Plan Review: 63 Issues Found

Summary: 98 index entries | 57 perfect matches | 16 mismatched | 25 missing Mismatched (16): C-105: Expected: CIVIL SITE DETAILS (C-105) | Actual: CIVIL SITE DETAILS (C-501)(p18) S-002: Expected: GENERAL NOTES (S-002) | Actual: GENERAL NOTES (S-001)(p50) S-202: Expected: STRUCTURAL ELEVATIONS (S-202) | Actual: STRUCTURAL ELEVATIONS (S-201)(p56) S-502: Expected: FOUNDATION ...

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: 25 missing, 16 mismatched out of 98 sheets

Summary: Drawing S-201 (Elevation A1) shows the West Bowstring Truss top chord as a curved channel repeatedly labeled 'MC8x22.8 (CURVED)' and calls out Detail A2/S-503 at this apex. However, the explicitly referenced Detail A2 on S-503 ('WESTERN BOWSTRING TRUSS APEX') depicts the main structural element in cross-section as a straight 'W12X19 BEAM' at a top of steel elevation of '114' - 3"', supporting a...

Why it matters: This discrepancy creates a severe conflict in both the primary structural steel framing plan and the architectural envelope. The fabricator and framers will have conflicting instructions on whether to provide a curved MC-channel acting as the absolute roof peak, or a straight W-shape beam support...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the structural framing and wall assembly at the Western Bowstring Truss apex. Should the primary member be a curved MC8x22.8 channel with no framing above it (as shown on S-201), or a W12x19 straight beam supporting a metal stud parapet/wall (as shown in Detail ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the structural framing and wall assembly at the Western Bowstring Truss apex. Should the primary member be a curved MC8x22.8 channel with no framing above it (as shown on S-201), or a W12x19 straight beam supporting a metal stud par...

Summary: The Code Analysis (G-004) states that there are 4 individual exits provided, calculating the width as four 34-inch components (132 total inches). However, the Egress Plan (G-003) depicts at least two sets of exterior double doors serving as exits, contradicting the single-door width assumptions in the code calculation.

Why it matters: Incorrect or mismatched egress capacity calculations in the code analysis can lead to immediate plan review rejection. The life safety narrative must match the physical doors (sizes and quantities) scheduled on the plans.

Suggested next step: Please revise the Code Analysis egress width calculations to accurately reflect the actual size, quantity, and configuration of exterior exit doors shown on the Egress Plan (accounting for the double doors).

RFI draft: Please revise the Code Analysis egress width calculations to accurately reflect the actual size, quantity, and configuration of exterior exit doors shown on the Egress Plan (accounting for the double doors).

Summary: Sheet Keynote 3 on ED102 and Sheet Keynote 2 on E-601 both state that the existing 2-section Panel A and B are to be refed from 'NEW PANEL LA'. However, the Electrical One-Line Diagram on E-601 contradicts this, showing Panels A and B being refed from a 300AT/400AF Enclosed Circuit Breaker (ECB1), while Panel LA is depicted as a separate 100A panel.

Why it matters: This conflict creates significant ambiguity for the electrical contractor. Routing a feeder for 400A Main Lug Only (MLO) panels from a 100A panel (Panel LA) would lead to severe capacity and safety issues. The schematic diagram showing the ECB1 connection is likely the correct design intent, and ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct power source for the existing 2-section Panel A and B. Should they be refed from the new Enclosed Circuit Breaker (ECB1) as shown on the One-Line Diagram, or from Panel LA as stated in the sheet keynotes on ED102 and E-601?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct power source for the existing 2-section Panel A and B. Should they be refed from the new Enclosed Circuit Breaker (ECB1) as shown on the One-Line Diagram, or from Panel LA as stated in the sheet keynotes on ED102 and E-601?

Summary: The Plumbing Domestic Water Plan (P-102) specifies a '2" CW' (cold water) line supplying the gas water heater (WH-1) and its associated expansion tank (ET-1). However, the corresponding Gas Water Heater Piping Detail (E1 on P-501) contains a pipe sizing table that dictates the cold water supply connection (designated as size 'B') should be '3/4"'.

