Plan Review: 85 Issues Found

Summary: Building Section A-A repeatedly tags windows 'W1', 'W3', and 'W6' on typical upper residential floors (e.g., 'TYPE B (M)' units and 'CORRIDOR'), which are dimensioned with a '3100' floor-to-floor height. However, Window Schedule -1 restricts these windows to ground and lower levels (e.g., 'BLOCK A & B (GROUND) : LOUNGE' for W1/W6, and 'TADIKA' for W3). Furthermore, the schedule dimensions W1 an...

Why it matters: This systemic mismatch suggests that the typical floor elevation tags on Section A-A belong to a different, unreferenced window schedule, or that the schedule is incorrect. Procuring typical floor windows based on Schedule -1 will result in windows that are 800mm too tall for the structural openi...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct window schedule for the typical residential floors shown in Section A-A. Should the tags (W1, W3, W6) on the upper floors be updated to a different series (e.g., Residential Window Schedule) that fits within the 3100mm floor-to-floor height, or does ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct window schedule for the typical residential floors shown in Section A-A. Should the tags (W1, W3, W6) on the upper floors be updated to a different series (e.g., Residential Window Schedule) that fits within the 3100mm f...

Summary: The 'SECTION FEATURE FACADE' on WD/ 604-7 is explicitly cut at Grid 'B' and depicts 'CARPARK' spaces from the 1st Floor (FFL 58.50) up to the 5th Floor (FFL 69.70). However, the Front Elevation on WD / 132 shows that Grid 'B' is located on the right side of the building (Tower B), which contains various facility rooms at these corresponding elevations (e.g., TADIKA LEVEL FFL 59.80, CO-WORKING R...

Why it matters: Mislabeled grid lines on a detailed section will lead to significant structural and architectural coordination errors. If the contractor builds according to the section at Grid B, they may mistakenly construct carpark facade elements and incorrect floor-to-floor heights in the facility zone, or u...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the 'SECTION FEATURE FACADE' on WD/ 604-7 should be referenced to a different grid line (e.g., in the Tower A zone), or if the space usages and elevation levels at Grid B on WD / 132 need to be revised to reflect the carpark design.

RFI draft: Please clarify if the 'SECTION FEATURE FACADE' on WD/ 604-7 should be referenced to a different grid line (e.g., in the Tower A zone), or if the space usages and elevation levels at Grid B on WD / 132 need to be revised to reflect the carpark design.

Summary: Section A-A establishes a typical floor-to-floor height of '3100' mm for the visible facade levels (e.g., '7th FLOOR LEVEL FFL 81.15'). The tag 'DW4' is placed on this exterior facade elevation. However, the Door Schedule indicates that 'DW4' has an overall vertical dimension of '3000' mm. A 3000 mm door frame cannot fit into a 3100 mm floor-to-floor structural height.

Why it matters: Fitting a 3000mm high door frame within a 3100mm floor-to-floor height leaves only 100mm of clearance. This is physically insufficient to accommodate the structural floor slab thickness, floor finishes, and ceiling finishes. Furthermore, the drawing notes require the contractor to 'PROVIDE R.C. L...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the dimensions for door DW4. The scheduled overall height of 3000mm conflicts with the 3100mm floor-to-floor height shown on Section A-A, leaving inadequate space for the structural slab and the required R.C. lintel. Should the DW4 overall height be reduced to f...

RFI draft: Please clarify the dimensions for door DW4. The scheduled overall height of 3000mm conflicts with the 3100mm floor-to-floor height shown on Section A-A, leaving inadequate space for the structural slab and the required R.C. lintel. Should the DW4 ...

Summary: The Architectural Roof Plan specifies the elevation of the R.C Flat Roof at the Centralized Satellite Dish as RL 185.05. However, the Floor Finishes Roof Plan indicates the exact same roof location has an elevation of RL 187.05.

