Louisiana Building Plan Review: 29 Issues Found

Summary: 92 index entries | 67 perfect matches | 24 mismatched | 1 missing Mismatched (24): G0.00: Expected: TITLE SHEET | Actual: TITLE SHEET (p1) C0.01: Expected: EROSION CONTROL AND SITE DEMOLITION PLAN | Actual: EROSION CONTROL AND DEMOLITION PLAN (p6) C0.02: Expected: SWPP AND ESC DETAILS | Actual: SHEET NOTES MEP ESC DETAILS (p7) A1.11: Expected: DIMENSIONAL FLOOR PL...

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: 1 missing, 24 mismatched out of 92 sheets

Summary: On the exterior elevations, the roof is called out as a standing seam metal roof and the roof slope is labeled 4" per 1'-0". However, the building sections sheet specifies a torch-down modified bitumen roof assembly with a slope of 1/4" per 1'-0". These are conflicting roof systems and slopes for the same alternate set.

Why it matters: This conflict affects roof framing design, drainage/scupper/downspout design, parapet/eave details, and material procurement. Construction could proceed with the wrong roof type/slope, creating waterproofing and code/compliance risks as well as major cost/schedule impacts.

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended Alternate 1 roof assembly and required slope: (a) standing seam metal roof at 4"/1'-0", or (b) torch-down mod-bit roof at 1/4"/1'-0". If different roof areas are intended to have different systems/slopes, identify the extents/transition details on the draw...

RFI draft: Confirm the intended Alternate 1 roof assembly and required slope: (a) standing seam metal roof at 4"/1'-0", or (b) torch-down mod-bit roof at 1/4"/1'-0". If different roof areas are intended to have different systems/slopes, identify the extents/...

Summary: The roof plan repeatedly calls out the roof slope as 4" per foot, but the building sections sheet roof assembly note specifies a much lower slope of 1/4" per foot for the roof assembly. These two slopes cannot both apply to the same roof areas without clarification.

Why it matters: This affects roof framing geometry, drainage design (scuppers/gutters/drains), insulation tapering, and detailing at parapets/eaves. If constructed per the wrong slope, it can cause ponding/noncompliant drainage and misaligned structure/envelope interfaces.

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended roof slope(s) by roof area (e.g., main roofs vs any low-slope areas) and revise the roof plan and/or roof assembly note so the slope callouts and assembly requirements match. Clarify where (if anywhere) 1/4"/ft applies versus 4"/ft.

RFI draft: Confirm the intended roof slope(s) by roof area (e.g., main roofs vs any low-slope areas) and revise the roof plan and/or roof assembly note so the slope callouts and assembly requirements match. Clarify where (if anywhere) 1/4"/ft applies versus ...

Summary: On the Roof Plan (A1.40-ALT), the roof is identified in the legend as an exposed metal panel system and the plan slope callouts show a steep pitch. On the Building Sections sheet (A3.02-ALT), the roof assembly note describes a low-slope torch-down modified bitumen roof with a much smaller slope. These conflict as to both roof type (R-panel vs. torch-down mod-bit) and roof slope (4"/1'-0" vs. 1/...

Why it matters: This creates a construction-critical ambiguity affecting roof structural design (framing/decking), roof drainage approach (sloped-to-drain vs. pitched), and roofing procurement/installation details (metal panel vs. membrane roofing). If not resolved, it risks incorrect bidding, submittals, and in...

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the project has (a) multiple roof systems by area (identify extents on plan and in sections), or (b) a single intended roof system. Revise A1.40-ALT and/or A3.02-ALT so roof material and roof slope are consistent (including updating the roof plan legend/hatchin...

RFI draft: Confirm whether the project has (a) multiple roof systems by area (identify extents on plan and in sections), or (b) a single intended roof system. Revise A1.40-ALT and/or A3.02-ALT so roof material and roof slope are consistent (including updatin...

