Plan Review: 232 Issues Found

Summary: 18 index entries | 0 perfect matches | 7 mismatched | 11 missing Mismatched (7): 10: Expected: 2ND FLOOR SYSTEM PLAN (10) | Actual: Parlor (10)(p10) 11: Expected: TYP. PURLIN & UNI-RIB PANEL LAYOUT (11) | Actual: 159'-8. X 329'-6. X 17'-2. Parlor (11)(p11) 12: Expected: ENDWALL FRAMING ELEVATIONS (12) | Actual: null (12)(p12) 25: Expected: REST ROOM / COMP. ROOM P...

Why it matters: Addressing this before construction prevents rework and supports code compliance.

Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve before construction.

RFI draft: Please clarify: Drawing Index Audit: 11 missing, 7 mismatched out of 18 sheets

Summary: Architectural drawings (PR06 West Elevation, WF05 Quickliner Plan) depict the building with a rectangular footprint and straight exterior walls along the West side. In contrast, the Structural wall plans (S210, S211) depict the West side of the building featuring two large, protruding circular structures ('CAROUSEL 1' and 'CAROUSEL 2') with curved exterior walls.

Why it matters: A fundamental discrepancy in the primary building footprint between architectural and structural drawings means the foundation, wall forms, and roof framing cannot be properly coordinated. This will cause major delays during layout and construction if not resolved prior to mobilizing on site.

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct building footprint geometry. Are the carousel rooms intended to be enclosed within a straight rectangular exterior envelope (per architectural plans), or do they feature protruding curved exterior walls (per structural plans)? Please issue updated drawings ...

RFI draft: Clarify the correct building footprint geometry. Are the carousel rooms intended to be enclosed within a straight rectangular exterior envelope (per architectural plans), or do they feature protruding curved exterior walls (per structural plans)? ...

Summary: The Structural foundation and wall plans (S120, S211) show a 14'-0" wide Electrical Room physically located between the Lunch/Parts Room and the Utility Room. However, the Architectural Ceiling Panel Layout (A26) completely omits this 14-foot space from the floor plan, incorrectly depicting the Parts/Lunch Room immediately adjacent to the Boiler and Utility Rooms.

Why it matters: While the Electrical Room ceiling is noted elsewhere as concrete and may not require Uni-Rib acoustic panels, its complete omission from the 2D spatial layout shifts the apparent locations of the adjacent rooms on the architectural plans. This will lead to coordination errors during MEP routing, ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the exact location and dimensions of the Electrical Room. Update the Architectural floor plans and ceiling layouts to properly reflect the 14'-0" wide Electrical Room separating the Parts Room from the Utility Room, ensuring accurate spatial coordination matches...

RFI draft: Please confirm the exact location and dimensions of the Electrical Room. Update the Architectural floor plans and ceiling layouts to properly reflect the 14'-0" wide Electrical Room separating the Parts Room from the Utility Room, ensuring accurat...

Summary: Document 0 (Architectural/Framing sections) shows critical load-bearing steel columns supporting the main roof trusses and steel girder, located 27'-7" from the East exterior wall and 30'-7" from the West exterior wall. However, Document 1 (Subway Structural East-West section) shows large clear spans of 51'-0" and 56'-8" over the subway area, extending inward from the exterior walls. Document 1...

Why it matters: Without coordinated foundation supports underneath the main roof girder columns in the subway area, the roof structure lacks a continuous load path to the ground. Bearing heavily loaded steel columns on a clear-span precast plank or slab over the subway without dedicated structural transfer eleme...

Suggested next step: Please coordinate the architectural/framing building sections with the subway structural sections. Confirm the locations of the main steel roof columns (27'-7" from East wall and 30'-7" from West wall) and provide dedicated columns, bearing walls, or structural transfer beams ...

RFI draft: Please coordinate the architectural/framing building sections with the subway structural sections. Confirm the locations of the main steel roof columns (27'-7" from East wall and 30'-7" from West wall) and provide dedicated columns, bearing walls,...

