a lot of] Help???

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

Author Message Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 719 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 02:06 pm:    Not for the sake of being right individually, please look at http://bcodes.infopop.cc/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=541091073&f=151091073&m=98710184241&r=59210384241#59210384241 and see if you agree.. If so, please post your opinion, agreement or comments. This is a good chance [read- golden opportunity] for us! Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 720 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 02:38 pm:    Sorry-- you may not know about the link noted above. It is the Building Code Discussion Group. Great resource good info;; good place to get answers. You will need to log in to use or input the site-- please do so!! Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 721 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 11:00 am:    This is a response posted on the site mentioned above; "Put it this way: If the code authority was to issue ALL code requriements in purely GRAPHIC Form as a set of Drawings, then I might try to issue my permit application documents in purely graphic form as well. But if the code I need to confrom to need to be written out in a code book, I probably need a spec book too". Interesting concept and comment!!! " Richard A. Rosen, CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: rarosen Post Number: 20 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 02:03 pm:    I posted a response on the NAFFA Codes forum that I think should be repeated here in part: The IBC Commentary explains further under the definition for Construction Documents: "To determine whether or not proposed construction is in compliance with code requirements, it is necessary that sufficient information be submitted to the building official for review. This typically consists of the drawings (floor plans, elevations, sections, details, etc.), specifications and product information describing the proposed work." IBC recognizes the role that specifications play as part of the construction documents. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 244 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 02:08 pm:    It's too bad the code officials don't. Only one city in my region that I know of wants to see the project manual (spec.) I've had to add duplicate info to drawings 'cause they can't read a book. Why does that surprise me? Architects, with rare exception, can't read and write, they can only draw - poor dears. David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca Post Number: 80 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 02:24 pm:    Marc: Let's not simultaneously fool ourselves and alienate architects. They can, with rare exception, read and write. So can contractors. Architects can write something that I cannot - my paycheck. I am happy that they need specification writers. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 722 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 02:29 pm:    Marc, I'm really interested to know your list of architects who CAN read and write-- please post since it apparently is a very short list. Thanks Bye-the-bye, so glad to see all those architects and others who seem to be able to read and write working on this site!!! Richard A. Rosen, CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: rarosen Post Number: 21 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 02:32 pm:    I guess I should take umbridge with Marc's comment since I'm an architect who writes specs. That means Marc that I can read, write, and draw. All of that without a computer. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 548 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 02:34 pm:    I wrote an article on this topic, it's expected to appear in "The Construction Specifier" in December. You can download the article here. It's listed under the "What's new at specsandcodes.com" at the bottom of the page. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 723 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 03:35 pm:    Ron, did you also submit it to the ICC for publication in their BUILDING SAFETY mag? I know you've had some conversations with them on similar issues, but this would be a great outreach for them and CSI. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 550 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 03:44 pm:    Yes, I did. They acknowledged receipt of the article, but did not give me a publication date. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 245 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 05:03 pm:    Great article. I do wonder, as stated in the last paragraphs the "duty" of the plans examiner. I'm sure that they have some kind of generalized “civic responsibility” but if they miss something - even something major - my understanding is that it's still my butt on the line. I have to jump through their hoops (for weeks on end) concede to requirements that are clearly inconsistent with the code (not city ordinance mind you but absolutely NOT what the book says) and they have no liability or responsibility what-so-ever. Now I’m off topic and ranting. Don’t even get me started on fire marshals! My God! Mumble mumble mumble……….. PS I’m an architect too and, I can read, write, draw, fight with contractors, and still drink beer with them afterwards And I sing and dance but that's another story; He said modestly. Helaine K. Robinson CSI CCS CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 346 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 05:10 pm:    The word is spelled "umbrage." Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 551 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 05:30 pm:    Marc: From a "legal" point of view, "duty" is exactly what what the plans examiner has when reviewing the construction documents--review is required by law. However, like design professionals, that duty doesn't require perfection. If a plaintiff can prove negligence on the part of the AHJ, they can be sued in some states. The typical law that covers this is called "Public Duty Doctrine" (See my article on inspections, which covers this subject). In most cases, if the law doesn't expressly give immunity to building departments and their staffs, then they can be sued for negligence. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 368 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 06:00 pm:    Holly- It's umbrage, unless you are a fan of Harry Potter, where J R Rowling created a wonderfully evil character with the cleverly pun-full name of Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton in the recent movie). I vote we change the spelling! Richard A. Rosen, CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: rarosen Post Number: 22 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 07:55 am:    I didn't say I could spell. Marc: I would think being able (and willing) to sing and dance are as important as any other ability you may have. Enjoying life and having fun are more important than the job to me. