Great Plains Urban Mixed-Use: 38 Issues Found

Summary: 130 indexed pages | 119 match | 5 minor mismatch | 0 mismatch | 6 missing Minor Mismatch (5): S103: Expected: STAIR FRAMING PLANS (S103) | Actual: STAIR FRAMING PLANS (S-103)(p10) | Reason: Same sheet; parsed sheet number adds a hyphen. CU101: Expected: ILLUMINATION PLAN (CU101) | Actual: ILUMINATION PLAN (CU101)(p45) ...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 G001 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1 --- 📄 S-000 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 2

Summary: One occupancy legend assigns '15 NET - TABLES & CHAIRS, NOT FIXED' to A-2 and defines A-3 as '15 GROSS - WAITING AREAS'. Another occupancy legend defines A-3 as '15 NET - TABLES & CHAIRS, NOT FIXED'. This is a direct conflict in the occupancy classification and load factor.

Why it matters: Using 15 gross versus 15 net, and A-2 versus A-3, can change occupant-load and life-safety compliance calculations, which can affect egress sizing and permit review.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct occupancy classification and occupant-load factor, and revise the occupancy legends/code plans so the A-2 and A-3 definitions are consistent across the drawing set.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct occupancy classification and occupant-load factor, and revise the occupancy legends/code plans so the A-2 and A-3 definitions are consistent across the drawing set.

Summary: Alternate #3 is described as 'REPAIR LEAKS IN EXISITING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF AT GYM' in one reference, while another reference that states 'RE: AD102 & A103.' describes Alternate #3 as 'INSTALL \'TOPPS ELASTOMERIC\' COATING OVER EXISTING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF AT GYM.' The plan note also states 'ALTERNATE #3 / INSTALL NEW COATING / OVER...

Why it matters: Bidders could reasonably carry either localized leak repairs or a full coating system for Alternate #3, which can change pricing, submittals, and the installed roofing work at the gym.

Suggested next step: Clarify whether Alternate #3 at the gym requires only leak repairs or a coating system over the existing standing seam metal roof, and revise the alternate note/keynote so both pages use the same scope description.

RFI draft: Clarify whether Alternate #3 at the gym requires only leak repairs or a coating system over the existing standing seam metal roof, and revise the alternate note/keynote so both pages use the same scope description.

Summary: The overall second-floor code plan lists 'A-2 (15 NET - TABLES & CHAIRS, NOT FIXED)' and separately lists 'A-3 (15 GROSS - WAITING AREAS)', but the west second-floor code plan lists 'A-3 (15 NET - TABLES & CHAIRS, NOT FIXED)'. This changes both the occupancy group and the occupant-load factor between the two second-floor code plan sheets.

Why it matters: Using 15 net instead of 15 gross, and classifying the same use as A-3 instead of A-2, can materially change occupant-load calculations, egress sizing, and life-safety review. Permit reviewers and the construction team will not know which code basis governs the second-floor assembly areas.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct second-floor assembly occupancy classification and load factor, and revise the overall and west second-floor code plan legends so they match.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct second-floor assembly occupancy classification and load factor, and revise the overall and west second-floor code plan legends so they match.

Summary: S-100B shows the callout '4 / S-502' in the same foundation-plan area where the visible horizontal grids are H, J.9, K.1, L.5, P.1, P.3, and Q. On S-502, detail 4 is specifically labeled 'GRID REF. PLAN A' and titled 'CONT. GRADE BEAM AT INT. CMU.' This cross-reference does not align because the plan callout is in the H-Q region while the...

Why it matters: If this remains uncorrected, the contractor could apply the 'CONT. GRADE BEAM AT INT. CMU' condition from grid A to the wrong foundation location, creating uncertainty about which structural detail governs that area.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the '4 / S-502' callout on S-100B is correct, or whether either the plan callout or detail 4's 'GRID REF. PLAN A' label should be revised so the referenced condition matches the actual plan location.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the '4 / S-502' callout on S-100B is correct, or whether either the plan callout or detail 4's 'GRID REF. PLAN A' label should be revised so the referenced condition matches the actual plan location.

Summary: The A/A115-referenced area is labeled 'OPEN TO ABOVE' on one plan, while the referenced A/A115 plan labels the comparable space '234 OPEN TO STRUCTURE'. Both sheets identify the same referenced A/A115 scope, so the open-condition note is inconsistent.

