ADAAG versus local Building Code

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 935 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - 10:35 pm:    I have a job in Miami Beach that has been permitted under 2001 FBC (Florida Building Code), the job construction started w/o specs, the Developer wants to flip the project, Buyer is demanding specs, this is a 10 story hotel renovation and new construction, Brand flag will probably be Hilton: 1) Even though job is being permitted under 2001 FBC (2010 FBC is current) does it not have to meet 2012 ADA, since ADA is a law not a building code? your feedback would be apprciated, thanks. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1058 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - 10:48 pm:    A building code, once adopted by a jurisdiction, is the law, too, for that jurisdiction, and compliance with the accessibility standards of the building code also apply and are enforced by the jurisdiction. The ADA is federal law, and applies to the entire country. The law hasn't changed much since 1990, but the standards used to ensure compliance with the law has changed. The new standards is called the "2010 ADA Standards." If the project was permitted before March 15, 2012, then compliance with the former ADAAG was allowed. If the permit was issued on or after March 15, 2012, then compliance with the "2010 ADA Standards" is required. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 877 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - 10:52 pm:    You said it exactly right, ADA is a law, not a code. You fail to meet it at your own risk just like any other law. Subtle difference is that its any user of the facility (visitor, resident, employee) that can file a complaint). So, technically, just like any law, like speeding, you can speed all you want. Its illegal at all times, but its only actionable when/if you get caught. Most buyers of facilities have or hire a team that comes in and looks at the facility specifically for these kinds of breaches, including fair housing requirements when its a residence project and they draw up a correction list - often placing $ amounts next to it lowering the payment by the amount they estimate to be the cost of fixing it - whether they intend to fix it or not. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 936 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, November 01, 2012 - 12:05 am:    I sent this question out to a number of my local Florida based colleagues (some specwriters, most non-specwriters), than I decided to get input from my colleagues here on 4specs.com. I'll tally up the votes per se and post the results here later, specwriter vs non-specwriter. The architect's drawings right now label handicpped requirements per 2001 FBC, I sent them an email questioning that reference and they inturn are investigating it... so far 3 specwriters vote ADA, 2 non-specwriters (architects) say Bldg Code rules. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1059 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, November 01, 2012 - 12:14 am:    They both rule--however, the one that provides the most restrictive requirement takes precedence. The trick is determining what's considered the most restrictive. If there're requirments that are conflicting (i.e. compliance with one will be considered compliant by the other), then the federal law will supersede the local building code. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 937 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, November 01, 2012 - 12:25 am:    Ok, than in Spec Section 102800 - Toilet and Bath Accessories, under Regulatory Requirements I should list both 2001 FBC and 2010 ADA and than advise that the most restrictive takes precedence? I can see the RFI's on the wall now!! Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 519 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, November 01, 2012 - 12:29 am:    The building department can only enforce the building code while the ADA applies to all projects but is enforces through litigation. Failure to comply with ADA will not prevent you from obtaining a permit or certificate of occupancy. As stated above comply with the most restrictive. Strongly suggest that the architect consult with its attorney prior to taking a position that it doe not need to comply with the ADA. Justatim Senior Member Username: justatim Post Number: 45 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Thursday, November 01, 2012 - 08:04 am:    Don't be too alarmed. There are seldom differences between ADA, ADAAG, and most building codes. They are all cut off of the same concept: that everyone is entitled to get where they're going comfortably. The big chore is discovering the few places where they disagree. The IBC cites ICC A117.1 (an early version of which was a major basis for the ADAAG) as their default standard. The "2010 ADA" (More properly the "ADA-ABA Accessibility Standards") harmonized ADAAG requirements with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) which was written based on the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) for Federal facilities. 