Summary: The mechanical plan (Doc 0, PR05) and structural sections/plans (Doc 1, Sheets 22 and 25) present fundamentally contradicting floor plans and room adjacencies. 1. Structural Sheet 22 shows an "ELECTRICAL ROOM" (58'-8" wide) situated directly next to the "STAIRS TO PARTS ROOM". However, Mechanical PR05 indicates the space adjacent to the stairs is the "LL - LUNCH ROOM F.F.E. 100'-0"". 2. Struc...

Why it matters: These contradictions represent a complete mismatch between the structural shell and the mechanical layout. If constructed per the structural drawings, the mechanical equipment will clash with structural walls, and equipment will be situated in the wrong rooms (e.g., placing utility equipment in a...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct floor plan and room designations for the Parlor. Are the structural drawings (Sheets 22 & 25) outdated regarding the Electrical Room, Compressor Room, and Rest Room, or does the Mechanical equipment layout on PR05 need to be substantially revised to ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct floor plan and room designations for the Parlor. Are the structural drawings (Sheets 22 & 25) outdated regarding the Electrical Room, Compressor Room, and Rest Room, or does the Mechanical equipment layout on PR05 need t...

Summary: Doc 1 specifies that the roof trusses bear on the exterior Octaform/concrete walls at an elevation of 117'-2" (which is noted as 17'-2" above the 100'-0" floor benchmark). However, the concrete profiles detailing the Octaform walls in Doc 0 show a maximum elevation of 104'-0" (Top of Wall) in Profile 1 and 106'-10" (Top of Deck) in Profile 5. There is no indication in the concrete drawings that...

Why it matters: If the Octaform wall shop drawings do not detail the full 117'-2" height required by the superstructure, the concrete walls will be poured too low (stopping over 10 feet short), preventing the installation of the roof trusses. This requires immediate coordination to determine if the upper envelop...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the scope and construction of the exterior walls between the maximum detailed concrete elevations (106'-10") and the roof truss bearing elevation (117'-2"). Should the Octaform profiles in PR08 be revised to show the full height to the 117'-2" bearing elevation ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the scope and construction of the exterior walls between the maximum detailed concrete elevations (106'-10") and the roof truss bearing elevation (117'-2"). Should the Octaform profiles in PR08 be revised to show the full height to ...

Summary: Plan 4 on S103 details the Colostrum and Chemical Rooms with a "6\" CONC SLAB-ON-GROUND... ON COMPACTED GRANULAR SUB-BASE" and indicates conventional wall footings (e.g., "W 2.0", "TF= 95'-6\""). However, the section callout for these walls points to detail 6/S504. Detail 6/S504 contradicts S103 by specifying the "OCTAFORM WALL SYSTEM" bearing on a thickened structural concrete slab supported b...

Why it matters: This represents a critical discrepancy in the base foundation type (Slab-on-ground with continuous footings vs. suspended slab on metal deck). If unaddressed, this will cause significant confusion during the concrete pour, potentially leading to incorrect structural support for the walls and impr...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended structural system for the floor and wall base in the Colostrum and Chemical Rooms (at section 6/S504). Are these meant to be standard footings with a slab-on-grade as noted on S103, or resting on a suspended metal deck slab as detailed on S504?

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended structural system for the floor and wall base in the Colostrum and Chemical Rooms (at section 6/S504). Are these meant to be standard footings with a slab-on-grade as noted on S103, or resting on a suspended metal deck ...

Summary: The 'SIDWALL 1 SECTION' on page 13 shows a floor-to-floor height of 9'-0" (8'-0" Manager Office ceiling height + 1'-0" floor joist/sheathing depth). However, the 'STAIR DETAIL' (C10) on page 10 dimensions the overall vertical rise as exactly 8'-0".

Why it matters: If the stair stringers are fabricated based on the 8'-0" overall rise dimension shown on the detail, the staircase will fall 1'-0" short of the upper level landing (Conference Room). Note that mathematically, 15 risers at the noted 7 3/16" rise equates to approximately 9'-0", indicating the 8'-0"...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the overall stair rise dimension in Detail C10 should be revised from 8'-0" to 9'-0" to correctly match the floor-to-floor height shown in the Sidwall 1 Section.