Why it matters: A 2.0-meter discrepancy in the primary roof slab elevation is a major structural and architectural conflict. This will impact the building's overall height calculations, structural column/wall heights, MEP coordination for the satellite dish installation, and access stairs or ramps leading to thi...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct structural elevation for the R.C. Flat Roof at the Centralized Satellite Dish area. Should it be cast at RL 185.05 (as per the Roof Plan) or RL 187.05 (as per the Floor Finishes Plan)?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct structural elevation for the R.C. Flat Roof at the Centralized Satellite Dish area. Should it be cast at RL 185.05 (as per the Roof Plan) or RL 187.05 (as per the Floor Finishes Plan)?

Summary: The Waterproofing plans show massive water storage structures ('CW TANK 1', 'CW PUMP ROOM', 'CW TANK 2') occupying the lower central area of the floorplate, featuring 1.5m deep internal sump pits. The RWDP plan for the same area completely omits these tanks and routes surface ground outlets (e.g., 'GO- 11', 'GO- 12') and piping directly through their footprint.

Why it matters: Lack of coordination between the structural layout of the domestic cold water tanks and the rainwater drainage routing will cause a hard clash on site. Drainage pipes and ground outlets cannot be installed passing directly through the massive enclosed CW tank structures.

Suggested next step: Please coordinate the RWDP plans with the WP/Architectural plans to accurately reflect the CW Tank 1, CW Tank 2, and CW Pump Room footprints. Reroute the affected ground outlets (e.g., GO-11, GO-12) and their associated drainage pipes to bypass the tank structures.

RFI draft: Please coordinate the RWDP plans with the WP/Architectural plans to accurately reflect the CW Tank 1, CW Tank 2, and CW Pump Room footprints. Reroute the affected ground outlets (e.g., GO-11, GO-12) and their associated drainage pipes to bypass th...

Summary: The floor plan designates a 'RAMP UP 25' (25mm ramp) directly at the threshold entrances for LIFT 1, LIFT 2, LIFT 3, and LIFT 4 from the lift lobby.

Why it matters: A 25mm (approx. 1 inch) ramp at an elevator threshold violates accessibility codes, which typically mandate flush transitions (maximum 13mm or 1/2 inch variation) to allow for wheelchair access. This creates a significant trip hazard and will fail accessibility and elevator permit inspections.

Suggested next step: Review and coordinate the lift shaft structural slab depressions with the lobby finish floor level (FFL 84.25) to achieve a flush threshold at all elevator doors without requiring a 25mm ramp.

RFI draft: Review and coordinate the lift shaft structural slab depressions with the lobby finish floor level (FFL 84.25) to achieve a flush threshold at all elevator doors without requiring a 25mm ramp.

Summary: The drawing assigns identical elevator designations ('LIFT 1', 'LIFT 2', 'LIFT 3', and 'BOMBA LIFT') to elevators located in completely separate lift cores ('LOBBY A' and 'LOBBY B').

Why it matters: Elevator cars and banks must have unique identifiers across the entire building. Duplicating designations, especially for the 'BOMBA LIFT' (firefighter elevator), creates critical life safety risks by causing confusion for first responders during an emergency. It will also cause operational issue...

Suggested next step: Please revise the elevator designations so each lift has a unique identifier across the entire floor plan (e.g., Lifts 1-4 in Lobby B, Lifts 5-8 in Lobby A, and unique Bomba Lift numbers).

RFI draft: Please revise the elevator designations so each lift has a unique identifier across the entire floor plan (e.g., Lifts 1-4 in Lobby B, Lifts 5-8 in Lobby A, and unique Bomba Lift numbers).

Summary: The drawing designates a '6.1m SETBACK LINE', requiring the building to be at least 6100mm from the boundary. However, a dimension explicitly indicates a distance of '6000' (6000mm) between the boundary line and the building edge/column. This confirms the building footprint encroaches 100mm into the required setback zone.

