Corrected Construction Documents Plan Review: 143 Issues Found

Summary: 215 index entries | 12 perfect matches | 194 mismatched | 9 missing Mismatched (194): P-001: Expected: NOTES, LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS | Actual: PLUMBING ABBREVIATIONS, GENERAL NOTES & SYMBOLS (p88) PD100: Expected: DEMOLITION PIPING PLAN UNDERSLAB | Actual: PLUMBING DEMOLITION PIPING PLAN UNDERSLAB (p89) PD101: Expected: DEMOLITION PIPING PLAN MAIN LEVEL | Actual: 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: 9 missing, 194 mismatched out of 215 sheets

Summary: On the plumbing softened water flow diagram (P-601), the emergency make-up to the condensate storage tank is labeled as NPW water, while the mechanical steam generation flow diagram (MP603) labels the emergency make-up to the same system as cold water (CW). The same discrepancy appears again for the tank-bypass emergency make-up: P-601 shows NPW, while MP603 shows CW.

Why it matters: This is a system/service conflict (NPW vs COLD WATER) that can change water source, water quality classification, and cross-connection/backflow prevention requirements. Construction could install the wrong source piping and controls, creating code and operational issues.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct service for EMERGENCY MAKE-UP to the condensate storage tank (and for EMERGENCY MAKE-UP with tank bypass): should it be NPW WATER or COLD WATER (CW)? Update P-601 and/or MP603 to match, including any required backflow/cross-connection protections.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct service for EMERGENCY MAKE-UP to the condensate storage tank (and for EMERGENCY MAKE-UP with tank bypass): should it be NPW WATER or COLD WATER (CW)? Update P-601 and/or MP603 to match, including any required backflow/cross-con...

Summary: The retaining wall embedment depth is shown with conflicting units/dimensions. On C402, the embedment is shown as "22\"" (inches). On C403, the embedment is shown as "22'" (feet). These values are not equivalent and represent a major design difference for the same sheet pile retaining wall system.

Why it matters: Sheet pile embedment is a primary structural design parameter controlling stability, deflection, and safety under seismic and surcharge conditions. A 22-inch embedment would be structurally inadequate where 22 feet is intended, creating severe risk of wall failure and major rework.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required sheet pile embedment depth (feet vs inches) for each retaining wall cross-section, and revise the conflicting notes so all sections show the correct embedment consistently.

RFI draft: Confirm the required sheet pile embedment depth (feet vs inches) for each retaining wall cross-section, and revise the conflicting notes so all sections show the correct embedment consistently.

Summary: On sheet SF103, Plan Note 5 states that the symbol indicates a moment connection and directs the contractor to “SEE 7/S-530.” However, on sheet S-530, Detail 7 is titled “TYPICAL BRACE DETAIL,” not a moment connection. S-530 includes a moment connection detail under Detail 4 (“TYPICAL MOMENT CONNECTION DETAIL”), which suggests the SF103 reference to 7/S-530 is misdirected.

Why it matters: If the wrong detail is used for the identified “moment connection,” the fabricator/erector may build a brace connection instead of the required moment connection (or be unable to determine the required connection), impacting structural performance, connection design intent, and shop drawing revie...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct S-530 detail reference for the “INDICATES MOMENT CONNECTION” symbol noted on SF103 Plan Note 5. Should the note reference be revised to 4/S-530 (or another detail), or should S-530 details be renumbered to align with SF103?

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct S-530 detail reference for the “INDICATES MOMENT CONNECTION” symbol noted on SF103 Plan Note 5. Should the note reference be revised to 4/S-530 (or another detail), or should S-530 details be renumbered to align with SF103?

Summary: On sheet C101, the demolition callout directs removal of a wood shed and foundation and explicitly references “NOTE 18 ON MC101.” However, on sheet MC101, Note 18 is about an “EXISTING LPG CYLINDER STORAGE SHED” and associated cylinder/cage/underground piping removal. The cross-reference therefore does not match the described demolition scope (wood shed/foundation vs. LPG cylinder storage shed/...