RFI draft: Please confirm that the overall stair rise dimension in Detail C10 should be revised from 8'-0" to 9'-0" to correctly match the floor-to-floor height shown in the Sidwall 1 Section.

Summary: Drawing 26 contains a general note explicitly stating that ceiling finishes for the Milk Room, Colostrum Room, Chemical Room, Comp. Room, and Lunch Room are to be provided 'BY RIVERVIEW DAIRY' (the owner), while the Parts Room is by 'LESTER BUILDINGS'. However, the floor plan details specific Uni-Rib panel layouts for all these rooms. The Colostrum Room panels are explicitly noted as 'BUNDLED W...

Why it matters: If the manufacturer is scheduling, fabricating, bundling, and providing installation details for these panels, but the drawings also state the owner is providing them, it will result in double-procurement or missed scope during bidding and construction. The physical overlap of panels between room...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the scope of work for the ceiling finishes in the Milk Room, Colostrum Room, Chemical Room, Comp. Room, and Lunch Room. Are these panels being supplied and detailed by Lester Buildings (as indicated by the schedules, bundling notes, and continuous panel layouts)...

RFI draft: Please clarify the scope of work for the ceiling finishes in the Milk Room, Colostrum Room, Chemical Room, Comp. Room, and Lunch Room. Are these panels being supplied and detailed by Lester Buildings (as indicated by the schedules, bundling notes,...

Summary: The Architectural Floor Plan (PR01) and Structural Concrete Elevations (PR02) indicate a dedicated 28' wide "ELECTRICAL ROOM" with a finished floor elevation (F.F.E.) of 100'-6", located adjacent to the "LL - LUNCH ROOM" and a separate "UTILITY ROOM" (F.F.E. 100'-0"). However, the Mechanical plan (PR05) omits the Electrical Room entirely, depicting this footprint as a continuous "UTILITY ROOM" ...

Why it matters: This contradiction between disciplines represents a major spatial coordination clash. Mechanical equipment and electrical distribution panels cannot safely or legally occupy the same floor space. Additionally, the 6-inch discrepancy in the intended floor elevation (100'-6" vs. 100'-0") will lead ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended layout for the support rooms adjacent to the Lunch Room. Provide updated architectural or mechanical backgrounds indicating the correct size, location, and equipment layout for the Electrical Room versus the Utility Room. Resolve the overlapping equ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended layout for the support rooms adjacent to the Lunch Room. Provide updated architectural or mechanical backgrounds indicating the correct size, location, and equipment layout for the Electrical Room versus the Utility Roo...

Summary: The Pier Schedule specifies vertical reinforcement quantities that fail to meet the 1% minimum gross area requirement for columns/compression members. For example, Pier P1 measures 2'-8" x 2'-8" (Ag = 1024 sq in), which requires a minimum of 10.24 sq in of longitudinal reinforcement (0.01Ag). The scheduled 12-#6 bars only provide 5.28 sq in (12 x 0.44 sq in). This violation occurs across multip...

Why it matters: Insufficient longitudinal reinforcement in compression members can lead to premature yielding of the reinforcement under sustained service loads due to creep and shrinkage of the concrete, significantly compromising the structural integrity of the column/pier and the structure it supports.

Suggested next step: Please review the Pier Schedule and revise the vertical reinforcement quantities for all piers to ensure they meet the minimum 1% gross area requirement (0.01Ag) in accordance with ACI 318-19 Section 10.6.1.1.

RFI draft: Please review the Pier Schedule and revise the vertical reinforcement quantities for all piers to ensure they meet the minimum 1% gross area requirement (0.01Ag) in accordance with ACI 318-19 Section 10.6.1.1.

Summary: Plan Note 3 directs that 'ALL CONCRETE SLABS SHALL BE SAW CUT'. However, Keyed Note 3 specifies an '18" CONC MAT SLAB', which functions as a structural foundation member. ACI 318-19 Section 13.2.4 (and its commentary) dictates that construction documents must clearly identify slabs-on-ground acting as structural members to explicitly prohibit sawcutting, which maintains structural integrity and...

