Georgia Medical Office Suite: 10 Issues Found

Summary: 16 indexed pages | 2 match | 13 minor mismatch | 0 mismatch | 1 missing Minor Mismatch (13): CV1: Expected: COVER 1 (CV1) | Actual: PROJECT LOCATION (CV1)(p1) | Reason: Sheet number matches exactly; the index uses a generic cover designation while the parsed title is a specific cover-sheet title. CV2: Expected: COVER 2 (CV2) ...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 CV2 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 2

Summary: LS1.1 classifies the tenant as an Existing Business occupancy with an occupant load of 30 based on actual seating and states that the gaming area is accessory only and does not add to the occupant load. The Chapter 39 code summary separately states Existing Business occupancy with an occupant load of 30 (actual seating). The plan review...

Why it matters: This creates an unresolved life-safety basis conflict within the project documents: LS1.1 and the Chapter 39 code summary show a 30-person Existing Business basis, while the plan review comments require a 75-person Assembly-based calculation including gaming and bench seating.

Suggested next step: Confirm the final occupancy classification and occupant-load methodology for the tenant space, including whether gaming areas and bench seating are included, and revise LS1.1, the Chapter 39 code summary, and the related plan-review documentation so one consistent basis is used throughout.

RFI draft: Confirm the final occupancy classification and occupant-load methodology for the tenant space, including whether gaming areas and bench seating are included, and revise LS1.1, the Chapter 39 code summary, and the related plan-review documentation so one consistent basis is used throughout.

Summary: The drawing shows a 'narrow highlighted opening/choke point between two small toilet rooms at left and adjacent spaces to the right' and dimensions that passage/opening at '1'-11 1/4\''. ADA 206.1 requires accessible routes to comply with Chapter 4, and ADA 403.5.1 requires walking-surface clear width of '36 inches (915 mm) minimum,' with only...

Why it matters: As drawn, this toilet-area connection cannot function as a compliant accessible route. The opening geometry will need redesign before approval/construction, or the layout around the toilet-room entry will have to be reworked in the field.

Suggested next step: Please revise the highlighted toilet-area opening/passage so the accessible route meets ADA 403.5.1 minimum clear width, and provide the corrected clear dimension at that opening on the plan.

RFI draft: Please revise the highlighted toilet-area opening/passage so the accessible route meets ADA 403.5.1 minimum clear width, and provide the corrected clear dimension at that opening on the plan.

Summary: The sheet states 'Occupant Load = 30 (Actual seating A1.3 & LS1.1)' and 'Gaming area is accessory only and does not add to the occupant load,' while the same legend separately identifies 'Gaming Area' totaling 112 square feet and 'Dining Area' totaling 440 square feet. IBC Section 1004.2.1 requires cumulative occupant loads of interconnected...

Why it matters: Occupant load is the basis for 'means of egress requirements,' and plumbing fixture quantities are also based on the number of occupants determined by the code. If the occupant-load basis is wrong, the related egress and plumbing review can also be wrong, which can trigger permit comments and redesign.

Suggested next step: Please revise the occupant-load calculation to use IBC Section 1004 for each labeled function/space, including the gaming areas, and update any dependent egress and plumbing calculations if the total changes.

RFI draft: Please revise the occupant-load calculation to use IBC Section 1004 for each labeled function/space, including the gaming areas, and update any dependent egress and plumbing calculations if the total changes.

Summary: The plan identifies a lower toilet room door with the note 'Wood 2'0\' X 6'8\' Privacy'. IFC Section 1010.1.1 requires a minimum clear opening width of 32 inches for door openings. The reduced 20-inch exception in the same section applies to 'toilet compartments,' not a toilet room door. A 2'-0' door cannot provide the required 32-inch clear...

Why it matters: This is a life-safety code issue that is likely to be flagged during permit review or field inspection. Correcting it would require door/opening revision and associated frame, wall, and finish work.

Suggested next step: Revise the lower toilet room door/opening to provide not less than 32 inches clear in accordance with IFC Section 1010.1.1, and update the drawings to reflect the compliant size.