Why it matters: If Note 18 is applied as referenced, the contractor could remove the wrong structure and/or miss required LPG cylinder/cage/underground piping removals, creating safety and scope/permit compliance risks during demolition and temporary works phasing.

Suggested next step: Confirm what structure the C101 callout is intended to address and correct the cross-reference: either (a) revise C101 to reference the correct MC101 note number for “WOOD SHED” removal, or (b) revise C101 text to match MC101 Note 18 scope (LPG cylinder storage shed, cylinders...

RFI draft: Confirm what structure the C101 callout is intended to address and correct the cross-reference: either (a) revise C101 to reference the correct MC101 note number for “WOOD SHED” removal, or (b) revise C101 text to match MC101 Note 18 scope (LPG cy...

Summary: On sheet SE201, the building elevation level datum shows the new catwalk elevation as "NEW CATWALK\n21' - 3\"". However, on sheet S-531 Detail 6 (SLAB EDGE DETAIL), the same level is shown as "NEW CATWALK\nEL 21'-2\"". These two values conflict for the same catwalk level.

Why it matters: A 1-inch elevation discrepancy can cause misalignment at the catwalk slab edge connection to the wall/HSS framing, impacting steel connection fabrication/fit-up, slab edge elevations, and coordination with architectural elements and equipment clearances.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct "NEW CATWALK" elevation (21'-3" vs 21'-2") and identify which sheets/details govern for layout and connection fabrication; revise SE201 and/or S-531 accordingly so all catwalk-related details use the same elevation.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct "NEW CATWALK" elevation (21'-3" vs 21'-2") and identify which sheets/details govern for layout and connection fabrication; revise SE201 and/or S-531 accordingly so all catwalk-related details use the same elevation.

Summary: On SF102, the stair landing is labeled to reference S-540 Detail 3. However, on S-540, Detail 3 is titled as a platform detail and explicitly directs the concrete landing to S-540 Detail 6; additionally S-540 Detail 6 is titled “STAIR LANDING PAD.” This is a cross-reference mismatch: the plan directs the contractor to the wrong detail number for the stair landing.

Why it matters: If the contractor follows the SF102 callout literally, they may use the wrong detail (platform detail) and miss stair landing pad-specific requirements (anchors, nosing, reinforcing/section conditions), creating installation errors and rework.

Suggested next step: Confirm correct reference for the “CONC STAIR LANDING” on SF102. Should the callout be revised from “SEE 3/S-540” to “SEE 6/S-540” (STAIR LANDING PAD), or is there intended content in Detail 3 that should be retitled/renumbered to match the plan?

RFI draft: Confirm correct reference for the “CONC STAIR LANDING” on SF102. Should the callout be revised from “SEE 3/S-540” to “SEE 6/S-540” (STAIR LANDING PAD), or is there intended content in Detail 3 that should be retitled/renumbered to match the plan?

Summary: SD211 indicates the new catwalk elevation is 21'-3" and uses that elevation for infill at existing openings. However, S-531 Detail 6 labels the new catwalk as EL 21'-2". This creates a direct elevation conflict for the same catwalk datum used to set wall infill heights and slab edge/connection geometry.

Why it matters: A 1" discrepancy at the catwalk datum can shift opening infill heights, lintel/door head coordination, and steel connection geometry at the catwalk slab edge. This can cause field rework (masonry infill, steel attachment elevations, and door/frame coordination) and potential conflicts with archit...

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct "NEW CATWALK" elevation (21'-3" or 21'-2"). Revise SD211 demolition elevation notes/infill elevations and/or S-531 Detail 6 slab edge detail so all sheets use the same catwalk datum.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct "NEW CATWALK" elevation (21'-3" or 21'-2"). Revise SD211 demolition elevation notes/infill elevations and/or S-531 Detail 6 slab edge detail so all sheets use the same catwalk datum.