Why it matters: If the 18-inch mat slab is saw cut as currently directed by the general notes, it risks severing the top layer of reinforcement and creating unintended weak planes in a critical structural foundation element. This would significantly compromise the foundation's load-bearing capacity and diaphragm...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the 18" concrete mat slab (Keyed Note 3) is intended to function as a structural slab. If so, please revise Plan Note 3 to explicitly exclude the mat slab (and any other structural slabs) from the saw cutting requirements, and provide specific structural join...

RFI draft: Please confirm if the 18" concrete mat slab (Keyed Note 3) is intended to function as a structural slab. If so, please revise Plan Note 3 to explicitly exclude the mat slab (and any other structural slabs) from the saw cutting requirements, and pr...

Summary: Detail 2/S201 requires the metal deck to have a "MIN BEARING = 3\"" on the supporting continuous angle. The angle is specified as an "L6x4x5/16 CONT ANGLE (LLV)", which provides a 4" outstanding horizontal leg. However, the drawing includes a 2" horizontal dimension measuring the clearance from the wall face to the edge of the metal deck. With a 4" angle leg and a 2" clearance gap, the metal de...

Why it matters: This contradiction will cause a constructability failure during steel erection and deck placement. If the deck is held 2" away from the wall to match the explicit dimension, it will lack the required 3" bearing support on the 4" angle leg, creating a structural hazard. The clearance dimension mus...

Suggested next step: Detail 2/S201 requires a "MIN BEARING = 3\"" for the metal deck on the L6x4 (LLV) continuous angle. However, the drawing shows a 2" clearance dimension from the wall face to the edge of the deck, which only leaves 2" of bearing on the 4" horizontal angle leg. Please confirm if...

RFI draft: Detail 2/S201 requires a "MIN BEARING = 3\"" for the metal deck on the L6x4 (LLV) continuous angle. However, the drawing shows a 2" clearance dimension from the wall face to the edge of the deck, which only leaves 2" of bearing on the 4" horizonta...

Summary: The wind load calculation schedule explicitly states that it "ASSUMES WIND LOAD ACTING ON PROJECTED AREA OF ROOF 4.8 PSF PERP TO RIDGE,". This assumed pressure is in direct violation of ASCE 7-16 Section 28.3.4, which establishes that the minimum design wind load for the Main Wind Force Resisting System (MWFRS) shall not be less than 8 psf multiplied by the roof area projected onto a vertical p...

Why it matters: Applying only 4.8 psf to the projected roof area instead of the absolute minimum code requirement of 8 psf will result in significantly underestimated total lateral wind forces (base shear). This leads to an under-designed MWFRS (including shear walls, diaphragms, and hold-downs), which risks str...

Suggested next step: Please revise the structural wind load calculations to apply a minimum wind pressure of 8 psf on the projected area of the roof per ASCE 7-16 Section 28.3.4, and update the MWFRS shear wall loads and building reactions accordingly.

RFI draft: Please revise the structural wind load calculations to apply a minimum wind pressure of 8 psf on the projected area of the roof per ASCE 7-16 Section 28.3.4, and update the MWFRS shear wall loads and building reactions accordingly.

Summary: Section B13 (NORTH ENDWALL 1 SECTION) details the attachment of the concrete Octaform endwall to the wood roof framing. The detail uses 2x4 nailers to act as continuous ties between the gable truss assembly and the interior roof diaphragm, explicitly specifying to "TOE NAIL TO INTERM. TRUSS WITH (2) 10d NAILS EACH SIDE".

Why it matters: ASCE 7-16 Section 12.11.2.2.3 explicitly prohibits the use of toenails or nails subject to withdrawal for the anchorage of concrete or masonry structural walls to wood diaphragms, which includes the continuous ties/struts used to distribute these forces into the diaphragm. During a seismic or hig...

Suggested next step: Please revise the connection detail tying the gable truss assembly to the intermediate roof framing. Provide a positive mechanical connection (such as steel framing angles, clips, or tension straps) in lieu of toenails to transfer the out-of-plane concrete wall anchorage force...

RFI draft: Please revise the connection detail tying the gable truss assembly to the intermediate roof framing. Provide a positive mechanical connection (such as steel framing angles, clips, or tension straps) in lieu of toenails to transfer the out-of-plane...