Plan Review: 64 Issues Found

Summary: 64 index entries | 63 perfect matches | 1 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (1): E-003: Expected: ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS (E-003) | Actual: ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS (E-002)(p53)

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: 0 missing, 1 mismatched out of 64 sheets

Summary: The Mechanical plan (M-102) indicates an '18x18 DN' vertical duct penetration dropping through the upper-right intersecting roof gable. The Architectural plan (AE102) also shows mechanical (22.04) and plumbing (22.05) penetrations in this same location. However, the Structural plan (S-102) identifies this projecting gable area as an 'OVERBUILD' and Note 3 explicitly mandates that 'ROOF SHEATHIN...

Why it matters: Routing large mechanical ducts (such as an 18x18 duct) through an overbuild assembly is highly irregular. Doing so requires the duct to pass through the overbuild roof, the blind interstitial space, and the continuous sloped primary roof below. This creates severe waterproofing and flashing chall...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the routing for the 18x18 mechanical duct and plumbing vents at the upper-right overbuild area. Should these penetrations be relocated to a primary roof section to avoid the overbuild, or will the structural drawings be updated to provide framed openings through...

RFI draft: Please clarify the routing for the 18x18 mechanical duct and plumbing vents at the upper-right overbuild area. Should these penetrations be relocated to a primary roof section to avoid the overbuild, or will the structural drawings be updated to p...

Summary: The Life Safety plan requires a minimum clear egress width of 32 inches for all doors and specifies in the Egress Component Schedule that exterior doors E-9 (serving MEN 114) and E-11 (serving WOMEN 117) provide exactly 32 inches of width. However, the Architectural Floor Plan notes that door openings are dimensioned by masonry opening, and details the masonry openings for these specific exteri...

Why it matters: A masonry opening of 32 inches physically cannot accommodate a door that provides a 32-inch clear egress width. The door frame and the thickness of the door leaf itself will reduce the actual clear width to approximately 27-28 inches. This creates a direct contradiction between the architectural ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required masonry opening dimensions for exterior doors E114 and E117. Since a 2'-8" masonry opening cannot yield a 32" clear egress width, should the architectural masonry openings be increased (e.g., to 3'-4") to accommodate standard doors that meet the VCC...

RFI draft: Please clarify the required masonry opening dimensions for exterior doors E114 and E117. Since a 2'-8" masonry opening cannot yield a 32" clear egress width, should the architectural masonry openings be increased (e.g., to 3'-4") to accommodate st...

Summary: The panel schedules explicitly list the wiring for 120V, 1-pole branch circuits (e.g., '1 LTG RM 110 1-#12 + 1-#12 GND IN 3/4"C 20 A') and the 120V feeder for the LTG INVERTER ('1-#8 + 1-#10 GND IN 1"C LTG INVERTER 10') as containing only one current-carrying conductor and one ground. The required neutral conductor is omitted from these wire callouts, which contradicts the specification requiri...

Why it matters: A 120V single-phase circuit requires a neutral conductor to complete the electrical path. Installing these circuits exactly as detailed in the panel schedules (with only a hot and a ground) will result in non-functional 120V receptacles, lighting, and inverter equipment, leading to immediate code...

Suggested next step: Please update the panel schedules to include the required neutral conductors in the wire callouts for all 120V branch circuits and 120V single-phase panel feeders (e.g., revise '1-#12 + 1-#12 GND' to '2-#12 + 1-#12 GND' for standard 120V branch circuits).

RFI draft: Please update the panel schedules to include the required neutral conductors in the wire callouts for all 120V branch circuits and 120V single-phase panel feeders (e.g., revise '1-#12 + 1-#12 GND' to '2-#12 + 1-#12 GND' for standard 120V branch ci...

Summary: Sheet C-102 Layout Plan specifies that the concrete equipment pad shall accommodate electrical equipment plus 6 inches (minimum) on all sides. However, Detail 8 on sheet S-501 (Typical Exterior Equipment Pad Detail), which is the structural detail explicitly referenced by C-102 for the pad design, shows only a 4" minimum edge distance from the equipment face. These two dimensions directly contr...