Summary: On sheet C1.00, the PAVING LEGEND directs heavy-duty and light-duty paving to detail 2 on sheet C2.00 ("SEE 2/C2.00"), but the PLAN KEY NOTES on the same sheet direct both heavy-duty and light-duty paving to "SEE 2/C201." Sheet C2.00 includes a Detail 2 titled for heavy-duty and light-duty paving, so the C1.00 PLAN KEY NOTES reference to "2/C201" conflicts with the C1.00 legend and the actual c...

Why it matters: If contractors follow the incorrect "2/C201" callout, they may miss the intended civil paving section requirements (thickness, reinforcement, subgrade build-up), leading to incorrect paving construction and potential rework or failed inspections.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct detail reference for "NEW P.C.C. HEAVY-DUTY CONCRETE PAVING" and "NEW P.C.C. LIGHT-DUTY CONCRETE PAVING": should these reference be revised to "SEE 2/C2.00" (civil detail), or is there a separate sheet C201 intended to govern these paving sections?

RFI draft: Confirm the correct detail reference for "NEW P.C.C. HEAVY-DUTY CONCRETE PAVING" and "NEW P.C.C. LIGHT-DUTY CONCRETE PAVING": should these reference be revised to "SEE 2/C2.00" (civil detail), or is there a separate sheet C201 intended to govern t...

Summary: On sheet A0.01, the parking area is explicitly labeled as new work: "NEW PARKING LOT\n(ALT-2)". However, on the referenced sheet A0.02, the enlarged plan for the same alternate labels the parking and adjacent circulation as existing (e.g., "EXISTING PARKING", "EXISTING DRIVEWAY", and "EXISTING SIDEWALK"). This is a direct contradiction in whether the ALT-2 parking lot is new construction or exi...

Why it matters: This affects scope (demolition vs. new paving/striping), cost, permitting/land disturbance assumptions, and coordination of civil/sitework quantities. Contractors may either exclude required new paving or wrongly price demolition/removal if the drawings are not aligned.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the ALT-2 parking lot is intended to be new construction or existing parking to remain (and only re-striped/modified). Revise the labeling consistently on A0.01 and/or A0.02 (and clarify limits of work, demolition, and new paving/striping scope for ALT-2).

RFI draft: Confirm whether the ALT-2 parking lot is intended to be new construction or existing parking to remain (and only re-striped/modified). Revise the labeling consistently on A0.01 and/or A0.02 (and clarify limits of work, demolition, and new paving/s...

Summary: On Sheet A1.40 (ROOF PLAN), the legend indicates the roof is an "R-PANEL ROOF W/ VINYL FACE INSULATION". However, Sheet A3.02 (BUILDING SECTIONS) defines the roof assembly as a "TORCH-DOWN MOD-BIT ROOF MEMBRANE" over cover board and sloped ISO board, and also identifies the roof structure as "3\" METAL DECK". These are different roof systems (metal panel roof vs. mod-bit membrane roof assembly)...

Why it matters: This affects the entire roof scope including substrate/framing assumptions, insulation thickness/type, edge/perimeter details, flashing details, penetrations, drainage detailing, and product procurement. If not resolved, it can lead to incorrect bidding, incompatible detailing at parapets/edges, ...

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended roof system for the building: is the project roof a metal R-panel roof with vinyl faced insulation, or a low-slope torch-down mod-bit membrane roof over cover board and tapered ISO? If multiple roof types exist, clarify where each applies on the Roof Plan ...

RFI draft: Confirm the intended roof system for the building: is the project roof a metal R-panel roof with vinyl faced insulation, or a low-slope torch-down mod-bit membrane roof over cover board and tapered ISO? If multiple roof types exist, clarify where ...

Summary: Sheet A8.04 is labeled as an enlarged floor plan sheet, and A1.10 directs the reader to A8.00–A8.04 for enlarged plans. However, the content shown on A8.04 is titled as an antenna platform plan/sections (not an interior enlarged floor plan), creating a cross-reference/title mismatch that can misdirect contractors to the wrong sheet for enlarged floor plan information.

Why it matters: If A8.04 is expected to provide enlarged interior floor plan(s) for coordination (doors, partitions, dimensions), this mismatch can lead to crews missing the correct enlarged plan information or applying antenna-platform details in the wrong context. It also raises the possibility that the antenn...