Summary: On sheet S-510, the general sheet notes state that Pier P12 reinforcement is on detail 6 of S-002. However, S-002 detail 6 is a section labeled "NEW FOOTING" / "EXISTING FOUNDATION" and does not present Pier P12 reinforcement. S-002 does show Pier P12 reinforcement in the Pier Schedule (P12 size and rebar) and also in the Concrete Pier Details for P12. Additionally, S-510 section details for Pi...

Why it matters: This mismatch can send the contractor/fabricator to the wrong detail, increasing risk of incorrect Pier P12 reinforcing placement, missed ties/vertical bars, and coordination delays during footing/pier construction and inspection.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct reference for Pier P12 reinforcement on S-510 (i.e., should it be 5/S-002 and/or the Pier Schedule on S-002 instead of 6/S-002) and revise S-510 General Sheet Note 2 accordingly. Clarify which S-002 information governs Pier P12 reinforcement.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct reference for Pier P12 reinforcement on S-510 (i.e., should it be 5/S-002 and/or the Pier Schedule on S-002 instead of 6/S-002) and revise S-510 General Sheet Note 2 accordingly. Clarify which S-002 information governs P...

Summary: On SF104, the plan notes state that the moment connection is to be detailed per 7/S-530. However, on S-530, Detail 7 is titled as a brace detail, not a moment connection detail. This is a direct cross-reference mismatch for the moment connection instruction.

Why it matters: If fabricator/erector follows the referenced detail number literally, the wrong connection detail may be used (brace connection instead of moment connection), which can affect required moment capacity, bolt/weld requirements, and inspection/QA expectations.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct S-530 detail number to use for the note "INDICATES MOMENT CONNECTION, FULL CAPACITY OF BEAM U.N.O." and revise SF104 plan note/callouts accordingly (or retitle/renumber S-530 details if intended).

RFI draft: Confirm the correct S-530 detail number to use for the note "INDICATES MOMENT CONNECTION, FULL CAPACITY OF BEAM U.N.O." and revise SF104 plan note/callouts accordingly (or retitle/renumber S-530 details if intended).

Summary: On SF101, the note for restoring a demolished 6” slab-on-grade directs the contractor to Detail 15/S-520, while SF102 directs to Detail 9/S-520 for the same “RESTORE DEMOLISHED 6” CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE TO MATCH EXIST” condition. SF102 plan notes also explicitly reference “SEE 9/S-520” for doweling the slab to the existing slab, reinforcing that SF102 is using 9/S-520 (not 15/S-520).

Why it matters: If the wrong S-520 detail is used, the slab restoration/dowel/edge condition could be constructed incorrectly (reinforcing/dowel spacing/embedment, jointing, or edge prep), leading to structural performance issues, inspection failures, or rework.

Suggested next step: Confirm which S-520 detail governs the “RESTORE DEMOLISHED 6” CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE TO MATCH EXIST” work: 15/S-520 (as referenced on SF101) or 9/S-520 (as referenced on SF102 and SF102 plan notes). Update the notes so both sheets reference the same detail.

RFI draft: Confirm which S-520 detail governs the “RESTORE DEMOLISHED 6” CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE TO MATCH EXIST” work: 15/S-520 (as referenced on SF101) or 9/S-520 (as referenced on SF102 and SF102 plan notes). Update the notes so both sheets reference the sa...

Summary: On sheet SF101, the foundation plan includes the note "MAT FOUNDATION;\nSEE 4/S-002". However, on sheet S-002, Detail 4 is titled "ADDITIONAL ANCHOR REINFORCEMENT FOR\nALL BASE PLATE ANCHORS" (i.e., an anchor supplemental reinforcement detail), not a mat foundation detail. This is a cross-reference mismatch that could direct the contractor to the wrong detail for mat foundation requirements.