2010 ADA requirements are almost identical to ICC A117.1 requirements. At present, Local codes are almost always based on IBC or ADAAG; sometimes on the 2010 ADA. Some general differences: ADAAG has requirements for detectable warnings (those pesky bumps). The 2010 ADA dropped all detectable warning requirements (except for transit platforms). The 2010 ADA has more detailed requirements on signage. Of course, if you're doing multiple family housing, you must also follow HUD's "Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines." This has more requirements than the others regarding kitchen layouts. Access Board has a comprehensive collection of the Federal requirements: www.access-board.gov Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 938 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, November 01, 2012 - 08:38 am:    Thanks Mark, Justatim, very helpful. Since my role is to prepare the specs only, I reference the codes, but don't need to know them so well. On this Hotel project my concern was or what the Architect has noted on his drawings, which my specs have to 'match". I had heard that there were some clearance changes as well in the updated ADAAG, esp in gang toilet areas, but since I don't draw anymore, my concern was for the architect's liability. Thanks to Dave Metzger who is on his way to Israel for his input, he too votes for ADA. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 941 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, November 02, 2012 - 02:19 am:    Heard back from some ADA experts who advise that no matter what ADAAG takes precedence, not the building code. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 362 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, November 02, 2012 - 08:43 am:    Expert: Ex = Has Been Spurt = Drip Under Pressure Ask them how you're supposed to get an Occupancy Permit when your building doesn't meet Code. I spoke with one ADA 'expert' who told me that we should build to meed Code, get C of O, then modify the building to meet ADA. Sure, like that's going to happen. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 514 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, November 02, 2012 - 09:08 am:    Oh; oh; oh... Like to see a fire marshall and an accessibilty specialist on site duking it out as to whether life safety trumps accessibility or vice versa. My bet is on the fire marshall; he has an axe. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 942 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, November 02, 2012 - 09:17 am:    At this point I don't care anymore, I am only the specwriter, and ironically I don't even have a signed agreement yet, I am going to list both the permitted code reference and the ADAAG reference and let the architect figure it out when the GC goes for his CO, that will be 9 months from now, and if I know the results I will report them on this forum. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1061 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, November 02, 2012 - 10:59 am:    The ADA will take precedence in most cases. However, there are cases, such as in California, where the building code has more restrictive accessibility requirements than the ADA Standards, thus they usually take precedence. For example, lets assume the ADA Standards have a minimum clear width for a feature of 32 inches but the building code accessibility requirement is 36 inches--the building code would take precedence. Also, just for clarification, there are two ADA standards published: 1) "Americans with Disabilities Act and Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines" - This was released on July 23, 2004, by the U.S. Access Board. It combined both updated requirements for the ABA and ADA. The ADA formally used the ADAAG and the ABA used the "Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards" (UFAS). This was adopted by several federal agencies, but the Department of Justice (DOJ)--the agency responsibile for enforcing the ADA--did not adopt the revised standards until 2010. 2) "2010 ADA Standards" - This is the document adopted by the DOJ on September 15, 2010. This document is "closely based on the U.S. Access Board's 'ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines'" as stated in the document. It essentially removes all the requirements associated with the ABA. Compliance with the "2010 ADA Standards" became mandatory on March, 15, 2012. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 515 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, November 02, 2012 - 05:39 pm:    And then there are the "Texas Accessibility Standards"; we are a whole 'nother country. The primary difference is the review requirements for the drawings and the competed project by the TDLR. Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 326 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Friday, November 02, 2012 - 06:05 pm:    Posted for Jean Tessmer: If your project is being planned and designed after March 2012, you are required by the DOJ to use the 2010 standard. If you want a copy of a “barrier free quality control specification”, I can send you a copy used by the the DoD and NPS since they now use the same 2010 standard as the public. To avoid confusion with your client you should have a disclaimer that states "the plans and specifications are limited to the construction or alterations standards of the ADA". You want to do this to avoid the Ellerby Becket problem when the DOJ suddenly decided line of sight (which was not a part of the written code), was now a part of the construction standard. Colin Gilboy Publisher, 4specs.com 435.654.5775 - Utah 800.369.8008 Jo Drummond, FCSIJODRUMMONDFCSI (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, November 03, 2012 - 08:57 pm:    Jerome, I wonder why you are working so hard on this difficult project without a signed contract. At the onset of my career as a consultant, an attorney told me "don't ever work without a signed agreement". If I need to, I repeat that to my client, which makes meeting their schedule is their problem, not mine. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 944 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Saturday, November 03, 2012 - 11:28 pm:    Jo, the client lives in Long Island and was unavailable most of the week, I had previously agreed to deliver draft specs by a certain date after receiving a retainer payment for 33% of the fee. Until the GC mark-up the specs to convert them to as-built specs the specs are worthless to the developer, right now that process is ongoing, however I am not proceeding until I receive an executed agreement and will not issue any more 'finished' specs until I receive a progress payment. This has been a unique project, typically I do not work without a retainer and executed agreement. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 945 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Saturday, November 03, 2012 - 11:38 pm:    Besides Jo, how often do you get paid a 33% retainer...with cash flow low that was a great opportunity, and now I am in the drivers seat, the client has to execute the agreement or they will get no further work from me...and fortunately my agreements are very thorough and very protective. Also the agreement is a lump sum, I was not sure what to expect grom the GC in mark-ups, I trusted my instincts and experience, but working with a GC that I have no experience with there was a possibility there would be a huge amount of mark-ups that would blow out my budget. So far the mark-ups are doable within the budget, if these mark-ups continue following the same mentality this work will be completed soon..other than some bureaucratic bs in the beginning and some unconventional procedures, I might actually make a few dollars on this project. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 520 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, November 04, 2012 - 01:39 am:    If you submitted a proposal that addressed the key contractual issues, or better yet an agreement for signature by the client, and have received a progress payment you will likely find that your proposed language will be binding. Verify this with your attorney but this is what I have been told. While a signed agreement is best you can have an enforcable contract without a signed agreement if you can show that there was an agreement. The payment by the client, after receiving the proposal, barring other communication, would show that there was agreement. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 616 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, February 11, 2013 - 01:24 am:    A few years ago, Jean Tessmer, of Space Options in Hawaii, proposed a Division 01 section to address ADAAG tolerance requirements for DoD and National Park Service. It appeared as Section 01-4117 - Barrier Free Quality Control. Jean says, "It has since been used by the FHWA, State of Hawaii DOT, large shopping centers, parks and zoos from Hawaii to California. The ADA design training (which included tolerances) for all disciplines and the specifications save their bacon. The contractor had 156 ADA violations on the punch list and all the designers were in very strong position to defend their compliant plans, submittals, and specifications. It was all in the contract documents." Download Section 01-4117. Jean's contact information: Jean Tessmer, RME, ASID – Federally Qualified Barrier Free Consultant Space Options Inc PO Box 29 Kula Hawaii 96790 (808) 298-3802 cell design@spaceoptions.com Given the special consideration for "sustainable" design, Jean's suggestion to have a special Division 01 section has merit, but the MasterFormat maintenance team rejected the idea, saying ADA requirements could be specified under 01-4116 Laws. One could say the same thing about "sustainable" design, yet that subject gets: • its own submittal section, 01-3329 - Sustainable Design Reporting, even though those requirements could be specified in 01-3300 - Submittal Procedures • its own closeout section, 01-7853 - Sustainable Design Closeout Documentation, even though those requirements could be specified in 01-7800 - Closeout Submittals • its own basic requirements, 01-8113 - Sustainable Design Requirements, even though those requirements could be specified in 01-8100 - Facility Performance Requirement. But USGBC has all the press, so they get special attention. ;-) spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, February 11, 2013 - 10:50 am:    I would only add that the desire to add a division 01 section on ADA compliance should be done with caution. I have seen language added to specs that require the contractor to provide full accessibility to individuals with disabilities. In theroy this is a nice idea but the ADA is and was concieved to be a means of making "reasonable accomodation" for individuals with disabilities. The definition of "reasonable accommodation" is potentialy up to the court system if someone files a complaint. If you provide 36" wide doors everywhere in the hotel but someone who is as wide as they are tall wants to check in they could argue that you have not made proper accommodations for their individual disability. I have seen far to many architects make claims that they have made renovations to a facility to make it "fully compliant with the ADA". ADA compliance is a moving target and is always one complaint away from being a lie. The law was written by lawyers, designed to keep lawyers busy, arguing with other lawyers. