| Author |
Message |
Randall A Chapple, AIA, SE, CCS, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: rachapple
Post Number: 32
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - 12:21 pm: |    |
Should the applicable project building code be named in the project manual or is not a good idea. If so where would this information be placed in Division 01. |
Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: rlmat
Post Number: 374
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - 12:37 pm: | |
I generally put Project code references in Section 01410 or 014100 - "Regulatory Requirements" |
Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 849
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - 01:01 pm: | |
My preference is on the drawings.
My reason: As much as we specifiers would like to think that record specifications are maintained by the owner, it is more likely the owner will retain the drawings.
When a renovation, alternation, or addition project is proposed, the subsequent design professional has a better chance of getting the record drawings from the owner than the specifications.
Additionally, the drawings should provide all the code compliance information including construction type, occupancy groups, height and area calculations, occupant load calculations, fixture count calculations, required fire-resistive construction, and egress analysis (travel distance, common path of egress travel, and exit width), to name a few (See Module 8 of the Uniform Drawing System). Not only does providing this information on the drawings reduce the time required by the plans examiner to determine compliance, it helps the subsequent design professional to understand the code compliance strategy of the original design professional. Without this information, the subsequent design professional will have to reanalyze the existing building from scratch.
Code requirements, as they apply to specifications, should be specified in Division 01. Section 01 41 00 "Regulatory Requirements" is a suggested location. However, if the requirements are limited, then the requirements can be made a part of Section 01 40 00 "Quality Requirements."
Don't repeat information in the specifications that is provided on the drawings (although a reference to the drawings may be provided). Code information in Division 01 should be applicable to all other sections, such as the edition dates for referenced standards, and general provisions for building official inspections and owner-provided special inspections.
Other specific code-related requirements should be specified in the applicable sections.
Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 1166
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - 01:02 pm: | |
As a former code official, I would advise listing all of the codes [with editions and dates included] used in the design of the project. This provides a history of how the design professional approached the project, and also is a history that will survive for some time in the code agencies' archives.
In fact, this was one recommendation that came out after the Kansas City Hyatt disaster several years ago. |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wayne_yancey
Post Number: 322
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - 01:36 pm: | |
We list all the applicable codes on the drawings, at the front of the set with all the other explanatory stuff. |
Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: rlmat
Post Number: 375
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - 01:56 pm: | |
WE DO BOTH - THANK YOU DSA (California Division of the State Architect |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 940
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - 04:30 pm: | |
I agree -- most code reviews do not include the specs, so the code reference needs to be on the drawings, along with all the other stuff they won't read in the specs. this also assures that the contractor knows what code it is, since they don't always read specs. Especially during one of the code-change switches, it may be questionable which code a project was actually designed for, and that needs to be very visible. |
Mark Gilligan SE, CSI
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 267
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - 05:48 pm: | |
Anne you are making the case for putting all of the specification on the drawings. As soon as you accept as a given that the contractor does not read the specifications you go down a very slipery slope.
Since the Contractor is responsible for compliance with the contract documents, and not the building code, unless specific responsibilities are assigned, why does the Contractor need to know all of the codes and regulations? Where elements of the design is delegated to the Contractor this should be addressed in the applicable technical section.
The California contractor licensing board has adopted the position that if there is an architect or engineer specifying the work that the contractor is only responsible for compliance with the contract documents not the code.
To what extend do we need to list all applicable federal, state and local regulations such as OSHA and air quality regulations? To what extent is the Contractor responsible if we do not list them all? |
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza
Post Number: 426
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - 07:34 pm: | |
In an effort to discourage reliance on drawing notes or abbreviated sheet specs, we began a running list of code, regulatory, and liability items addressed by specifications. You'll find a link to the pdf of "Who Needs Specs?" on our home page at www.specguy.com. Always glad to add your suggestions to the list. |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - 07:44 pm: | |
Mark, Mark, Mark,
This is WAY too much common sense for the average person to take in! Don't you know, we HAVE to list every possible, potential, conceivable building code, regulation, law, ordinance, director's rule, etc. because it adds volume to the spec, and a fatter spec equals job security! I, for one, am GLAD that everyone completely ignores the Owner-Architect agreement stipulation that the Architect designs to code and the Owner-Contractor agreement stipulation that the Contractor builds to the Contract Documents and the A201 stipulation that the Contractor has no duty to ensure that the documents are in conformance with the code. It's all about job security!
If my specifications were written the way you write yours, they would be WAY too skinny, WAY too simple to understand, and take WAY too little time to produce. Using common sense to write specs and produce contract documents is crazy talk in this economic climate! |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 1187
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2010 - 10:57 am: | |
While it is true that the contractor does not have design responsibility, I would not take it quite as far as not mentioining the applicable codes. For projects with sophisticated contractors, they may double check items that may be of concern to them regarding the code. We should tell them the starting point. Even for delegated design, while we list the loads and requirements in the spec, an engineer doing calcs would probably want to know what the code assumptions are. All of this is especially important when there are overlapping code editions. In Massachusetts, during an upgrade cycle for the code, there is typically a (relatively short) period when either code can be used. Good to know which the designer has selected.
As to location, we've done both, but I think drawings are better since the code analysis drawings are there already. |
Mark Gilligan SE, CSI
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 268
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2010 - 07:25 pm: | |
When part of the design is delegated your documents need to specify the regulatory and other requirements that the design must comply with. The loads alone are not enough. This is typically specified in the technical section where the design is delegated.
A major problem that I have with the lists of codes and standards in Division 1 is that the are often duplicative, contradictory, and inconsisstent. I would suggest that unless you can develop a short, consise, and clear statement of how the list will be used and by who, then don't even try. If you want to include such a list then follow through to make sure that it is complete and up to date. This may mean talking to the consultants.
The building officials concerns should be able to be addressed by a simple statement to the effect that the design was based on the ___ edition of the local building code |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 942
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2010 - 12:53 pm: | |
Mark
I find it useful to clarify where the information will actually be used, and in my experience, the AHJ requires the referenced code to be on the drawings.
I also know that some of my clients (in my experience, both when I was working in a firm, and also when consulting) will not enforce their specifications, so I like to put informaiton in places where it is hard to ignore it. If the contractor is coming to you with a question, you've already been put in the defensive position, and it takes time (and dollars) to "win" arguments or even to document them. Its best if the argument doesn't occur in the first place. |
Mark Gilligan SE, CSI
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 269
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2010 - 01:56 pm: | |
What it takes to satisfy the AHJ is typically much less than the codes and standards included in the general lists that I have seen.
I am well familiar with the arguments that the contractor does not read the specs and that the consultants will not enforce the specifications. My contention is that while the compensation strategies mentioned may feel good, ultimately they do little good and give a false sense of security.
The same contractor that doesn't read the specifications will not pay a lot of attention to the information in another location.
The same owner or consultant that doesn't enforce the specifications because they do not understand the significance of the requirements or because they are under pressure will still not enforce the notes on the drawings. |
Russ Hinkle, AIA, CDT, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: rhinkle
Post Number: 74
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2010 - 02:06 pm: | |
I am currently reviewing a set of drawings from 1997 for a new building owner. I have the dwgs, not the specifications. It has a detailed analysis of the code, which I can now used to understand the building for our updated code analysis. Wish I could get my hands on the soils analysis done a the time.
Russ Hinkle |
Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 851
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2010 - 02:40 pm: | |
Russ:
My point exactly.
Excerpt from my 3/31/10 post:
"...it helps the subsequent design professional to understand the code compliance strategy of the original design professional. Without this information, the subsequent design professional will have to reanalyze the existing building from scratch."
Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
|
4specs.com Home Page