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 807 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 09:20 am:    Inspectional Services may have a duty to properly review documents and to perform site inspections. However, their familiarity with the design cannot possibly be as thorough as the architect, nor--like the architect--are they on the site continuously, or even as often as the architect. So if they have provided a reasonable level of effort to do the job, it would be difficult to demonstrate negligence. An example is the Station nightclub fire in Rhode Island. The town was accused of inadequate inspections because they never cited the flammable urethane foam on the walls--in place for at least three years. (The foam burned after being ignited by pyrotechnics. 100 people were dead in less than 90 seconds.) To my knowledge, the town was never found liable. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 724 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 09:40 am:    This thread has exposed a deep and prevailing need for some new insight and education about codes, code agencies, and the legal status of all concerned parties. If design professionals ignore the code, the code folks should not provide desigN services using public funds-- period! They should reject the project or list code compliance discrepancies [with no solutions]and return to the dp! The code inspector carries the duty to inspect for compliance of actual work to approved[!!!!!] documents [plans and specs,by defintion-- see Ron's comments]. Owners persist in revising their faciltieis [i.e., flammable foam, etc.] as they see fit or the need. It is selfish greed as well as hazardous, and most of the time perceived as "fix-up-paint-up" work, and thus not subject to permit. Often, WRONG!! We also need to separate duties of buiding code officials and fire officials. Basically the dividing line of their responsiblity is the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Once the project is CO'd and becomes standing building stock, it "belongs" to the fire service. That is not an accusation or exuse, but the fire service is as much strained for funding, support, people and time for inspections as the code folks. Raise fees and taxes to support their necessary[!!!!] work-- sure, if you can withstand the "fire in the kitchen" of public comment, neigh on to disdain. We all on the design side, get one chnce to get the project right-- in our documents; and remember though, NO BUILDING IS SAFER THAN AT THAT MOMENT JUST PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Much more can and should be said-- nowhere near enough time here. Oh, yes, I'm a former code official too, among my many sins! Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 3 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 09:08 pm:    Gonald Comments on your article for the Code corner. Your support of the use of contract documents that differ from the permit documents is likely to be the most contentious concept in your article. Please note that there are several agencies in California OSHPD and DSA that are prepared to shut the job down if they find the Contractor using documents that do not have their approval. I agree some individuals are creative with issueing interpretation sketches and there is probably no completed projects were there are not some understandings between the designers and the Contractor. But the legal reality is that any change to the CD's should be submitted for the AHJ's review. When you issue drawings without Building Department review you are making a judgement that the change deals with something that does not impact code compliance. While you may be right you can cause a lot of difficulty if later the building official disagrees since it is his decision to make that determination. If when the buiding official later finds out about the differences and requires the work be corrected you might find your firm liable for the cost of the correction. Is it worth it. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 553 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 11:42 pm:    Gark :-) All my articles are written based on the IBC "as published" and do not include amendments that may me adopted by local jurisdictions--and California seems to have more than all the other 49 states put together. It may be contentious, but if Section 106 is left unamended, a jurisdiction would be hard pressed to find a provision in the section that "requires" the contractor to use the documents that were "approved." Is the contractor or owner going to be required to reproduce the approved, stamped set for issuance to all the subcontractors? Hardly. The approved set must be on the jobsite, but it doesn't need to be in the hands of the contractor and every subcontractor during construction. The drawings cannot indicate every conceivable condition the contractor may face in the field. So, if the contractor asks for a detail to clarify a condition, the architect can do it, so long as he doesn't make a change that is "not in compliance with the approved construction documents" (Section 106.4). The detail technically "changes" the construction documents (a contract modification per A201), but it doesn't really "change" the project's compliance with the approved construction documents--it just provides further information for the contractor. Does the building officially really want to see every ASI, CO, or CCD that is issued during a project? Does he really want to see that sketch that shows the tile pattern in the restroom? The likely answer will be "no." However, the architect needs to use his/her professional judgement when issuing changes. For example, the contractor encounters a unique joint condition in a fire-resistance-rated wall that isn't covered in the CDs; he issues a RFI. The architect, after reviewing page after page of the UL Directory, cannot find an assembly with a similar condition. So the manufacturer of other joint systems on the project prepares an "Engineering Judgement" or "EJ." It would be in the architect's best interest to have the EJ reviewed by the building official before issuing it to the contractor. What the code provisions are trying to avoid are changes that materially modify the construction documents that may have an impact on the compliance with the code: move a wall (could affect egress width or occupant load of a space), change wall or ceiling finishes (could affect surface burning characteristics), change wall construction materials (could affect fire-resistive requirements), etc. And, as I stated in the article, even if the documents show a condition that exceeds the requirements of the code, if a change is issued that modifies that condition to "just meet the minimum requirements" also needs to be approved. Depending on the jurisdiction, there may be a policy procedure in place for submitting changes. It could be as easy as having the jurisdiction's field inspector review the proposed change. But, there is doubt, get it approved. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Intermediate Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 4 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, October 22, 2007 - 01:23 am:    Ronald I believe that part of the problem has to do with the differences between legally what is called for and what is actually done. In many jurisdictions common practice varies considerably from what is legally required. While California is unique I do not believe that there is anything special in the local laws on this topic. The reality is that for most jurisdictions the 2007 CBC is essentially the same as the 2006 IBC. Yes the Owner is expected to reproduce the approved permit drawings as needed by all of the trades. yes there are a number of local jurisdictions that want to see all corrections or changes to the documents. An RFI response that explains where the information is or provides an interpretation need not be brought to the attention of the agency. I believe your interpretation to be creative and a way to rationalize what is actually done in many jurisdictions. Still I would suggest that you touch base with ICC on this issue. I stand behind my statement that this position will result in a strong reaction from building officials. I support your effort to start a dialogue with building officials regarding specifications. I am concerned that when the article is published by ICC that the backlash regarding building from non-approved drawings will detract from the discussion on specifications. Russ Hinkle, AIA, CCS Senior Member Username: rhinkle Post Number: 35 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Monday, October 22, 2007 - 07:46 am:    I find this an interesting discussion. However, my experience has been much different. We are typically dealing with local officals who have limited budgets that are still decreasing. They don't have time to review every aspect of the project, nor can they keep up with the demanding schedules. I do believe that it is our responsiblity as professionals to make sure all the details. For the most part, the officials I have dealt with do a good job of making sure the big picture is covered, and that they are satisfied we have paid attention to the details. I am of the opinion that to much oversight is a waste of tax payer money, and forces the professionals to waste time better spent. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Advanced Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 5 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, October 22, 2007 - 12:04 pm:    On reflection the big question is not what is legally required but rather what is the expected way of doing business. If you work in a given jurisdiction you develop a comfort level with what the agency expects and what you can get away with, but this can cause problems when dealing with a new jurisdiction. Some firms that haven't worked in certain California jurisdictions may have to operate more formally while other jurisdictions may be less formal. We are doing a project in upstate NY where it appears they have a more relaxed understanding of building code enforcement. My observation/belief is that as jurisdictions get more "professional" and make more of an effort to enforce the building code they will be more formal in how they deal with changes during construction. The question is how do you find out the local practices. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 554 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, October 22, 2007 - 12:16 pm:    Ask them. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 727 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, October 22, 2007 - 12:25 pm:    Every one should not be judged by California-- that is an entirely different code environment, with the code process and the administration replete with very strong personal attitudes. There will always be differences in approaches to the codes. Uniformity even within states is non-existant; too many variables exist that cannot be resolved. Ask any agency how they want changes handled-- it's that simple! So long as funding and staffing are always in contention there will be problems within code adminsitration-- money, time and people are always at odds and so each jurisidiction comes to a demeanor they can live with, and as close to "perfect" legally as they can. Bottom, line is that the code agency should have a history, in its files, of the project that is completely and accurately documented. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 246 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Monday, October 22, 2007 - 01:07 pm:    Ralph, I work in CA and have to deal with both local code officials & Division of the State Architect ("affectionately" referred to as DSA) My real response to your first paragraph would be inappropriate here so read it as "NO KIDDING!" We've had discussions about the possibility of doing away with DSA, but after having dealt with some local code officials here, I tend to tell my people to "Be cafeful what you wish for!" Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 247 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Monday, October 22, 2007 - 01:12 pm:    Oh yeah, in addition I would expect that not too many plan reviews with the LA, Orange, & San Diego county fire authorities are going to happen this week! There are something like 13 or so individual brush fires occurring in So. Calif. as I write this! Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 728 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, October 22, 2007 - 01:25 pm:    In all of your coments we can only wish that you "not get burned"!!! State review agency in Ohio-- 12 weeks to permit Sate review agency in IN-- each Plan Examiner gets 8 projecs at the start of the day and returns 8, finished[!!!!] at the end of the day, regardless of the size and complexity of the projects! Go figure!!! Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 663 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, October 22, 2007 - 01:48 pm:    only 12 weeks in Ohio? City of Seattle is what... about 8 months now? (unless you pay extra for expediting, and then you only wait half that time)... James M. Sandoz, RA, CSI, CDT, LEED AP Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 25 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 09:36 am:    The pattern I see here is that some jurisdictions, like the State of Indiana, make a conscious effort to get plan reviews handled in a timely manner. They make a commitment, no doubt for economic reasons, to get it done. A few years ago the City of Houston instituted a "guaranteed" turn around time policy and, I think, it was somewhat successful initially. I have not had to deal directly with plan approvals lately and I do not know if the city has been able to maintain its goals. I do believe that this kind of policy and its successful execution is a matter of business and bureaucracy working together for the public good. Remember, bureaucracy does not have to be a "four-letter word." An effective and efficient one can be a good thing. Unfortunately, in any system where certain individuals are not directly accountable to their "customers" there can be problems and someone is sure to get his ox gored at some point. Whether that is justified or not the complainant will cry foul (if his goose gets cooked does he cry "beeve?"). Mark, just one more observation: In my experience, especially in small municipalities undergoing rapid growth, plan reviews tend to be more rigid (sometimes Draconian) until a point where sufficient and sufficiently trained and experienced review staff are in place. Then, I think, an understanding of the intent of the codes is apprehended. After that point, if the interpretation is not more liberal it is at least more reasonable. We are fortunate to have people like Ralph and others who have been on the "other side of the table" and can help us to try on the plan reviewer's shoes. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 730 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 10:43 am:    They won't cure all of your code agency ills, but I have a couple of documents that may give you some added insight and perhaps a new hint or two in how to address the codes and approach the agencies. Will share via e-mail.