Tech Centre: 200 Issues Found

Summary: 102 index entries | 100 perfect matches | 2 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (2): ES.01: Expected: ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN | Actual: SITE UTILITY PLAN (p65) P1.02: Expected: WASTE & VENT PLUMBING PLAN - CARPENTRY BUILDING | Actual: WASTE & VENT PLUMBING PLAN - CARPENTRY (p50)

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 CS1.00 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1 --- 📄 S001 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 31

Summary: The SB2 panel schedule shows a 225A mains rating and 200A MCB rating, but the same schedule calculates phase currents of 280A, 340A, and 231A. This indicates the panel (as scheduled) would be overloaded relative to its main/overcurrent rating, which is not permitted for additions/alterations to existing electrical systems.

Why it matters: An overloaded panel/main overcurrent device can nuisance-trip, overheat equipment, and will likely be rejected during plan review/inspection, requiring redesign (larger panel/feeder, corrected load calcs, or load shedding), causing cost and schedule impacts.

Suggested next step: Revise SB2 design so calculated load does not overload the panel main/MCB: confirm connected loads and demand factors, correct any load entry errors, rebalance/move circuits to other panels if needed, and/or increase feeder/panel main/MCB ratings as required to keep the system not overloaded.

RFI draft: Revise SB2 design so calculated load does not overload the panel main/MCB: confirm connected loads and demand factors, correct any load entry errors, rebalance/move circuits to other panels if needed, and/or increase feeder/panel main/MCB ratings as required to keep the system not overloaded.

Summary: On the Site Utility Plan, the coded notes call for a 6' SCH 40 PVC storm drain outfall and a 6' SCH 40 PVC connection to the roof drain. On the storm drain profile, the outfall is explicitly labeled as 4' SCH 40 PVC with a slotted cap, and the canopy roof drain connection note also calls for connecting new 4' SCH 40 PVC to the canopy roof...

Why it matters: Conflicting pipe sizes can change required fittings, trench details, hydraulic capacity, and may affect procurement/installation (reducers/adapters, cleanouts, and appurtenances). Contractor may install the wrong diameter without clarification.

Suggested next step: Confirm required storm drain pipe diameter at (1) the outfall with slotted cap and (2) the canopy/roof drain connection. Revise C1.50 coded notes and/or the C2.00 profile so both sheets indicate the same pipe size and any required transitions (if intended).

RFI draft: Confirm required storm drain pipe diameter at (1) the outfall with slotted cap and (2) the canopy/roof drain connection. Revise C1.50 coded notes and/or the C2.00 profile so both sheets indicate the same pipe size and any required transitions (if intended).

Summary: The Domestic Water Heater Schedule lists WH-1 electrical as '240/1/60' with 'KW' shown as '5' and includes remarks indicating an adjustable thermostat range '120°F - 180°F' and 'ZINC PLATED COPPER HEATING ELEMENTS'. The specification requires the electric water heater electrical characteristics to be '208 VAC, three phase' and the 'Heating...

Why it matters: This mismatch can force redesign/revision of electrical circuitry and equipment selection during submittals/procurement, creating permitting/submittal delays and potential rework if the wrong voltage/phase/kW unit is ordered or rough-in/electrical provisions are installed for the scheduled unit instead of the specified unit.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required WH-1 electrical characteristics and heater configuration per Section 223000 (208V/3-phase, 4.5 kW elements, 120-170°F control range, nichrome elements) and revise the Domestic Water Heater Schedule accordingly, or submit a formal substitution request with supporting compliance documentation.

RFI draft: Confirm the required WH-1 electrical characteristics and heater configuration per Section 223000 (208V/3-phase, 4.5 kW elements, 120-170°F control range, nichrome elements) and revise the Domestic Water Heater Schedule accordingly, or submit a formal substitution request with supporting...

Summary: The packaged rooftop unit schedule includes heat pump performance and electric heat kW, and the RTU remarks explicitly describe the units as an air source heat pump with auxiliary electric heat. The RTU specification requires packaged rooftop units to include a gas fired heating section, which conflicts with the scheduled heating type.

Why it matters: This is a fundamental equipment selection conflict. If RTUs are procured as heat pump/electric heat units instead of gas-fired units, it will likely trigger submittal rejection and redesign (gas piping/venting vs. electrical load), causing major schedule impact and cost change.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required RTU heating type for this project. If gas-fired heat is required, revise the RTU schedule/models and associated utilities accordingly; if heat pump/electric heat is intended, revise Section 237416 to remove/modify the gas-fired heating requirements.

RFI draft: Confirm the required RTU heating type for this project. If gas-fired heat is required, revise the RTU schedule/models and associated utilities accordingly; if heat pump/electric heat is intended, revise Section 237416 to remove/modify the gas-fired heating requirements.

Summary: The Rooftop Unit diagram note states “TYP OF 2 OR MORE PROVIDE IN SUPPLY AND RETURN DUCT,” which describes where detectors are to be located when two or more are provided, but does not identify the performance/size criterion that triggers providing detectors in both ducts. The specification explicitly requires that for units over 2000 CFM,...

