Plan Review: 132 Issues Found

Summary: 200 index entries | 165 perfect matches | 19 mismatched | 16 missing Mismatched (19): A0.00: Expected: COVER SHEET (A0.00) | Actual: COVER SHEET (MEP0.01)(p82) C2: Expected: OVERALL SITE PLAN (C2) | Actual: OVERALL SITE PLAN (C 2)(p3) C3: Expected: PHASE 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN (C3) | Actual: PHASE 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN (C 3)(p4) C4: Expected: PHASE 1 SITE...

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: 16 missing, 19 mismatched out of 200 sheets

Summary: The mechanical schedules specify incompatible manufacturers for the indoor and outdoor components of the same split system. The indoor fan coil unit (SS-1) is scheduled as 'DAIKIN', while the associated outdoor condensing unit (CU-SS-1) is scheduled as 'MITSUBISHI'.

Why it matters: Indoor and outdoor units of a split system must be from the same manufacturer and matched as a paired system to communicate and function properly. Ordering mismatched equipment will prevent successful installation and commissioning.

Suggested next step: Please revise the schedules to specify a single, consistent manufacturer for both the indoor fan coil unit (SS-1) and the outdoor condensing unit (CU-SS-1).

RFI draft: Please revise the schedules to specify a single, consistent manufacturer for both the indoor fan coil unit (SS-1) and the outdoor condensing unit (CU-SS-1).

Summary: The Special Systems Plan indicates a Fire Alarm Control Panel (FACP) located on the west wall of CITY/PD VESTIBULE 100. However, the corresponding Power Plan for this vestibule does not show a dedicated electrical circuit or junction box to provide power to the FACP at this location.

Why it matters: Fire Alarm Control Panels legally require a dedicated 120V branch circuit for life safety compliance. If the power plan does not identify this requirement, the electrical contractor will not rough-in the dedicated home run, which will delay the fire alarm system installation and commissioning, di...

Suggested next step: Please update the Power Plan to provide a dedicated 120V branch circuit for the Fire Alarm Control Panel (FACP) located on the west wall of CITY/PD VESTIBULE 100, as shown on the Special Systems Plan.

RFI draft: Please update the Power Plan to provide a dedicated 120V branch circuit for the Fire Alarm Control Panel (FACP) located on the west wall of CITY/PD VESTIBULE 100, as shown on the Special Systems Plan.

Summary: The Typical Opening Detail on S4.2 explicitly references the Built Up Jamb Detail (22/S4.1) for the base connection of the jamb. However, Note 1 on the Typical Opening Detail instructs the contractor to use powder-actuated fasteners in lieu of the concrete anchor shown at the bottom track. This conflicts directly with Detail 22/S4.1, which mandates a structural '1/2" Ø CONC. SCREW ANCHOR' to se...

Why it matters: Substituting a 1/2" structural concrete screw anchor with powder-actuated fasteners for a built-up king stud clip will severely compromise the lateral, shear, and uplift capacity of the structural framing around the opening, posing a significant risk of failure.

Suggested next step: Please clarify if Note 1 on Detail 03/S4.2 applies exclusively to typical base track connections between openings, and confirm that the 1/2" diameter concrete screw anchor must still be used for the TSN CL600-68 structural clip at built-up jambs as specifically detailed in 22/...

RFI draft: Please clarify if Note 1 on Detail 03/S4.2 applies exclusively to typical base track connections between openings, and confirm that the 1/2" diameter concrete screw anchor must still be used for the TSN CL600-68 structural clip at built-up jambs a...

Summary: The fire protection floor plan explicitly requires a 'DRY PIPE SYSTEM TO SERVE UNCONDITIONED CANOPY'. However, this requirement conflicts with the rest of the drawing sheet: the Fire Sprinkler Riser Detail only shows manifolds for a 'WET PIPE SYSTEM', the Fire Sprinkler Design Criteria only specifies a 'WET' system type, and the Tank Mounted Air Compressor Detail (necessary for a dry system) ha...

Why it matters: A dry pipe system requires specialized components (a dry pipe valve, compressed air or nitrogen supply) and specific hydraulic design criteria (typically an area of operation penalty per NFPA 13). Without these elements detailed and accounted for in the hydraulic criteria, the system cannot be pr...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if a dry pipe system is required for the canopy. If yes, please update the Riser Detail to include a dry pipe valve, provide an approved air supply detail (to replace the removed air compressor), and update the Design Criteria to include the necessary hazard cla...

RFI draft: Please confirm if a dry pipe system is required for the canopy. If yes, please update the Riser Detail to include a dry pipe valve, provide an approved air supply detail (to replace the removed air compressor), and update the Design Criteria to in...

Summary: The 'ELECTRIC UNIT HEATER DETAIL' explicitly specifies that the line-voltage thermostat is to be 'MOUNTED AT 5'-6' ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR'.

Why it matters: A mounting height of 5'-6" (66 inches) explicitly violates ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and ICC A117.1 accessibility standards, which restrict the maximum height for operable parts and environmental controls to 48 inches (4'-0") above the finished floor for both forward and side reach. T...