Why it matters: This discrepancy affects the concrete equipment pad size and form layout during construction. If the contractor follows the structural detail (4" min), the pad will be undersized relative to civil requirements (6" min). Conversely, if the civil note governs, the structural reinforcement layout ma...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required minimum edge distance from the equipment face to the edge of the concrete equipment pad. C-102 specifies 6 inches (minimum) on all sides, while S-501 Detail 8 shows 4" minimum. Which dimension governs, and should the other drawing be revised accordi...

RFI draft: Please clarify the required minimum edge distance from the equipment face to the edge of the concrete equipment pad. C-102 specifies 6 inches (minimum) on all sides, while S-501 Detail 8 shows 4" minimum. Which dimension governs, and should the ot...

Summary: Elevation 1 on sheet AE402, titled 'TICKETS 102', shows the transaction counter (SS-1) at a height of 2'-8" and includes a section cut referencing Detail 2 on sheet AE701. However, Detail 2 on AE701, 'CASEWORK DETAIL - OPEN COUNTER', specifies the counter height (knee space clearance) as 2'-10". This is a direct 2" dimensional contradiction for the same counter element, with the elevation expli...

Why it matters: A 2" discrepancy in counter height has significant implications. If built to 2'-8", the counter may not meet ADA knee clearance requirements (which typically require 27" minimum knee clearance). If built to 2'-10", it may be too high for a ticket transaction counter. The contractor cannot determi...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct counter height for TICKETS 102. Elevation 1 on AE402 indicates 2'-8", while the referenced Detail 2/AE701 (CASEWORK DETAIL - OPEN COUNTER) shows 2'-10". Which dimension governs? Please also confirm that the selected height meets ADA accessibility req...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct counter height for TICKETS 102. Elevation 1 on AE402 indicates 2'-8", while the referenced Detail 2/AE701 (CASEWORK DETAIL - OPEN COUNTER) shows 2'-10". Which dimension governs? Please also confirm that the selected heig...

Summary: Sheet S-102 (Framing Plan) consistently specifies PARALLAM 5.25x14 beams (5.25" wide by 14" deep) throughout the building. Sheet S-501, Detail 7 (Typical Wood Framing Connectors) specifies a SIMPSON HGUS5.50/12 HANGER for the Parallam-to-Parallam beam connection, where the '/12' designation indicates the hanger is sized for a 12"-deep member. Both Parallam members in this detail note 'PARALLAM,...

Why it matters: Using a hanger rated for a 12"-deep member to support a 14"-deep Parallam beam could result in inadequate load capacity, improper bearing, or an inability to physically install the connection as detailed. This discrepancy could cause construction delays if discovered in the field, requiring a red...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct Simpson hanger model for the Parallam-to-Parallam beam connection shown in Detail 7 on S-501. The framing plan (S-102) specifies PARALLAM 5.25x14 beams (14" deep), but the detail specifies a SIMPSON HGUS5.50/12 hanger which is sized for a 12"-deep me...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct Simpson hanger model for the Parallam-to-Parallam beam connection shown in Detail 7 on S-501. The framing plan (S-102) specifies PARALLAM 5.25x14 beams (14" deep), but the detail specifies a SIMPSON HGUS5.50/12 hanger wh...

Summary: The electrical single-line diagram on EP601 shows the L1D1 main circuit breaker as 3-pole, 400A frame, 350A trip (notated as '3 400 350'). However, the L1D1 panel schedule on EP602 indicates the MCB RATING as 400 A, with BUS AMPS also listed as 400 A. This is a direct conflict: the single-line diagram specifies a 350A trip setting for the main breaker while the panel schedule specifies a 400A m...