RFI draft: Revise the lower toilet room door/opening to provide not less than 32 inches clear in accordance with IFC Section 1010.1.1, and update the drawings to reflect the compliant size.

Summary: The equipment plan shows dimensioned working clearances between appliances of '2'-2\'+/-' and '2'-5\'+/-'. IMC 306.1 requires 'A level working space not less than 30 inches deep and 30 inches wide (762 mm by 762 mm) shall be provided in front of the control side to service an appliance.' The shown 26-inch and 29-inch clearances are less than...

Why it matters: If built as drawn, the affected appliances will not have code-compliant service access. This can result in plan review comments, failed inspection, or field rework to shift equipment and associated utility rough-ins after installation has started.

Suggested next step: Revise the equipment layout to provide at least 30 inches of level working space at the control/service side of each affected appliance, and reissue the plan with compliant clearance dimensions.

RFI draft: Revise the equipment layout to provide at least 30 inches of level working space at the control/service side of each affected appliance, and reissue the plan with compliant clearance dimensions.

Summary: The equipment plan identifies item #4 as 'AGR-8B', but the equipment schedule identifies item #4 as 'AGR-6B-NG'. The same item number is assigned to two different range models.

Why it matters: Conflicting equipment models can affect procurement, utility coordination, hood coordination, and final installation dimensions. Construction and purchasing teams would not know which range to order and rough in for.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct model for equipment item #4 and revise the plan and schedule so both sheets identify the same range.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct model for equipment item #4 and revise the plan and schedule so both sheets identify the same range.

Summary: The same tagged unit is shown as 'KR24-24BD #20' on the equipment plan, but the electrical and plumbing plans both show 'KR18-18BD #20' for that same tag. This is a direct model conflict for equipment #20.

Why it matters: If this tag is coordinated from the wrong model, the associated rough-in layout and utility coordination can be set for the wrong equipment before installation.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct model for equipment #20 and revise the affected plan sheets so tag #20 uses one consistent designation everywhere.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct model for equipment #20 and revise the affected plan sheets so tag #20 uses one consistent designation everywhere.

Summary: Page 18 indicates in ITEM #6 that hallway widening is 'Not possible' and 'not feel consistent with Existing Business Occupancy,' while the same page's summary table states 'Exits 2 minimum' and '3 shown.' Page 21, however, states that the 'Back door does not appear to be compliant' and that the route from the toilet hall to the proposed rear...

Why it matters: These excerpts leave the rear egress path unresolved: one response says widening is not feasible or intended, while the inspection comments say widening is required for compliance. The conflict is specifically about the rear exit path width and compliance, not simply the number of exits shown.

Suggested next step: Clarify the final compliant width requirement and code basis for the toilet-hall/rear-exit path, and revise the response so the rear exit is either documented as compliant or redesigned to provide the required egress width.

RFI draft: Clarify the final compliant width requirement and code basis for the toilet-hall/rear-exit path, and revise the response so the rear exit is either documented as compliant or redesigned to provide the required egress width.

Summary: The FIRE MARSHALL note states, 'All buildings over two stories in height or more than 12,000 square feet are required to comply with the 2018 IFC section 510, emergency responder radio coverage.' The same sheet also lists '2024 International Fire Code with current Georgia Amendments' as an applicable code. Under 2024 IFC Section 510.1, ERCES is...

Why it matters: Leaving this note uncorrected can cause plan-review comments or the wrong ERCES scope because it implies Section 510 applies only above two stories or above 12,000 square feet. The note also says occupants 'will be required to install a DAS for compliance with this code,' but 2024 IFC permits 'a wired communications system' where approved...

Suggested next step: Please revise the Section 510 emergency responder radio coverage note to match the adopted '2024 International Fire Code with current Georgia Amendments,' correct the applicability language, and clarify whether an approved 'wired communications system' is acceptable in lieu of DAS where allowed by the fire code official and building official.

RFI draft: Please revise the Section 510 emergency responder radio coverage note to match the adopted '2024 International Fire Code with current Georgia Amendments,' correct the applicability language, and clarify whether an approved 'wired communications system' is acceptable in lieu of DAS where allowed...