List of Applicable Codes

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

Author Message John Hunter Senior Member Username: johnhunter Post Number: 60 Registered: 12-2005 Posted on Monday, June 09, 2008 - 07:51 pm:    Does anyone else list applicable codes in 014200 References? It's been the practice in this firm to include it in the "References" Section even though it's redundant with a listing of applicable codes on the Drawing index sheet? The Department of Redundancy Department would like to take it out of 014200. Thanks. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 110 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, June 09, 2008 - 07:55 pm:    1.3 List of applicable codes: A. As shown on the Drawings. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 56 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 02:11 am:    Why are they needed to be listed at all? I operate on the premise that unless we have delegated design or referred him to a specific code section that the Contractor does not need to look in the code. References to relevant standards and codes are typically listed in the individual technical sections. It may be appropriate to circulate such a list amongst the design team to make sure every body is designing to the same codes, but this need not be provided to the contractor. How will the list of applicable codes be used? Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 856 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 07:06 am:    While perhaps still usable and appropriate other places [drawings, etc.] this is good practice in that it establishes which documents were used in creating the project. Shortly after the disaster at the Kansas City Hyatt, there was a strong movement in the code industry to include the list of codes for the sake of having them in the history of the project both in the design office and in code agency. It can be inserted as an article in Summary of work, for example, and does not necessarily require it own separate Section [which is not all that bad] At least a list places ALL project particpants on the same place and with knowledge of what must be met and what governs. With fairly rapid changes in the code [annual changes] and quite varied adoption timing, it is necessary to know not only which code, but which edition-- and if local amendments have been included. A courtesy perhaps, but at least uniform information and more sound explanation. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 57 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 11:18 am:    The Hyatt Kansas City failure was not the result of the use of the wrong code. There is a tendency by some to put a lot of extraneous information on the drawings. This is often encouraged by plan checkers who ask for statements regarding what codes were used or statements describing the designer’s responsibilities. Listing applicable codes can distract people from determining whether the proper codes complied with. The focus needs to be on code compliance not stating our intentions. Mistakes in the code lists can cause confusion and in the event of problems may be used against you. The contract documents should focus on providing direction to the contractor. As much as possible all other information should be omitted from them. The value of such lists is as a tool to aid communication between the team members. This can be accomplished without placing the information on the contract documents. In my experience the emphasis is often on listing codes and standards, not on coordinating with other design team members. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 654 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 11:36 am:    I have to agree with Ralph. I've been asked to evaluate existing buildings for code compliance, comparing what was originally required to what is currently required, only to find that the architect of the original set of documents didn't indicate what code he was using. On one such request, I was asked to evaluate a university building built when the state hadn't adopted a building code (1965). Therefore, I had to make the assumption that the current edition of the UBC at the time was utilized by the architect as the "standard of care." After my review, I reported to my client that the original building did not comply with the published code at the time for separation of exits and enclosure or exits. However, this was only an assumption, since the architect didn't provide any information about the criteria he used that governed code-related elements. Had a tragedy occurred in the building and an investigation began, the investigators would likely have initiated a similar evaluation using the code available at the time since none was indicated. And, after coming to similar conclusions, would have held the the original architect (if still around), and possibly the university, responsible. For all I, or anybody else, would know, the architect could have been directed to utilize some code-related document that has since been lost to time, or another code not commonly used in that region. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 857 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 12:16 pm:    My point, Mr. Gilligan, was that the Hyatt disaster was the point in time where some professionals on both sides of the code, began to think that recording the codes was a good idea-- for historical information [like Ron offered]. That is part of the function of code agencies. I know the Hyatt was not a matter of the wrong code-- you miss my point. Also, I cannot follow your statement about "Listing applicable codes can distract people from determining whether the proper codes complied with". If you don't cite the code [or any code] how can any one know if you comply or not? Also, to all; had the quirky experience of doing a $500 million plant in a jursidiction that had no building code in effect. How would you resolve that? Will share our answer if you're interested. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 58 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 12:36 pm:    This discussion comes down to the question of what is the role of the Contract Documents. My focus is on providing direction to the contractor during construction. When performing reviews of existing buildings the questions are typically related to code compliance, safety of the building, or standard of care. Code compliance is determined by the regulations adopted by the jurisdiction. Safety while at times subjective can often be evaluated in terms of current codes. Standard of care is a subjective evaluation of the practices at the time the building was designed and is not determined by the designer’s perception. If there is litigation the party being sued would not be limited by the reviewer’s assumptions but could introduce other evidence that could challenge these assumptions. Similarly it is often easy to find mistakes in calculations but when a more sophisticated analysis is performed the constructed structure can often be found to comply. Having reviewed a number of existing structures it is my observation that the more complete the documentation the less likely that reviewers will look at the constructed structure or perform tests on existing materials. I like the complete information but we need to be aware of how it biases our approach. Regarding what to do when there is no building code, my approach would be to recommend to the owner that we use the current model codes. I would recommend that we adopt other standards that support good practices. Obtaining formal agreement with the Owner regarding design standards would be essential to proceeding. I would also recommend that they retain an independent peer reviewer. If the Owner declines to obtain a peer reviewer you might want to consider hiring one yourself. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 308 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 12:49 pm:    years ago I did a job on a navy base BUT not for the navy. It was a school owned by the school district on navy land. No code official (county, city or otherwise) wanted to touch it. The Navy reviewed the plans kind-a for fun, but would not respond with any comments. We built to current building code in the surrounding area, stated as such in the documents and had an independent code reviewer check the plans and turned in her review to the Owner with the final docs. We believed that this showed that we were not negligent in our work. No code check by an AHJ, no generic code inspectors (we did hire a special inspector for structural) no AHJ at all. Even with buildings in cities that have an AHJ, as the UBC changed to the IBC, many areas had different versions over the past 10 years. Tacoma was 2000 IBC, Seattle was UBC 1997, California was something else entirely, AND the requirements for structural testing not to mention areas of refuge, elevator lobbies, atriums etc were all different for each code. Not mentioning the Code your designing to is simply asking for problems. Lastly statements like “builder shall build to version XXX of code YYY” on your drawings doesn’t move any professional liability off your shoulders. The builder can only be expected to build (and infer between the orthographic projections) what you drew. Simply state the codes that apply somewhere in the contract documents. Bob Johnson (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 01:16 pm:    Probably only a minor point at this time but AIA A201 07 still gives the contractor some responsibilities in relation to applicable codes at 3.7.2 and 3.7.3. Probably good to list the applicable codes just in relation to these clauses in addition to the other reasons in the posts above. You can at least demonstrate that he had knowledge of the applicable codes. In my experience they are listed on the drawings on a code analysis sheet; I typically refer to that sheet from Div 01 per Steven Bruneel above and do not repeat them. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 395 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 02:10 pm:    I agree with Bob Johnson and note a couple of things: - list only the Codes related to the Contractor's performance under the contract documents (temporary facilities, for example). - delegated design: When the Contractor is tasked with design under the contract documents, then list the applicable codes. - Code authorities: Many want the Codes to be listed in a Division 01 Section. Many want specific Code provisions to be cited in the text of Division 02 to 27, etc. This is a mis-use, in my opinion. Sure, it's a CYA for the AHJ but contractually it makes the Contractor responsible that the Work the Contractor "results" is in compliance with the design requirements of the applicable Code. - There are more than building/plumbing/mechanical/electrical/fire codes that apply. Listing all applicable industrial safety regulations, air qualilty regulations, planning codes, business license requirements, etc. just opens Pandora's Box for potential change orders. Besides, requirements for these are covered generally and adequately in the General Conditions of the Contract. It's a distinction between code requirements for design and code requirements for procurement and construction.