Why it matters: 'OPEN TO ABOVE' implies a vertical opening/void, while 'OPEN TO STRUCTURE' implies a second-floor space with exposed structure and no finished ceiling. That difference affects architectural layout, ceiling framing, lighting, sprinkler coverage, and MEP coordination.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the A/A115-referenced space is intended to be OPEN TO ABOVE or OPEN TO STRUCTURE, and revise the overall and detailed RCP sheets so the note is consistent.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the A/A115-referenced space is intended to be OPEN TO ABOVE or OPEN TO STRUCTURE, and revise the overall and detailed RCP sheets so the note is consistent.

Summary: On M201, the elevator sump pump note next to the explicit '1 M401 (TYPICAL)' callout directs the sump discharge to 'TERMINATE TO NEW FLOOR DRAIN WITH ELBOW TURNED DOWN.' The referenced 1/M401 elevator sump pump detail instead says 'DISCHARGE TO HUB DRAIN WITH ELBOW TURNED DOWN REF. PLUMBING PLAN.' These are different receptor types for the same...

Why it matters: This leaves the installer uncertain which receptor to rough-in at the elevator sump discharge and can affect field coordination, plumbing rough-in, and inspection review.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the elevator sump pump discharge is intended to terminate to a new floor drain or to a hub drain, and revise M201 and Detail 1/M401 so both drawings show the same receptor type.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the elevator sump pump discharge is intended to terminate to a new floor drain or to a hub drain, and revise M201 and Detail 1/M401 so both drawings show the same receptor type.

Summary: A144 Note 7 directs the team to the signage schedules for 'ROOM NAMES' and 'ROOM NUMBERS', but the referenced A140 schedule conflicts with the A140 plan labels. The schedule lists '1 115 FITNESS CENTER', '2 117 TBD', '1 121 TBD', '8 126 ELECTRICAL', and '8 136 STORAGE'. The plan labels show 'CORRIDOR 115' and 'FITNESS CENTER 116', plus 'LOBBY...

Why it matters: If the schedule is used per A144, sign fabrication and installation can be based on the wrong room identity. The 115/116 area is especially problematic because the schedule assigns FITNESS CENTER to Room 115 while the plan shows Room 115 as CORRIDOR and Room 116 as FITNESS CENTER.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct sign text and room numbers for Rooms 115/116, 117, 121, 126, and 136, and revise A140 so the schedule and plan match before signage is fabricated or installed.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct sign text and room numbers for Rooms 115/116, 117, 121, 126, and 136, and revise A140 so the schedule and plan match before signage is fabricated or installed.

Summary: On A202, the south elevation match/reference line is labeled 'C/A201' and 'B/A201'. However, the referenced views on A201 are 'C NORTH ELEVATION - EAST' and 'B NORTH ELEVATION - WEST,' while A202 itself contains the south elevation views 'C SOUTH ELEVATION - EAS' and 'B SOUTH ELEVATION - WEST.' This makes the A202 callout point to the north...

Why it matters: If left uncorrected, a reader following the callout from the south elevation could be directed to north elevation information, which can misroute façade coordination, review, and field interpretation.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the A202 match/reference line was intended to direct the user to the B and C south elevation views on A202 or to the B and C north elevation views on A201, and revise the callout accordingly.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the A202 match/reference line was intended to direct the user to the B and C south elevation views on A202 or to the B and C north elevation views on A201, and revise the callout accordingly.

Summary: The A306 Level 2 Stair #1 enlarged plan includes the callout 'A/ A307' and gives the stair length dimension as '21' - 7\''. The referenced A307 'A SECTION 1 AT STAIR #1' shows '21' - 6\''. The referenced plan and section therefore do not agree on the Stair #1 length dimension.

Why it matters: A conflicting stair length dimension can affect stair fabrication, landing placement, and field fit within the stair/elevator core.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct Stair #1 length dimension at the A/A307 reference and revise the plan and section so both drawings show the same value.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct Stair #1 length dimension at the A/A307 reference and revise the plan and section so both drawings show the same value.

Summary: A306 view B 'ENLARGED PLAN - LEVEL 2 - STAIR #1 (S1-2)' references 'A/ A308' and gives Stair #1 an overall dimension of 21' - 7' with the same landing/run breakdown shown in the section. The referenced A308 view A 'SECTION 2 AT STAIR #1' shows 5' - 5', 11' - 11', and 4' - 0' for the same landing/run components, but the overall is 21' - 6'. The...