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 653 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Monday, February 11, 2013 - 01:03 pm:    Sheldon- There was a presentation at the last NCR conference (or the one before) on the consolidation of the various accessible codes, and the "new" ADA. You may not have been there - I think you had a presentation elsewhere that day - but one of the features that was mentioned was that tolerances were being built into the ADA. I haven't had reason to get into the new document in depth, so I don't know how or where they address tolerances, measurements, etc., but from the overview presentation it appeared that ADA is moving toward dimensional ranges, rather than absolutes. If so, that seems to me to be a step in the right direction toward mitigating some of the post-construction disputes that we have seen in the past. Even so, I would agree that if a project warrants inclusion of a section like the one you shared, it could go in Division 01 by itself. Seems to me to be a narrow scope / broad scope choice whether there is enough stuff to justify a stand alone section, or inclusion in Laws. Either way, it certainly would clean up referring to AADAG in seemingly every other section. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies St. Louis, MO Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 114 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, February 11, 2013 - 01:47 pm:    Sheldon, I have a problem with dumping off the code and the law onto the contractor. In essence that is what this section does. In fact it actually goes directly against what the Architect's B101 contract says in paragraph 3.2.1 and the A201 general conditions in paragragh 3.2.3. The contractor is to execute what are in the contract documents. 3.2.3 states that the contractor will inform the architect if made aware of any issues. Why do I have a problem with it? The contractor has not had the educational training necessary for life safety and public policy. That is why the states have the architectural license. If a contractor is required to do the same, then there is no need for the state license. Then what you have is the wolf guarding the hen house as the contractor has different incentives driving his work than the owner and the architect. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1088 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, February 11, 2013 - 05:30 pm:    The new ADA Standards do provide more ranges in regard to dimensions, but many of the required dimensions and slopes are based on either minimums or maximums. So what happens if you're slightly under the minimum or slightly over the maximum? The new ADA standards--similar to the old ADAAG--states that "dimensions are subject to conventional industry tolerances except where the requirement is stated as a range with specific minimum and maximum end points." Aside from the various "violations" of SectionFormat, PageFormat, and the "Construction Specifications Practice Guide" (I understand this is a Government spec), this specification seems to cover those dimensional instances. But I think the quality control article in PART 3 could cover those requirements just as well, or point to a section like this to avoid repeating the same requirements in multiple sections. The question I have is whether or not the tolerances in this specification conform to the "conventional industry tolerances" as stated in the ADA standards. I have no problem specifying tighter tolerances, but they usually come with a price. Additionally, I think this section goes a little too far in some areas, like the detectable warning requirements, for example. The requirements for detectable warnings are more appropriately specified in a Division 32. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 617 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, February 11, 2013 - 10:58 pm:    From my collection of miscellaneous CSI stuff: Ten years ago, CSI considered forming a group to analyze issues related to ADA construction tolerances. History and Issues Document Outline Jean Tessmer - Hawaii New member Username: designspaceoptionscom Post Number: 1 Registered: 02-2013 Posted on Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 03:01 am:    To Mr. Ronald Geren. I appreciate your feedback. The specification for the USS Arizona Memorial Replacement Visitor Center, was a first shot. Unlike the green building code it all ended up in Division 1 and deleted out of other sections. ADA touches just about every aspect of design and construction, from the owners, to professional disciplines, all contractors, and requires functional usability inspection for acceptance. At that time the limits imposed on where the Barrier Free Quality Control Section would be was up to someone else. The mandate was to make sure the work in the end was a flagship of accessibility so any individuals with a disability would be able to participate independently at this iconic National Memorial Cemetery. It can and should be revamped in a similar way to the USGB spec. In addition, it should be placed in all appropriate locations within the specifications with all appropriate functional usability inspections and test conducted prior to acceptance, based on the original research from the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign. If