Final Redline Set: 24 Issues Found

Summary: 29 index entries | 19 perfect matches | 8 mismatched | 2 missing Mismatched (8): S-101: Expected: STRUCTURAL FLOOR PLAN | Actual: STRUCTURAL FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL (p16) M-602-1: Expected: CHILLED WATER RISER DIAGRAM - IT+NTW | Actual: CHILLED WATER RISER DIAGRAM - IT+NTW1 (p62) E-001: Expected: ELECTRICAL LEGEND, NOTES AND...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 Page 7 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 7

Summary: Multiple versions of the International Building Code (IBC) are referenced in this document. Found references to year(s) 2021 alongside 2024. The 2024 International Building Code (IBC) (2024) was selected as the applicable code since it is the latest edition, but older version(s) are still referenced on some sheets.

Why it matters: Building code version conflicts can lead to compliance issues during permitting. Different code editions may have different requirements for structural, fire safety, accessibility, and energy efficiency provisions. Using an outdated code reference could result in designs that don't meet current requirements or cause confusion during plan review.

Suggested next step: Please clarify which edition of the International Building Code (IBC) applies to this project. If 2024 is the correct applicable edition, please update all references to older editions (2021) found on the sheets listed below to reference the 2024 International Building Code (IBC).

RFI draft: Please clarify which edition of the International Building Code (IBC) applies to this project. If 2024 is the correct applicable edition, please update all references to older editions (2021) found on the sheets listed below to reference the 2024 International Building Code (IBC).

Summary: Multiple versions of the ASCE 7 are referenced in this document. Found references to year(s) 2016 alongside 2022. The ASCE/SEI 7-22 (2022) was selected as the applicable code since it is the latest edition, but older version(s) are still referenced on some sheets.

Why it matters: Building code version conflicts can lead to compliance issues during permitting. Different code editions may have different requirements for structural, fire safety, accessibility, and energy efficiency provisions. Using an outdated code reference could result in designs that don't meet current requirements or cause confusion during plan review.

Suggested next step: Please clarify which edition of the ASCE 7 applies to this project. If 2022 is the correct applicable edition, please update all references to older editions (2016) found on the sheets listed below to reference the ASCE/SEI 7-22.

RFI draft: Please clarify which edition of the ASCE 7 applies to this project. If 2022 is the correct applicable edition, please update all references to older editions (2016) found on the sheets listed below to reference the ASCE/SEI 7-22.

Summary: The roof framing plan includes an explicit note stating the lateral system in the E–W direction is not defined, and additional notes question whether braced frames are required at the building edge. ASCE 7-22 requires the structure to have a complete lateral force-resisting system and to be analyzed for lateral forces in two orthogonal...

Why it matters: With the E–W lateral system not defined, the lateral load path, collector/chord demands, and required member/connection designs for that direction cannot be confirmed for code-required lateral loading. This will likely trigger permitting/RFI delays and can cause major redesign and steel rework once the lateral system is finalized.

Suggested next step: Provide the finalized lateral force-resisting system layout for the E–W direction (including braced/moment frame locations and boundary/edge conditions) and confirm the building has a complete LFRS in two orthogonal directions in accordance with ASCE 7-22 1.4 and 1.4.2. Revise this roof framing plan to remove “explore/required?” placeholders...

RFI draft: Provide the finalized lateral force-resisting system layout for the E–W direction (including braced/moment frame locations and boundary/edge conditions) and confirm the building has a complete LFRS in two orthogonal directions in accordance with ASCE 7-22 1.4 and 1.4.2. Revise this roof framing...

Summary: The roof framing plan includes an explicit note stating the lateral system in the E–W direction is not defined and requests exploration of braced frame/moment frame options. The same sheet also contains an explicit note questioning whether a braced frame is required at the building edge. ASCE 7-22 requires the building structure to include a...

Why it matters: This is a design-completeness/code-compliance blocker: without a defined lateral system in a principal direction, the required seismic load path, member/connection design forces, and detailing cannot be completed or constructed reliably. This will likely stop permitting and steel/joist procurement/fabrication and lead to change orders if...

Suggested next step: Provide the final, code-compliant seismic force-resisting system definition for the E–W direction on the structural drawings (identify whether braced frames, moment frames, or another system is used, and where), and confirm whether braced frames are required at the building edge as questioned on the plan. Revise this sheet to remove the...

RFI draft: Provide the final, code-compliant seismic force-resisting system definition for the E–W direction on the structural drawings (identify whether braced frames, moment frames, or another system is used, and where), and confirm whether braced frames are required at the building edge as questioned on...

Summary: The structural roof framing plan includes an unresolved design comment stating the lateral system in the E-W direction is not defined. IBC requires the construction documents to show the structural system information (including structural members and other information pertinent to the structural design).