Why it matters: If the mat foundation is constructed using the incorrect referenced detail, required mat thickness/reinforcing/jointing information may be missed or misapplied, leading to structural nonconformance and rework.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct sheet/detail reference for the "MAT FOUNDATION" note currently calling out "SEE 4/S-002". Revise SF101 to reference the correct mat foundation detail (or add the missing mat foundation detail to S-002 if intended).

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct sheet/detail reference for the "MAT FOUNDATION" note currently calling out "SEE 4/S-002". Revise SF101 to reference the correct mat foundation detail (or add the missing mat foundation detail to S-002 if intended).

Summary: S-511 Section 6 directs the trench assembly to “SEE 9 & 10/S-540” but shows different edge angle size, anchorage type/spacing, and grating/cover description than what is specified on S-540 Detail 10. On S-511 Section 6, the trench edge is shown with “L3x3x1/4” attached with “3/8” DIA ADHESIVE ANCHOR @ 12” CC MAX W/ 2 3/8” EMBED, TYP” and the walking surface is called out as “1x3/16 GRATING W/DI...

Why it matters: This creates procurement and installation risk (different angle size, different fastener type and spacing, and different cover/grating description), and could affect load capacity, corrosion protection detailing, and coordination with slab edge/trench cover fabrication.

Suggested next step: Confirm which trench cover assembly governs for this location: (1) angle size (L3x3x1/4 vs L 2 x 2 x 1/4), (2) anchorage type and spacing (adhesive anchors @ 12" cc max vs headed concrete anchors @ 2'-0" o.c.), and (3) cover/grating specification ("1x3/16 GRATING W/DIAMOND PLA...

RFI draft: Confirm which trench cover assembly governs for this location: (1) angle size (L3x3x1/4 vs L 2 x 2 x 1/4), (2) anchorage type and spacing (adhesive anchors @ 12" cc max vs headed concrete anchors @ 2'-0" o.c.), and (3) cover/grating specification ...

Summary: Sheet S-301 shows the catwalk elevation as 21'-3", while sheet S-531 Detail 6 labels the new catwalk elevation as 21'-2". This creates a direct elevation conflict for the catwalk/slab edge condition and associated connections.

Why it matters: A 1-inch elevation discrepancy can misalign steel framing, slab edge angles, and openings/edge details, potentially causing field fit-up issues, rework, or conflicts with adjacent systems coordinated to the catwalk level.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct 'NEW CATWALK' elevation (21'-3" or 21'-2") to be used for construction, and identify which sheets/details must be revised to match the governing elevation.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct 'NEW CATWALK' elevation (21'-3" or 21'-2") to be used for construction, and identify which sheets/details must be revised to match the governing elevation.

Summary: C201 explicitly calls the Base-Bid wall a blast wall: "BASE-BID: NEW BLAST WALL (SEE DRAWING S560)". However, on S-560 the wall is identified and detailed as a CMU wall, including the note "CMU WALL" and the wall/footing detail labeling "12\" CMU". This creates an inconsistency/ambiguity in wall intent (blast wall vs. CMU wall) and whether any blast-performance criteria are required beyond the ...

Why it matters: If the wall is intended to function as an engineered blast wall, the required performance criteria (and potentially the reinforcement, grouting, connections, and/or wall system selection) should be explicitly indicated. If it is not intended to be a blast wall, the civil terminology may need to b...

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the Base-Bid wall referenced on C201 ("NEW BLAST WALL (SEE DRAWING S560)") is intended to be a blast-rated/engineered blast wall. If blast criteria apply, provide the required design/performance criteria and update S-560 notes/details accordingly; if not, revis...

RFI draft: Confirm whether the Base-Bid wall referenced on C201 ("NEW BLAST WALL (SEE DRAWING S560)") is intended to be a blast-rated/engineered blast wall. If blast criteria apply, provide the required design/performance criteria and update S-560 notes/deta...