Suggested next step: Please revise the thermostat mounting height to a maximum of 48 inches (4'-0") A.F.F. to comply with ADA reach range requirements.

RFI draft: Please revise the thermostat mounting height to a maximum of 48 inches (4'-0") A.F.F. to comply with ADA reach range requirements.

Summary: The 'DRAW THRU UNITS' condensate trap detail defines the total trap depth ('H') as '1" FOR EACH 1" OF MAXIMUM NEGATIVE STATIC PRESSURE' and the trap weir height (outlet pipe) as 'HALF OF "H"' above the trap bottom.

Why it matters: During operation, a draw-thru unit creates a negative pressure equal to 'H'. With the trap weir set at exactly H/2, water will displace to the absolute bottom of the U-bend and rise exactly to the drain pan elevation to balance this pressure. This provides zero safety margin. Any evaporation, dyn...

Suggested next step: Please revise the draw-thru condensate trap detail to provide sufficient trap depth and water seal safety margins to overcome the maximum negative static pressure (e.g., total trap drop = negative static pressure + 1", and trap weir height = (static pressure / 2) + 0.5").

RFI draft: Please revise the draw-thru condensate trap detail to provide sufficient trap depth and water seal safety margins to overcome the maximum negative static pressure (e.g., total trap drop = negative static pressure + 1", and trap weir height = (stat...

Summary: The Phase 1 Utility Plan (Sheet C 6) specifies a new 6" PVC sanitary lateral (Keynote G) and explicitly redlines/removes the 4" sanitary lateral (Keynote T) that originally referenced Sheet C 14. However, the 'SANITARY SEWER LATERAL DETAIL' on Sheet C 14 still specifies a 4" lateral and an 8"x8"x4" wye. There is no updated detail provided for the active 6" lateral, nor is there a detail for the...

Why it matters: Providing a detail for a 4" lateral when the utility plan requires a 6" lateral creates a direct contradiction. The contractor may incorrectly procure and install 4" piping and wye fittings, leading to inadequate sanitary sewer capacity and requiring costly rework to upsize the connection to 6". ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required size for the sanitary sewer lateral. If 6" is correct as per Keynote G, please provide an updated Sanitary Sewer Lateral Detail specifying a 6" lateral and an 8"x8"x6" wye. Additionally, please clarify if a detail is required for the 8" HDPE Type S ...

RFI draft: Please confirm the required size for the sanitary sewer lateral. If 6" is correct as per Keynote G, please provide an updated Sanitary Sewer Lateral Detail specifying a 6" lateral and an 8"x8"x6" wye. Additionally, please clarify if a detail is re...

Summary: The floor plan (Sheet A1.11) shows 6 staff offices (CITY MGR 204, and CITY STAFF 205, 206, 207, 208, 209) arranged along the south wall, with 6 corresponding door tags (204.A through 209.A) leading into the adjacent corridor. However, the interior elevation referenced for this wall (1/A4.10 "CITY HALL ELEVATION - S") depicts only 5 door assemblies.

Why it matters: A mismatch in door counts between the floor plan and interior elevations creates an inconsistency that affects framing layouts, door ordering (door schedule), and wall finish calculations. This could lead to framing rework or missing materials if not resolved prior to construction of the City Hal...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct number of offices and doors along the south wall of the City Hall 200 corridor. Update either the floor plan (A1.11) or interior elevation 1/A4.10 to align.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct number of offices and doors along the south wall of the City Hall 200 corridor. Update either the floor plan (A1.11) or interior elevation 1/A4.10 to align.

Summary: Building Section 2 on sheet A3.01 identifies the rooms located between the Sally Port and Evidence Intake as "BULK ITEMS 150", "GUNS 153", and "DRUGS 154". However, the Floor Plan on sheet A1.11 identifies this same block of rooms as "EVIDENCE STORAGE 136", "ARMORY 121", "WEAPONS CLEANING 120", and "BAG & TAG 122".

Why it matters: This is a direct contradiction in room layout, nomenclature, and numbering for a critical secure area of the police facility. Such discrepancies will cause coordination issues for door hardware, security access control, signage, and HVAC zoning if not resolved prior to construction.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct room layout, names, and numbers for the secure evidence area located between the Sally Port and Evidence Intake. Update the floor plan and building sections to reflect the coordinated design.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct room layout, names, and numbers for the secure evidence area located between the Sally Port and Evidence Intake. Update the floor plan and building sections to reflect the coordinated design.

Summary: The East Elevation depicts a 12'-10" high parapet extending above the 119'-0" Roof Eave. However, Wall Sections 2, 3, and 4 on sheet A3.12 (which are explicitly referenced on the East Elevation) contradict this by showing the exterior wall terminating near the 119'-0" Roof Eave with no such parapet. While both the elevation and section correctly indicate the conceptual signage is located on the...