you open the front page of the ADA and you will see that it is essentially the ANSI A117.1 sans scoping. The secretariat at the time was Dr. Timothy Nugent who was the lead and principal investigator for the original standard. Jean Tessmer - Hawaii Junior Member Username: designspaceoptionscom Post Number: 2 Registered: 02-2013 Posted on Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 02:10 pm:    To - Mr. Alan Mays, AIA I think you are correct when it comes to the different scopes of responsibility between a licensed designer and a licensed contractor. One builds to the drawings and specs and the other designs and specifies the work in the contract document. It seems from experience that specifying all work needs to be in "ADA compliance" as a blanket statement tends to reverse these rolls with the contractor trying to figure out how to lenghten a land locked hypotenuse of a slope so he can build it successfully based on his experience. This also goes for placement of components and submittals in specifications they too must allow for some tolerances in order to provide for a successful outcome. Jean Tessmer - Hawaii Member Username: designspaceoptionscom Post Number: 3 Registered: 02-2013 Posted on Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 03:50 pm:    To: Mr. George A. Everding The work to provide reliable best practices for buffers in barrier free design have been established by field experience in repeated layouts using various barrier free compliant surfaces that are smooth, stable, firm, and slip resistant, such as raised boardwalks (with less than ¼” spacing), asphalt, concrete, and on site mixed surfaces with hardener (the last is not very long lasting requiring a high level of maintenance). The method used was to lower the incline incrementally from providing a 0.2% buffer until the ramp surface, using minimal traditional concrete flatness techniques could be placed quickly and reliably in ANSI A117.1 compliance. The tool used to measure the layout and acceptance cost about $300.00 and is manufactured by MD Tools, called an ADA Slope Walker. The MD module is extremely reliable and used by the DOJ for site evaluation and has been accepted in Federal ADA court cases. Some Bosch levels also incorporate the MD module. An accessible route as with other specialized surfaces should be specified to be compliant with the ANSI A117.1 standard. The layout and buffers incorporate workmanship and materials. The maximum allowed buffers are from 0% to 8.3%, 0% to 5%, and -2.1% to +2.1%. The 2.1% can undulate plus or minus equaling a 2.1+ plus 2.1- overall waviness allowed with no abrupt vertical changes in elevation. Barrier free compliance is not based on geometry or averaging, it is based primarily on the physics of gravitational and frictional forces working on the subjects. In field studies over the last 12 years the most successful design and layout buffers for an 8.33% ADA slope, is 7%,.for the 5% max. 4%, and for the 2.1% max., it is 1%. Minimal flatness techniques are required and limited manual work is stressed for concrete, to reduce undulations after strike off. These buffers traditionally attain about 98 to 99% compliant sloped surfaces. Reference Portland’s Cement CT-011- 2001 - How to Build a Flat Ramp (revised 2010). The buffers work for the ranges of surfaces referenced in the first paragraph and include ceramic tile with less than ¼” grout lines. The original standard criteria is based on a wide range of disabilities, and written by professionals specializing in disability such as; physical therapist, ergonomist, and bio-mechanical engineers. The board of regents of the University of Illinois required the research to assure the components placed to facilitate access did not harm anyone. Acknowledgement is given here to the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign for the barrier free studies conducted from 1948 to about 1986, used to develop the ANSI A117.1 adopted by the feds for MGRAD, UFAS, ABA, and ADA. Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: louis_medcalf Post Number: 9 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 04:29 pm:    An important thing to keep in mind is that the building official will not enforce ADA compliance or look for it in the permitting plan review. Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP LEED Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 34 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 04:44 pm:    That is NOT the case in California, Land of the ____ists. Building officals were required to take on this charge as part an update to the Unhruh Act (1971, later in Chapter 11 in the code ~1981) and the ADA by an opinion of the State Attorney General in 1993~4. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 534 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 06:55 pm:    Calif AG Opinion 93-203 makes it clear that the building departments do not have the authority to enforce the ADA but they are required to enforce the provisions of the ADA that have been adopted into California law and building standards. http://search.doj.ca.gov/AGSearch/isysquery/8c432f76-f178-4acb-bb20-0ed8b5949793/1/doc/93-203.pdf#xml=http://search.doj.ca.gov:8004/AGSearch/isysquery/8c432f76-f178-4acb-bb20-0ed8b5949793/1/hilite/ Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP LEED Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 35 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 07:00 pm:    Thanks for looking it up.