Why it matters: If an RTU exceeds 2000 CFM and the team relies on the drawing note alone, the contractor may not clearly understand that both supply and return duct detectors are required by the specification, potentially resulting in an under-designed arrangement and later retrofit (added detectors, wiring, access) after ductwork is complete.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required basis for providing duct smoke detectors in both supply and return ducts (spec indicates units over 2000 CFM). Revise the RTU note/details to explicitly match the specification criterion so detector quantity and placement are unambiguous.

RFI draft: Confirm the required basis for providing duct smoke detectors in both supply and return ducts (spec indicates units over 2000 CFM). Revise the RTU note/details to explicitly match the specification criterion so detector quantity and placement are unambiguous.

Summary: The earthwork notes require fill compaction percent and moisture control to be based on Standard Proctor (ASTM D698). IBC 2018 Appendix J requires fill compaction to be based on Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557). Because the drawings specify a different compaction test standard than the code-required standard, the specified field density acceptance...

Why it matters: Compaction testing performed to ASTM D698 (or percent compaction criteria derived from D698) may not be acceptable to the AHJ under the grading permit, creating a risk of failed inspections, required retesting/recompaction, and schedule/cost impacts during earthwork and foundation/pavement preparation.

Suggested next step: Revise the earthwork/fill compaction notes to specify compaction compliance based on ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor) per IBC Appendix J107.5 (or provide geotechnical report direction explicitly recommending an alternate approach accepted by the building official), and confirm the acceptance criteria that will be used by the special...

RFI draft: Revise the earthwork/fill compaction notes to specify compaction compliance based on ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor) per IBC Appendix J107.5 (or provide geotechnical report direction explicitly recommending an alternate approach accepted by the building official), and confirm the acceptance...

Summary: The sheet’s occupant load schedule is explicitly labeled as being calculated per a different section (“7.3.1.2”), rather than per the 2018 IBC occupant load provisions. IBC requires the design occupant load used for means of egress to be determined in accordance with IBC Section 1004.

Why it matters: If occupant load is not calculated per IBC 1004, the egress basis (and any downstream code analysis relying on occupant load) can be rejected during plan review, requiring rework and resubmittal and potentially impacting construction start dates.

Suggested next step: Confirm the project occupant load calculations are performed in accordance with 2018 IBC Section 1004. Revise the code sheet to reference IBC 1004 and update occupant load calculations if the currently referenced method differs from IBC requirements.

RFI draft: Confirm the project occupant load calculations are performed in accordance with 2018 IBC Section 1004. Revise the code sheet to reference IBC 1004 and update occupant load calculations if the currently referenced method differs from IBC requirements.

Summary: On sheet A0.00, Room 109 (CONFERENCE) is listed with USE CLASSIFICATION = “BUSINESS” and an occupant load of 17.73. The summary below separately lists “ASSEMBLY USE OCCUPANT LOAD TOTAL FROM ABOVE | 17.73 = 18,” which appears to categorize that same 17.73 occupant load under an “Assembly Use” bucket. Per IBC 303.1.1, a space used for assembly...

Why it matters: If a small conference/assembly function is summarized as “Assembly Use” rather than clearly as Group B per IBC 303.1.1, it can lead to incorrect downstream assumptions (occupancy designation, separation decisions, and egress/code trigger checks) and create plan review comments.

Suggested next step: Please confirm which space(s) are included in the “ASSEMBLY USE OCCUPANT LOAD TOTAL… 17.73 = 18” summary (likely Room 109 Conference) and clarify the intended occupancy classification. If it is an assembly function with occupant load < 50, revise the code summary/occupant load breakdown terminology to clearly align with IBC 303.1.1 (Group B)...

RFI draft: Please confirm which space(s) are included in the “ASSEMBLY USE OCCUPANT LOAD TOTAL… 17.73 = 18” summary (likely Room 109 Conference) and clarify the intended occupancy classification. If it is an assembly function with occupant load < 50, revise the code summary/occupant load breakdown...

Summary: The “STANDARD MOUNTING HEIGHTS” accessory detail for an “ACCESSIBLE TOWEL / ROBE HOOK” is explicitly labeled “NON-ACCESSIBLE” and provides a mounting height/range under that label. IBC requires building facilities/elements to be designed and constructed to be accessible in accordance with the code and ICC A117.1, so publishing a...

Why it matters: If the contractor installs accessories per this standard detail, the project risks failing accessibility review/inspection and requiring removal and reinstallation of accessories, causing schedule delays and added cost (and potential issues for certificate of occupancy).

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail T11 so the “ACCESSIBLE TOWEL / ROBE HOOK” mounting requirements are accessible-compliant (per ICC A117.1) and remove/clarify the “NON-ACCESSIBLE” labeling. Confirm whether T11 is intended to be used in required accessible toilet rooms and provide the correct mounting height to be used.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail T11 so the “ACCESSIBLE TOWEL / ROBE HOOK” mounting requirements are accessible-compliant (per ICC A117.1) and remove/clarify the “NON-ACCESSIBLE” labeling. Confirm whether T11 is intended to be used in required accessible toilet rooms and provide the correct mounting height...