Why it matters: Because the drawings explicitly indicate the lateral system is not defined (and include other braced-frame questions), the permit set is not construction-ready and will likely trigger plan review rejection and/or force redesign/field changes that can stop steel detailing/fabrication and delay erection sequencing.

Suggested next step: Provide revised, sealed structural drawings that clearly define the complete lateral force-resisting system in the E-W direction (system type, member sizes, locations, and required connections/collectors as applicable) and remove/resolve all open “SK-FS” review notes such as “NOT DEFINED” and “REQUIRED … ?” from the permit/construction issue...

RFI draft: Provide revised, sealed structural drawings that clearly define the complete lateral force-resisting system in the E-W direction (system type, member sizes, locations, and required connections/collectors as applicable) and remove/resolve all open “SK-FS” review notes such as “NOT DEFINED” and...

Summary: The Codes & Standards information on the sheet identifies ASCE 7-16 as the minimum design loads standard, even though the same sheet also lists ASCE 7-22. Designing to ASCE 7-16 is not consistent with using the load combinations and criteria of this standard (ASCE 7-22).

Why it matters: If the structural design calculations and detailing are performed using ASCE 7-16 criteria/load combinations instead of the requirements of this standard, the resulting member, connection, and anchorage designs may be rejected during review or require redesign/reanalysis, causing schedule delay and added design/construction cost.

Suggested next step: Confirm the governing ASCE 7 edition for the project and revise the general notes to remove ASCE 7-16 where listed. Provide confirmation that load combinations and design criteria used for the structure/components are per this standard (ASCE 7-22).

RFI draft: Confirm the governing ASCE 7 edition for the project and revise the general notes to remove ASCE 7-16 where listed. Provide confirmation that load combinations and design criteria used for the structure/components are per this standard (ASCE 7-22).

Summary: The drawings state the project is Risk Category II with “Sds = 0.11g, Sd1 = 0.097g; Site Class D; SDC C.” Under ASCE 7-22 Section 11.6, the Seismic Design Category must be assigned using Tables 11.6-1 and 11.6-2, and the more severe category governs. For Risk Category II, SDS = 0.11 (< 0.167) corresponds to SDC A per Table 11.6-1, and SD1 =...

Why it matters: Leaving SDC incorrectly stated as C can drive unnecessary higher-category seismic detailing and analysis expectations and can also trigger geotechnical investigation/report scope that is explicitly tied to SDC C through F, potentially creating avoidable cost and schedule impacts during permitting and construction administration.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct SDS and SD1 used for design at this site and revise the drawings’ Seismic Design Category to match ASCE 7-22 Section 11.6 (Tables 11.6-1 and 11.6-2). Confirm whether downstream design/notes (e.g., geotechnical report requirements) are intended to follow the corrected SDC.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct SDS and SD1 used for design at this site and revise the drawings’ Seismic Design Category to match ASCE 7-22 Section 11.6 (Tables 11.6-1 and 11.6-2). Confirm whether downstream design/notes (e.g., geotechnical report requirements) are intended to follow the corrected SDC.

Summary: The structural notes state that the module anchoring details are not finalized, including “Tightening torque TBD.” and “Exact type of anchor bolt TBD.” ASCE 7-22 requires the design documents to provide sufficient information about nonstructural component attachments to verify compliance, and where design of nonstructural component...

Why it matters: Without a specified anchor type and installation requirements, the contractor cannot procure and install anchorage as intended, and the seismic attachment design cannot be verified during permitting/inspection. This commonly results in RFIs, rework of anchor layouts, procurement delays, and potential field-installed substitutions that may not...

Suggested next step: Provide registered design professional–prepared module anchorage design information sufficient to verify compliance with ASCE 7-22 Section 13.4, including the specified anchor/bolt type (and where it is installed), and installation requirements (e.g., required tightening/installation criteria) so the attachment can be reviewed and constructed...

RFI draft: Provide registered design professional–prepared module anchorage design information sufficient to verify compliance with ASCE 7-22 Section 13.4, including the specified anchor/bolt type (and where it is installed), and installation requirements (e.g., required tightening/installation criteria)...

Summary: The mechanical equipment datasheet for the Liebert CW unit lists the unit weight as 'Weight: 0 kg'. If used for design, this explicitly indicates zero dead load and zero operating weight for a fixed service equipment item, which contradicts ASCE 7 requirements to use actual weights and to include fixed service equipment weight in dead load...

Why it matters: A zero equipment weight can result in undersized structural supports/housekeeping pads and incorrect seismic design forces for anchorage/bracing, creating a high likelihood of redesign and field change orders once the actual equipment weight is known.

Suggested next step: Confirm and provide the actual operating weight (and maximum content weight, if applicable) for the Liebert CW181D unit and update the construction documents/calculations so dead loads and any seismic component forces are based on the actual equipment weight rather than '0 kg'.