Suggested next step: Confirm whether sheet A8.04 is correctly numbered/titled. If A8.04 is intended to be antenna platform drawings, revise the sheet title and/or update A1.10 general note/callouts so enlarged floor plan references do not point to antenna platform content.

RFI draft: Confirm whether sheet A8.04 is correctly numbered/titled. If A8.04 is intended to be antenna platform drawings, revise the sheet title and/or update A1.10 general note/callouts so enlarged floor plan references do not point to antenna platform con...

Summary: The roof plan legend indicates the primary roof is an R-panel roof with vinyl face insulation, but the building sections sheet specifies a torch-down modified bitumen membrane roof assembly with cover board and ISOboard insulation. These are different roof systems and need reconciliation (or clear delineation by area).

Why it matters: This creates a bidding/construction conflict for roofing scope, substrate requirements, flashing/edge details, and compatibility with penetrations and drainage components. It can result in incorrect material procurement and failed waterproofing if not clarified.

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended roof system(s) and identify which roof areas (if any) are R-panel versus mod-bit membrane. Update the roof plan legend/hatching and/or the building section roof assembly note to clearly match by roof area.

RFI draft: Confirm the intended roof system(s) and identify which roof areas (if any) are R-panel versus mod-bit membrane. Update the roof plan legend/hatching and/or the building section roof assembly note to clearly match by roof area.

Summary: Sheet A1.40 Roof Plan legend identifies the roof as an "R-PANEL ROOF" with insulation, but Sheet A2.01 Elevations keynote #1 identifies the roof as "NEW MOD-BIT ROOF". These are different roof systems and appear to apply to the same project roof scope. A1.40 also explicitly references A2.01, so these sheets should be coordinated.

Why it matters: If the roof system is unclear (metal R-panel vs. modified bitumen membrane), the contractor cannot correctly price or install the roof assembly, and related details (flashings, penetrations, parapet coping interfaces, insulation attachment, and manufacturer requirements) may be incorrect, creatin...

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended new roof assembly for the building: is the roof to be "R-PANEL ROOF W/ VINYL FACE INSULATION" per A1.40, or "NEW MOD-BIT ROOF" per A2.01 Key Notes. If both are intended, identify which areas get each system and provide corresponding keyed hatching/limits a...

RFI draft: Confirm the intended new roof assembly for the building: is the roof to be "R-PANEL ROOF W/ VINYL FACE INSULATION" per A1.40, or "NEW MOD-BIT ROOF" per A2.01 Key Notes. If both are intended, identify which areas get each system and provide corresp...

Summary: On the Roof Plan (A1.40), the roof plan legend includes a roof type labeled as an R-panel system. On the Building Sections sheet (A3.01), the roof assembly is called out as a torch-down modified bitumen roof membrane assembly. These are different roof systems, and the drawings do not clarify where each applies, creating a direct specification conflict for the roof covering/assembly.

Why it matters: This impacts bidding, submittals, and construction detailing (edge conditions, penetrations, insulation/tapering, and manufacturer details). If not resolved, the contractor could price and/or install the wrong roof system.

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended roof system for the areas shown on A1.40: is the project roof to be "R-PANEL ROOF W/ VINYL FACE INSULATION" or "TORCH-DOWN MOD-BIT ROOF MEMBRANE" per A3.01? If both exist, provide clear plan delineation/notes identifying where each roof assembly occurs and...

RFI draft: Confirm the intended roof system for the areas shown on A1.40: is the project roof to be "R-PANEL ROOF W/ VINYL FACE INSULATION" or "TORCH-DOWN MOD-BIT ROOF MEMBRANE" per A3.01? If both exist, provide clear plan delineation/notes identifying where...

Summary: The Roof Plan indicates an R-panel roof assembly, but the Exterior Elevations keynote schedule calls for a mod-bit roof. On sheet A1.40, the roof legend states "INDICATES R-PANEL ROOF W/ VINYL FACE\nINSULATION". However, on sheet A2.00, the keynote schedule lists "1 NEW MOD-BIT ROOF". These are different roof systems and conflict for the new roof scope shown on the referenced sheets.