Why it matters: This discrepancy affects overcurrent protection coordination, conductor sizing verification, and equipment procurement. If the main breaker is 350A trip, it provides a 12.5% de-rating from the 400A bus (consistent with continuous load considerations at 87.5%), but the panel schedule does not refl...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct main circuit breaker trip rating for panel L1D1. The single-line diagram on EP601 shows 3-pole, 400A frame, 350A trip, while the panel schedule on EP602 shows MCB RATING: 400A. Please confirm the intended trip rating and revise the conflicting drawin...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct main circuit breaker trip rating for panel L1D1. The single-line diagram on EP601 shows 3-pole, 400A frame, 350A trip, while the panel schedule on EP602 shows MCB RATING: 400A. Please confirm the intended trip rating and...

Summary: Sheet EP100 states that the meter base is 'PROVIDED BY COMMERCIAL SERVICE PROVIDER, INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR,' indicating the utility provider supplies the metering equipment and the contractor only installs it. However, Sheet EP601 Keynote 1 states 'THE CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE ALL EQUIPMENT NEEDED FOR METERING AND COORDINATE CONNECTION WITH THE UTILITY PROVIDER,' placing full procurement respon...

Why it matters: This conflict creates significant ambiguity in procurement responsibility and cost allocation. If the contractor assumes the utility will provide the meter base (per EP100), metering equipment may not be included in the bid. Conversely, if the contractor follows EP601, unnecessary procurement cou...

Suggested next step: Please clarify who is responsible for providing the metering equipment (meter base/meter socket and CT cabinet). EP100 states the meter base is 'PROVIDED BY COMMERCIAL SERVICE PROVIDER,' while EP601 Keynote 1 states 'THE CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE ALL EQUIPMENT NEEDED FOR METERIN...

RFI draft: Please clarify who is responsible for providing the metering equipment (meter base/meter socket and CT cabinet). EP100 states the meter base is 'PROVIDED BY COMMERCIAL SERVICE PROVIDER,' while EP601 Keynote 1 states 'THE CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE AL...

Summary: The sheet keynotes on AE303 instruct contractors to staple the roof insulation to "RAFTERS", implying a stick-framed roof structure. However, the explicitly cross-referenced roof details on AE503 consistently specify "ROOF TRUSS" for the structural roof framing.

Why it matters: This inconsistency between stick-built rafters and pre-engineered roof trusses creates ambiguity regarding the primary structural roof package. It also impacts framing coordination and the insulation installation method, as stapling faced blanket insulation to rafters is fundamentally different f...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the primary roof structure consists of stick-built rafters or pre-engineered roof trusses, and update the architectural keynotes (e.g., Note 7.04) and details to align with the structural drawings.

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the primary roof structure consists of stick-built rafters or pre-engineered roof trusses, and update the architectural keynotes (e.g., Note 7.04) and details to align with the structural drawings.

Summary: The Reflected Ceiling Plan (AE151) designates the exterior building perimeter soffits as 'PNT-8' and General Note 8 states to 'PAINT ALL GYPSUM BOARD SOFFITS', indicating the exterior soffits are intended to be painted gypsum board. However, Wall Section 2 on AE303 details the exterior roof overhang, soffit, and wall return using Keynote '6.01', which is defined as 'VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT PANEL ...

Why it matters: Discrepancies in exterior soffit materials can lead to incorrect material procurement and misaligned subcontractor scopes (drywall vs. exterior siding contractors). Additionally, using standard gypsum board on an exterior soffit requires different detailing and weather-resistive barriers compared...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended finish material for the exterior roof overhangs and soffits. Should they be constructed with painted gypsum board as indicated by the 'PNT-8' tags on the Reflected Ceiling Plan (AE151), or clad in vertical fiber cement panel siding as detailed in Wa...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended finish material for the exterior roof overhangs and soffits. Should they be constructed with painted gypsum board as indicated by the 'PNT-8' tags on the Reflected Ceiling Plan (AE151), or clad in vertical fiber cement ...