Why it matters: Violating building setbacks is a critical zoning and code compliance failure. If not corrected, this will result in immediate rejection during the permitting phase or force costly structural and architectural redesigns if discovered later.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the building placement relative to the boundary. Should the building footprint be shifted inwards to respect the 6100mm setback, or is the 6000mm dimension incorrectly labeled?

RFI draft: Please clarify the building placement relative to the boundary. Should the building footprint be shifted inwards to respect the 6100mm setback, or is the 6000mm dimension incorrectly labeled?

Summary: The typical floor plan contains notes specifying "ALUMN. FRAME FOLDING DOOR REFER TO SCHEDULE" at the building facade locations. However, the associated FOLDING DOOR SCHEDULE only lists locations for "(GROUND) :GUARD HOUSE (TOILET)" and "FACILITY (4th) : DANCE ROOM". It does not include any scheduled door types or dimensions for the 8th through 36th floors shown on the referencing plan.

Why it matters: Without scheduled dimensions, glazing material, frame specifications, and hardware requirements for the folding doors on the 8th to 36th floors, the procurement and installation of the residential building envelope cannot proceed accurately.

Suggested next step: Please provide an updated Folding Door Schedule that includes the tags, dimensions, and material specifications for the aluminum framed folding doors referenced on the 8th to 36th typical floor plans.

RFI draft: Please provide an updated Folding Door Schedule that includes the tags, dimensions, and material specifications for the aluminum framed folding doors referenced on the 8th to 36th typical floor plans.

Summary: The Front Elevation notes 'FOLDING GLASS DOOR REFER TO SCHEDULE' and shows tags 'FLD1' and 'FLD2' used extensively adjacent to windows (e.g., W1, W2, W3) on upper floors (e.g., 37th Floor Level). However, the corresponding Door Schedule explicitly restricts these doors to lower levels: '(GROUND) :GUARD HOUSE (TOILET)' for FLD1 and 'FACILITY (4th) : DANCE ROOM' for FLD2. Furthermore, FLD1 is spe...

Why it matters: This discrepancy impacts facade coordination, procurement, and installation. If the elevation tags are correct, the schedule fails to specify the right materials, quantities, and sizes for the typical residential balcony folding doors. If the schedule is correct, the elevation incorrectly identif...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct door types for the folding doors shown on the residential tower's typical floors. Should new tags be assigned on the elevation, or should the Door Schedule be updated to include the residential balcony doors?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct door types for the folding doors shown on the residential tower's typical floors. Should new tags be assigned on the elevation, or should the Door Schedule be updated to include the residential balcony doors?

Summary: The Front Elevation explicitly calls for a "1200mm(H) MS RAILING TO DETAIL". However, the referenced Feature Facade Legend contradicts this by defining the barrier composition as "FF-05 610mm (H) R.C WALL WITH 590mm (H) M.S RAILING TO DETAIL", splitting the total 1200mm height between a concrete base and a metal railing.

Why it matters: This material discrepancy significantly impacts trade coordination, cost estimation, and scheduling. A full 1200mm MS railing is entirely a metalworks scope installed directly onto the slab edge, whereas the composite design requires structural concrete formwork, rebar detailing, and concrete cur...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the architectural design intent for the 1200mm barrier at the feature wall/facade. Should it be constructed as a full 1200mm high MS railing as noted on the front elevation, or as a 610mm RC wall topped with a 590mm MS railing as specified in the feature facade ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the architectural design intent for the 1200mm barrier at the feature wall/facade. Should it be constructed as a full 1200mm high MS railing as noted on the front elevation, or as a 610mm RC wall topped with a 590mm MS railing as sp...

Summary: The Door Schedule strictly specifies that door type 'FD1 U' is located at 'TYPE A & B: ENTRANCE' and requires unit entrance hardware ('MORTISE LEVER HANDLE ON PLATE, SLIDE ARM DOOR CLOSER'). However, the Floor Plan extensively uses the 'FD1 U' tag for doors accessing service 'VOID' shafts and stairwells (e.g., STAIR 2). It is a contradiction to specify main entrance hardware and locations for u...