RFI draft: Confirm and provide the actual operating weight (and maximum content weight, if applicable) for the Liebert CW181D unit and update the construction documents/calculations so dead loads and any seismic component forces are based on the actual equipment weight rather than '0 kg'.

Summary: The mechanical equipment datasheet for the Liebert CW Model CW181D lists the unit 'Weight: 0 kg.' ASCE 7 requires the nonstructural component operating weight (Wp) as a basis for component seismic design (e.g., component dynamics and force determination). A zero operating weight is not a valid basis for determining seismic demand on the unit...

Why it matters: If the project proceeds using a 0 kg operating weight, seismic design forces for the unit and its attachments could be calculated as zero or otherwise incorrect, creating a high risk of under-designed anchorage and rejection during structural/seismic plan review, plus major field rework and schedule impacts once the actual equipment weight is...

Suggested next step: Provide the manufacturer’s actual operating weight (and, if applicable, shipping weight and operating weight with water/glycol) for the Liebert CW Model CW181D, and update the seismic design/anchorage documentation to use the correct Wp.

RFI draft: Provide the manufacturer’s actual operating weight (and, if applicable, shipping weight and operating weight with water/glycol) for the Liebert CW Model CW181D, and update the seismic design/anchorage documentation to use the correct Wp.

Summary: On sheet A-001, the black “Site Location” note block lists “2481 LA Hwy 964,” but a separate red callout in the same area reads “2545 Louisiana Hwy 964” and points to the “Site Location” heading. IBC 107.2.1 requires construction documents to be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location of the work proposed; showing two different addresses...

Why it matters: An unclear project address can delay permit intake/review, inspections, and utility/emergency response coordination because the jurisdiction cannot reliably tie the drawings to the correct site.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct project site address and revise the “Site Location” note block (and remove/correct any conflicting callouts) so only the correct address is shown consistently across the set.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct project site address and revise the “Site Location” note block (and remove/correct any conflicting callouts) so only the correct address is shown consistently across the set.

Summary: The “Codes & Standards” notes list “International Building Code (IBC) 2024” but also include the statement “Louisiana uses IBC 2021.” These contradictory statements make it unclear which building code edition the design is intended to comply with. IBC 107.2.1 requires construction documents to show in detail that the work will conform to the...

Why it matters: A conflicting code basis commonly results in permit review comments and resubmittals, and can lead to redesign/rework if criteria differ between editions or adopted amendments.

Suggested next step: Confirm the governing code edition for this project and revise the “Codes & Standards” notes to remove conflicting statements so the construction documents clearly state a single code basis.

RFI draft: Confirm the governing code edition for this project and revise the “Codes & Standards” notes to remove conflicting statements so the construction documents clearly state a single code basis.

Summary: The sheet’s General Notes explicitly state that the layout/height may change and that materials will be finalized in a future detailed design set, and that the instructions are not fully intended for final use. This directly conflicts with IBC requirements that construction documents show the material and other required structural design...

Why it matters: If this sheet is included in the permit/construction set as-is, the building official can reject it as not meeting minimum construction-document requirements, forcing redesign/resubmittal. If construction proceeds based on a document that states it is not final, later “finalized” materials/layout changes can drive significant rework and cost...

Suggested next step: Confirm whether S-101 is intended to be part of the permitted/issued-for-construction structural set. If yes, revise the General Notes to remove “not intended for final use”/“materials to be finalized” qualifiers and issue complete final structural construction documents that meet IBC 1603.1 (including final structural member materials and...

RFI draft: Confirm whether S-101 is intended to be part of the permitted/issued-for-construction structural set. If yes, revise the General Notes to remove “not intended for final use”/“materials to be finalized” qualifiers and issue complete final structural construction documents that meet IBC 1603.1...

Summary: Sheet E-602 defines halftone equipment as equipment not provided by Vertiv, while sheet E-604 defines halftone equipment as future construction. These are conflicting definitions for the same drawing convention (halftone), creating ambiguity in equipment scope/responsibility and phasing.

Why it matters: If the halftone convention is interpreted differently by contractor/subcontractors, equipment could be incorrectly excluded from Vertiv scope, incorrectly treated as future (not installed Day 1), or both. This can directly impact procurement, installation responsibilities, commissioning scope, and change orders.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the intended meaning of “equipment shown in halftone” across the electrical drawing set. Should halftone indicate (1) equipment not provided by Vertiv, (2) future construction, or (3) both (and if both, what graphic convention differentiates them)? Revise general notes/legend so the convention is consistent across sheets E-602...

RFI draft: Please confirm the intended meaning of “equipment shown in halftone” across the electrical drawing set. Should halftone indicate (1) equipment not provided by Vertiv, (2) future construction, or (3) both (and if both, what graphic convention differentiates them)? Revise general notes/legend so...