Why it matters: This major discrepancy in exterior wall height (an almost 13-foot difference) will cause severe coordination issues between architectural models, structural framing, and exterior panel fabrication. The elevation and sections must agree on whether a large parapet extends above the roof eave.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended design for the wall at the East Elevation. Should a parapet extend 12'-10" above the roof eave as shown on the elevation, or does the wall terminate near the roof eave as detailed in Sections 2, 3, and 4 on A3.12?

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended design for the wall at the East Elevation. Should a parapet extend 12'-10" above the roof eave as shown on the elevation, or does the wall terminate near the roof eave as detailed in Sections 2, 3, and 4 on A3.12?

Summary: The Site Legend on Sheet C 11 explicitly directs the contractor to Sheet C 14 for the "NEW ASPHALT PAVEMENT" build-up (Keynote A). However, Sheet C 14 does not contain a typical cross-section detail for new asphalt pavement. The only paving detail provided on the referenced sheet is a "CURB REPLACEMENT DETAIL" that shows a localized asphalt patch over concrete fill, which does not apply to the ...

Why it matters: Without the correct cross-section detail for new asphalt pavement (which should specify the asphalt thickness, aggregate base depth, and subgrade preparation), accurate bidding and proper construction of the new parking areas and commercial drive aisles cannot be completed.

Suggested next step: Please provide the standard cross-section detail for the New Asphalt Pavement referenced by Keynote A on Sheet C 11, as there is no corresponding new pavement cross-section detail on Sheet C 14.

RFI draft: Please provide the standard cross-section detail for the New Asphalt Pavement referenced by Keynote A on Sheet C 11, as there is no corresponding new pavement cross-section detail on Sheet C 14.

Summary: The Annotation Plan (A1.11) contains conflicting section callouts referencing Wall Sections on A3.14. First, callout '2/A3.14' is shown at the exterior wall of 'PD ELEC. 139', but Section 2/A3.14 details a 'GLAZING SYSTEM PER ELEV.' and 'PLYWOOD LID'. An electrical room typically requires a solid exterior wall, and the floor plan does not indicate glazing at PD Elec 139, making this a mismatch....

Why it matters: Incorrect section callouts can lead to improper wall assembly installation and framing errors in the field (e.g., framing for a glazing system in an electrical room, or preparing for an overhead door at a break area). This will cause RFIs and procurement delays during construction.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct wall section callouts on A1.11. Should the callout at PD ELEC 139 be changed to 3/A3.14 (which shows a solid masonry wall), and should the callout near BREAK AREA 124 be revised to 2/A3.14 (glazing system) instead of 1/A3.14?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct wall section callouts on A1.11. Should the callout at PD ELEC 139 be changed to 3/A3.14 (which shows a solid masonry wall), and should the callout near BREAK AREA 124 be revised to 2/A3.14 (glazing system) instead of 1/A...

Summary: The MEP Site Plan (MEP1.01) acknowledges that its building footprint and site features do not match the current architectural and civil designs by leaving multiple unresolved redline coordination notes. Specifically, the drawing includes notes to "update backgorund", "update doors and pads", and states "UPDATE WITH LATEST CIVIL BACKGROUND (SALLYPORT DRIVE IS DIFFERENT)". In contrast, the Archit...

Why it matters: Leaving an outdated background and internal review redlines in a 90% drawing set creates significant ambiguity across disciplines. The contractor cannot accurately locate exterior MEP utilities, route site lighting, or pour exterior equipment pads if the building perimeter, door locations, and sa...

Suggested next step: Please update the building footprint and site background on the MEP1.01 Site Plan to exactly match the current Architectural Slab Coordination Plan (A1.30) and Civil site plans. Resolve all clouded redline coordination notes (e.g., "update doors and pads", "update backgorund")...

RFI draft: Please update the building footprint and site background on the MEP1.01 Site Plan to exactly match the current Architectural Slab Coordination Plan (A1.30) and Civil site plans. Resolve all clouded redline coordination notes (e.g., "update doors a...

Summary: The Floor Plan (A1.10) shows a section cut callout for "3/ A3.15" located at an interior wall between "CITY HALL 200" and "COURT CLERK 201". However, on sheet A3.15, the "3 WALL SECTION" is detailed as an exterior wall section located on Grid F, featuring an "EXT. GLAZING SYSTEM" and roof assemblies.

Why it matters: This mismatch indicates that either the section callout on the floor plan is pointing to the wrong detail (or is placed in the wrong location entirely), or the detail on A3.15 is mislabeled. This could lead to confusion regarding the required construction details for both the interior partition a...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct location and reference for Wall Section 3/A3.15. If the callout on A1.10 between City Hall 200 and Court Clerk 201 is incorrect, please provide the correct interior detail reference and indicate where Section 3/A3.15 should be referenced on the exter...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct location and reference for Wall Section 3/A3.15. If the callout on A1.10 between City Hall 200 and Court Clerk 201 is incorrect, please provide the correct interior detail reference and indicate where Section 3/A3.15 sho...