Why it matters: If uncorrected, the contractor may procure large entrance doors with mortise lever handles and door closers for all void and stair shafts. Service/void shafts typically require specific access panels or doors with deadbolts/cylinder locks (without closers), while stair doors often require panic h...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct door tags for the 'VOID' access shafts and stairwells on the floor plans. Confirm if a different door schedule type (with appropriate hardware) should be used instead of 'FD1 U' for these service locations.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct door tags for the 'VOID' access shafts and stairwells on the floor plans. Confirm if a different door schedule type (with appropriate hardware) should be used instead of 'FD1 U' for these service locations.

Summary: The global elevation in Section A-A (WD / 130) graphically depicts the Feature Wall/Facade with a solid facade featuring a diamond or geometric pattern. Conversely, the explicitly referenced Feature Facade Detail (WD/ 604-6) defines the "TYPE A FACADE" as a rectangular area filled with closely spaced vertical slats, identified in the legend as Aluminum RHS (FF-02).

Why it matters: This contradiction leaves the intended architectural design and material composition of the feature facade ambiguous. It will cause incorrect material procurement and fabrication delays if not resolved prior to issuing shop drawings.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the intended architectural design for the Feature Facade. Should it be fabricated with the diamond/geometric pattern visually depicted on WD / 130, or the vertical Aluminum RHS slats detailed on WD/ 604-6?

RFI draft: Please confirm the intended architectural design for the Feature Facade. Should it be fabricated with the diamond/geometric pattern visually depicted on WD / 130, or the vertical Aluminum RHS slats detailed on WD/ 604-6?

Summary: Drawing WD / 130 specifies two different MS railing heights for the building exteriors: '1200mm(H) MS RAILING TO DETAIL' for Tower B and '900mm HEIGHT MS RAILING TO DETAIL' for Tower A. However, the explicitly referenced Railing Details sheet (WD/600-3) only provides details and legend entries for a 1200mm MS Railing (RL-13) and a 2000mm Glass Railing (RL-14). There is no provision or detail fo...

Why it matters: A 900mm railing height on a high-rise balcony may violate minimum building code requirements for fall protection (which typically require 1000mm to 1200mm minimum). The discrepancy between the two towers and the absence of a 900mm railing detail in the project's railing legend will cause procurem...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended balcony railing height for Tower A. Should the 900mm specification be revised to match the 1200mm (H) MS Railing (RL-13) used on Tower B and detailed on sheet WD/600-3 to ensure code compliance and design consistency?

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended balcony railing height for Tower A. Should the 900mm specification be revised to match the 1200mm (H) MS Railing (RL-13) used on Tower B and detailed on sheet WD/600-3 to ensure code compliance and design consistency?

Summary: The floor plan notes state 'ALUMN. WINDOW REFER TO SCHEDULE'. However, the floor plan identifies windows using tags in the W20-W41 range (e.g., 'W23' in a Type B1 unit, 'W25' in a Type A unit). In contrast, the Window Schedule for the units specifies window tags 'W1' through 'W15' for these exact same unit types (e.g., 'W1' for Type A & B Living Areas, 'W2' for Type A Bedroom 1). None of the sc...

Why it matters: Without consistent window tags, the contractor cannot map the scheduled window specifications (glazing type, dimensions, operability, and hardware) to the correct openings on the floor plan. This will result in ordering errors, incorrect window installations, and potential schedule delays.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the window tagging discrepancy. Provide an updated floor plan with window tags that match the W1-W15 series in the Window Schedule, or provide an updated Window Schedule that details the W20-W41 window types currently shown on the floor plan.

RFI draft: Please clarify the window tagging discrepancy. Provide an updated floor plan with window tags that match the W1-W15 series in the Window Schedule, or provide an updated Window Schedule that details the W20-W41 window types currently shown on the f...