Why it matters: This discrepancy can cause incorrect roof detailing, procurement, and installation (metal panel roof vs modified-bitumen membrane), affecting waterproofing approach, insulation/attachment methods, flashing details, and contractor pricing/scope.

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended new roof assembly for this project (R-panel roof with vinyl face insulation vs modified-bitumen roof), and clarify where each system applies if both are intended (identify extents/areas on the roof plan and elevations/details).

RFI draft: Confirm the intended new roof assembly for this project (R-panel roof with vinyl face insulation vs modified-bitumen roof), and clarify where each system applies if both are intended (identify extents/areas on the roof plan and elevations/details).

Summary: Sheet A3.02-ALT Roof Assembly note specifies a low-slope roof of "1/4\"/1'-0\"", but sheet A3.00-ALT building section(s) label the roof slope as "4\" / 1'-0\"". These are different slopes for the roof condition and cannot both be correct for the same roof assembly/slope intent.

Why it matters: Incorrect roof slope will affect roof drainage performance (ponding risk), roof edge elevations, and potentially roof framing/layout and waterproofing detailing. This can also impact coordination of scuppers/downspouts and parapet heights.

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended roof slope(s) for the areas shown on these sections and clarify whether there are multiple roof types (low-slope vs pitched). Provide the governing roof slope note/callout to be used for each roof area and revise the sections/notes to match.

RFI draft: Confirm the intended roof slope(s) for the areas shown on these sections and clarify whether there are multiple roof types (low-slope vs pitched). Provide the governing roof slope note/callout to be used for each roof area and revise the sections/...

Summary: On A3.00 BUILDING SECTIONS, keyed note 06 describes the "FLOOR SLAB" as "EXISTING TERRAZZO FLOORING" and directs to refinish it. However, on A1.12 FINISH FLOOR PLAN (ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE), multiple rooms list floor finishes that are not terrazzo (e.g., room 106 EOC shows "CPT-1", room 111 WOMEN'S RESTROOM shows "T-1", and room 100 MECHANICAL ROOM shows "Exposed Concrete"). These two sheets ther...

Why it matters: This can cause incorrect scope/pricing and field work (e.g., contractor may plan to grind/patch/polish/seal floor areas that are scheduled to receive other finishes, or may misunderstand existing substrate conditions). It also creates risk of wrong substrate prep and sequencing for finished floor...

Suggested next step: Confirm intended interpretation of A3.00 keynote 06: Does "EXISTING TERRAZZO FLOORING" (grind/patch/polish/seal) apply to all slabs shown in the building sections, or only to areas designated TRZ-1 on A1.12? If only certain areas, revise A3.00 keynote 06 (or add limits) to ali...

RFI draft: Confirm intended interpretation of A3.00 keynote 06: Does "EXISTING TERRAZZO FLOORING" (grind/patch/polish/seal) apply to all slabs shown in the building sections, or only to areas designated TRZ-1 on A1.12? If only certain areas, revise A3.00 key...

Summary: The Roof Plan legend calls out an "R-PANEL ROOF W/ VINYL FACE INSULATION", while the exterior elevations include a roof note stating "NEW STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF" (Alternate 1). In addition, the elevation keynotes list "NEW MOD-BIT ROOF". These are different roof systems and are presented without clarification of which areas each applies to, creating a direct scope/specification conflict for t...

Why it matters: This conflict can lead to incorrect bidding and procurement (panel type vs membrane roofing), incompatible detailing at eaves/ridges/penetrations, and potential waterproofing and warranty issues if the contractor installs the wrong system for the intended condition/alternate.

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended roof system(s) for Alternate 1 and the base bid: identify by roof area which is (a) R-panel w/ vinyl face insulation, (b) standing seam metal roof, and (c) mod-bit roof (if any). Provide corrected/updated legends and keynotes (or a roof plan note/schedule)...

RFI draft: Confirm the intended roof system(s) for Alternate 1 and the base bid: identify by roof area which is (a) R-panel w/ vinyl face insulation, (b) standing seam metal roof, and (c) mod-bit roof (if any). Provide corrected/updated legends and keynotes ...