Summary: The slab-on-grade patch assembly is shown as new concrete placed over compacted fill and gravel, but no vapor retarder/vapor barrier layer is indicated for the patch. IBC 2018 requires a 6-mil polyethylene vapor retarder (or approved equivalent) between the base/subgrade and concrete floor slabs on ground.

Why it matters: If the patch is constructed without a compliant vapor retarder (or without an approved exception), it can fail plan review/inspection and may require slab removal and replacement or approved mitigation after the fact, causing schedule delays and cost overruns.

Suggested next step: Confirm the slab patch detail includes a compliant vapor retarder per IBC 1907.1 (6-mil polyethylene with lapped joints) or provide the code basis for an approved exception/equivalent method for this specific slab patch area, and revise the detail accordingly.

RFI draft: Confirm the slab patch detail includes a compliant vapor retarder per IBC 1907.1 (6-mil polyethylene with lapped joints) or provide the code basis for an approved exception/equivalent method for this specific slab patch area, and revise the detail accordingly.

Summary: The slab-on-grade entry section shows slab, reinforcement, and dowels at a joint adjacent to a foundation wall with granular material/subgrade below, but it does not indicate a vapor retarder/vapor barrier layer between the slab and base/subgrade. IBC 2018 requires a 6-mil polyethylene vapor retarder (or approved equivalent) under concrete...

Why it matters: If constructed as detailed without a compliant vapor retarder (or without an approved exception/equivalent), this condition can fail inspection and lead to moisture problems and invasive remedial work at an entry area, creating delays and added cost.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the entry slab-on-grade requires a vapor retarder per IBC 1907.1; if yes, revise the entry detail to show a compliant vapor retarder under the slab (including required lapping), or provide the basis for an approved exception/equivalent method for this location.

RFI draft: Confirm whether the entry slab-on-grade requires a vapor retarder per IBC 1907.1; if yes, revise the entry detail to show a compliant vapor retarder under the slab (including required lapping), or provide the basis for an approved exception/equivalent method for this location.

Summary: The reinforcing lap length schedule explicitly states it is based on an older standard (ACI 318-08). The 2018 IBC requires structural concrete to be designed and constructed in accordance with ACI 318 as modified by IBC Section 1905. Because IBC Section 1905 contains specific modifications referencing ACI 318 Chapter/Section numbering (e.g.,...

Why it matters: If splice lengths are calculated from a different ACI 318 edition than the one modified/adopted by the IBC, the engineer-of-record may be forced to revise splice requirements during plan review or construction, creating potential rework (bar placement/splice relocation), inspection failures, and schedule impacts.

Suggested next step: Confirm the project’s governing ACI 318 edition per 2018 IBC and revise/reissue the “REINFORCING LAP LENGTH SCHEDULE” so lap splice/development provisions are based on IBC-required ACI 318 (as amended by IBC 1905), or provide an engineer-stamped justification that the listed lap splice lengths comply with the governing IBC/ACI requirements.

RFI draft: Confirm the project’s governing ACI 318 edition per 2018 IBC and revise/reissue the “REINFORCING LAP LENGTH SCHEDULE” so lap splice/development provisions are based on IBC-required ACI 318 (as amended by IBC 1905), or provide an engineer-stamped justification that the listed lap splice lengths...

Summary: The Mechanical General Notes state that all mechanical work must be installed per the National Electric Code (NFPA 70). However, IBC Chapter 28 requires mechanical appliances, equipment and systems to be governed by the International Mechanical Code and International Fuel Gas Code (in addition to IBC Chapter 28). This is a direct code...

Why it matters: Leaving this note uncorrected can misdirect the mechanical contractor and create inspection/permit compliance issues (mechanical work being executed/inspected to the wrong governing code basis), leading to rework and schedule delays.

Suggested next step: Revise Mechanical General Note 4 to reference the correct governing codes for mechanical work (IBC Chapter 28, International Mechanical Code, and International Fuel Gas Code), and limit NFPA 70 references to electrical wiring only (as applicable).

RFI draft: Revise Mechanical General Note 4 to reference the correct governing codes for mechanical work (IBC Chapter 28, International Mechanical Code, and International Fuel Gas Code), and limit NFPA 70 references to electrical wiring only (as applicable).

Summary: The electrical general notes and demolition notes state that the building cannot be without an operable fire alarm system / emergency egress lighting system only when it is “occupied by other than construction personnel,” which implies these life-safety systems could be left inoperable while construction personnel are present/working. IBC...

Why it matters: If followed, these notes could lead to life-safety system outages while the building is occupied (by workers), which can trigger stop-work orders, require emergency temporary measures, and delay inspections/approvals during phased construction/demolition.

Suggested next step: Revise the general/demolition notes to remove the “other than construction personnel” exception. Clarify that required fire protection devices (including fire alarm) and means of egress are to be maintained whenever the building is occupied, or that approved substitute provisions (e.g., temporary systems / approved temporary egress / fire watch...

RFI draft: Revise the general/demolition notes to remove the “other than construction personnel” exception. Clarify that required fire protection devices (including fire alarm) and means of egress are to be maintained whenever the building is occupied, or that approved substitute provisions (e.g.,...