Summary: There is a direct contradiction regarding the height of the 6" CMU partial partition walls separating the shower stalls in the Men's 114 and Women's 117 restrooms. On the Enlarged Floor Plans (AE401), Keynote 3.08 is tagged on these shower partitions and explicitly states the walls are to extend to 8'-0" AFF. However, the corresponding Interior Elevations 4 and 6 on sheet AE402 show and dimensi...

Why it matters: A 1'-8" height discrepancy for multiple masonry walls will significantly impact the CMU block takeoff quantities, mortar/grout requirements, and potentially the necessary structural bracing or reinforcement for these free-standing partial walls. It also alters the intended privacy and proportions...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended height for the CMU shower partition walls in rooms 114 and 117. Should the walls be built to 8'-0" AFF per Keynote 3.08 on AE401, or to 6'-4" AFF per the dimensions on interior elevations 4 and 6 on AE402?

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended height for the CMU shower partition walls in rooms 114 and 117. Should the walls be built to 8'-0" AFF per Keynote 3.08 on AE401, or to 6'-4" AFF per the dimensions on interior elevations 4 and 6 on AE402?

Summary: General Note 3 on S-102 dictates that shaded areas on the plan require overbuild trusses, and explicitly states 'ROOF SHEATHING ON PRIMARY TRUSSES SHALL BE CONTINOUS BELOW OVERBUILD FRAMING.' The Framing Plan (S-102) identifies shaded projecting areas labeled 'OVERBUILD' and references section callout '2 S-301' at the perimeter of one such area. However, Section 2 on S-301 shows the 'WOOD TRUSS...

Why it matters: If the shaded 'OVERBUILD' areas are truly framed over the primary roof, Section 2 should depict the overbuild truss resting on the continuous primary roof sheathing, not directly on the perimeter Parallam beam. Conversely, if these are primary framed roofs (e.g., for porches) bearing directly on ...

Suggested next step: Clarify the framing condition at the projecting shaded areas labeled 'OVERBUILD'. Are they intended to be framed on top of continuous primary roof sheathing as required by General Note 3 on S-102, or do they bear directly on the Parallam perimeter beams as primary trusses as d...

RFI draft: Clarify the framing condition at the projecting shaded areas labeled 'OVERBUILD'. Are they intended to be framed on top of continuous primary roof sheathing as required by General Note 3 on S-102, or do they bear directly on the Parallam perimeter...

Summary: The Transverse Section 2/AE301 (left side) shows an exterior covered walkway supported by columns on the North elevation, directly outside LIFEGUARD 104. Conversely, the Floor Plan (AE101) shows the North exterior wall of LIFEGUARD 104 as a flush masonry wall with embedded columns, lacking any exterior porch or detached columns.

Why it matters: Showing an exterior porch in section that does not exist on the floor plan is a major architectural and structural conflict. This will lead to critical errors in site footprint layout, foundation pouring, slab extents, and roof framing scope.

Suggested next step: Does a covered walkway exist on the North elevation outside LIFEGUARD 104? Please update either the Floor Plan or the Transverse Section 2/AE301 to ensure the exterior building perimeter and overhangs are coordinated.

RFI draft: Does a covered walkway exist on the North elevation outside LIFEGUARD 104? Please update either the Floor Plan or the Transverse Section 2/AE301 to ensure the exterior building perimeter and overhangs are coordinated.

Summary: The South Elevation (4/AE201) depicts a projecting gable entryway on the right side featuring a single door and two divided-light windows labeled 'C'. In contrast, the Floor Plan (AE101) for the corresponding right (East) area of the South facade shows a straight exterior wall with no projecting gable, no 'C' window tags, and only a single egress door at CLO 120.

Why it matters: Discrepancies in architectural features, roof framing, and window placements can lead to incorrect construction, erroneous material ordering, and delays in the field.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct architectural layout for the right side of the South facade. Should it feature the projecting gable and 'C' windows as shown on the elevation, or the straight wall shown on the floor plan?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct architectural layout for the right side of the South facade. Should it feature the projecting gable and 'C' windows as shown on the elevation, or the straight wall shown on the floor plan?