Why it matters: If left unresolved, stair fabrication and adjacent opening/guard coordination could proceed from different controlling dimensions, creating fit-up problems and shop-drawing confusion.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the governing overall dimension for Stair #1 in the A306 to A308 reference pair and revise the plan or section so both views show the same overall value.

RFI draft: Please confirm the governing overall dimension for Stair #1 in the A306 to A308 reference pair and revise the plan or section so both views show the same overall value.

Summary: On the fan schedule, 'EF-2-5' is listed under 'JANITOR ROOM CEILING' and carries note 'A. INTERLOCK FAN WITH LIGHT SWITCH.' On the HVAC plan, the 'EF-2-5' tag is shown adjacent to 'ELEV E-2,' not in a clearly identified janitor room. This supports a location mismatch between the schedule and the plan.

Why it matters: The visual evidence supports a schedule-versus-plan location inconsistency for EF-2-5. However, the nearby note stating 'PROVIDE UNIT AND DUCTWORK ABOVE CEILING TO CONDITION ELEVATOR MACHINE EQUIPMENT IN HOISTWAY...' is not clearly tied to EF-2-5, so the original claim should not characterize that note as EF-2-5's operating intent.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether EF-2-5 is intended to remain a 'JANITOR ROOM CEILING' fan per the fan schedule or whether the plan location adjacent to 'ELEV E-2' is correct, and revise the schedule and plan tag so EF-2-5 has one consistent location.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether EF-2-5 is intended to remain a 'JANITOR ROOM CEILING' fan per the fan schedule or whether the plan location adjacent to 'ELEV E-2' is correct, and revise the schedule and plan tag so EF-2-5 has one consistent location.

Summary: The plan shows 'STAIR #1' with 'EF-1-10', while the schedule lists 'EF-1-10' under 'JANITOR ROOM CEILING'. The same equipment tag is assigned to two different locations.

Why it matters: If not resolved, the contractor may coordinate the wrong room for installation, causing misrouted ductwork, ceiling coordination problems, and rework during review and construction.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether EF-1-10 is intended for Stair #1 or Janitor Room Ceiling, and revise the plan and/or fan schedule so the equipment tag location is consistent.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether EF-1-10 is intended for Stair #1 or Janitor Room Ceiling, and revise the plan and/or fan schedule so the equipment tag location is consistent.

Summary: On A201, the C/A301 callout is located at a façade area labeled 'EXISTING STOREFRONT SYSTEM.' In section C/A301 on A301, the exterior storefront is called out as '6' ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM WITH 1' INSULATED GLAZING UNITS, STRUCTURAL SEALANT GLAZED VERTICAL MULLIONS.' This creates an inconsistency/ambiguity because the elevation identifies...

Why it matters: Because the elevation and referenced section use different descriptors for the same storefront location, the documents are unclear on whether the section note is describing the existing storefront or a proposed storefront assembly.

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the storefront at the C/A301 north elevation location is the existing storefront system and the section note is describing that existing assembly, or whether a new 6' aluminum storefront system is intended. Revise the elevation and/or section so the designation is consistent.

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the storefront at the C/A301 north elevation location is the existing storefront system and the section note is describing that existing assembly, or whether a new 6' aluminum storefront system is intended. Revise the elevation and/or section so the designation is consistent.

Summary: M301 uses the callout 'M / M401 (TYPICAL)' in roof plan locations, but the provided M401 detail sheet is labeled with details 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G', 'H', 'J', 'K', and '1' instead of a matching detail 'M'. The cross-reference therefore does not resolve to a corresponding detail on the cited sheet.

Why it matters: Because the referenced detail cannot be found on the cited sheet, the contractor cannot verify the intended installation standard for those roof conditions. This can affect bidding, submittals, and field installation coordination.

Suggested next step: Please identify the intended detail for the 'M / M401 (TYPICAL)' callouts on M301, or add/renumber the missing detail on M401 and revise the roof plan references accordingly.

RFI draft: Please identify the intended detail for the 'M / M401 (TYPICAL)' callouts on M301, or add/renumber the missing detail on M401 and revise the roof plan references accordingly.