Why it matters: A discrepancy between a 2" and 3/4" cold water supply line is significant. Installing an undersized 3/4" line instead of the planned 2" line could restrict flow and cause severe pressure drops. Conversely, installing a 2" line when the detail and unit only require 3/4" would unnecessarily increas...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct cold water supply pipe size for the gas water heater (WH-1). Should it be 2" as shown on the domestic water plan (P-102), or 3/4" as indicated in the sizing table of Detail E1 (P-501)?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct cold water supply pipe size for the gas water heater (WH-1). Should it be 2" as shown on the domestic water plan (P-102), or 3/4" as indicated in the sizing table of Detail E1 (P-501)?

Summary: Architectural Building Sections (A-301) indicate a single, uniform "FIRST FLOOR" elevation of 100'-0" across the interior building slabs, and Note 1 directs the contractor to refer to the Civil Grading Plan for the control datum. However, the Civil Grading Plan (C-102) indicates multiple different "FF" (Finished Floor) elevations around the building footprint, ranging from 6522.50 to 6522.84.

Why it matters: A variance of up to 0.34 feet (~4 inches) in Finished Floor elevations on the civil plan contradicts the flat, continuous 100'-0" datum shown in the architectural sections. This discrepancy must be resolved prior to pouring the building foundation or exterior flatwork to prevent ADA compliance is...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended Finished Floor (FF) elevation for the building. Should the interior slab be uniform as shown on A-301, and if so, what is the single absolute control datum elevation? Alternatively, if the slab is intended to be stepped or sloped as implied by the v...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended Finished Floor (FF) elevation for the building. Should the interior slab be uniform as shown on A-301, and if so, what is the single absolute control datum elevation? Alternatively, if the slab is intended to be stepped...

Summary: On the West Bowstring Truss elevation (Sheet S-201), there is a section cut callout referencing 'F6 / S-501' that points to the base of a vertical structural framing member near Grid 4. However, on the referenced foundation details sheet (S-501), Detail F6 is titled 'SLAB TRANSITION AT POOL WESTERN EGRESS'. This detail depicts a concrete slab joint aligning with a glazing sill and does not show...

Why it matters: Mismatched detail references can lead to delays during fabrication and erection, as the steel contractor will not have the correct baseplate and anchorage details for the truss vertical member at Grid 4. The concrete contractor may also lack the correct pier/footing details for that location.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct detail reference for the truss base connection near Grid 4 on the West Bowstring Truss (currently pointing to the slab transition detail F6/S-501). Provide the correct structural baseplate detail if it is missing from the current set.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct detail reference for the truss base connection near Grid 4 on the West Bowstring Truss (currently pointing to the slab transition detail F6/S-501). Provide the correct structural baseplate detail if it is missing from th...

Summary: On the West Bowstring Truss elevation (Sheet S-201), the vertical column located at Grid 5 is specifically labeled as a 'W8X31' steel member. A callout at the base of this exact column references Detail 'C6 / S-501'. However, Detail C6 on sheet S-501 ('PILASTER NEAR POOL EGRESS') explicitly specifies a baseplate for a 'TYPICAL W10 COLUMN'. This creates a contradiction in the structural sizing r...

Why it matters: A mismatch in column sizing between the elevation view and the baseplate detail will cause coordination issues between steel procurement, shop drawing detailing, and foundation anchorage layout. If a W8 column is supplied but the baseplate and anchor rods are laid out for a W10 column, it will ca...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct column size and corresponding baseplate for the vertical member at Grid 5 on the West Bowstring Truss. Sheet S-201 elevation denotes a W8x31 column, but the referenced baseplate detail C6/S-501 calls for a Typical W10 Column.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct column size and corresponding baseplate for the vertical member at Grid 5 on the West Bowstring Truss. Sheet S-201 elevation denotes a W8x31 column, but the referenced baseplate detail C6/S-501 calls for a Typical W10 Co...

Summary: Sheet E-601 specifies Panel LA as a 100A panel in the Electrical One-Line Diagram. However, the Panel LA schedule on Sheet E-701 lists a Mains Rating of 225A and an MCB Rating of 175A.

Why it matters: The discrepancy creates ambiguity for equipment procurement. The one-line diagram indicates a wire sizing of 4-#2/0 for the feeder, which aligns with the 175A MCB rating in the schedule. This suggests the 100A designation on the one-line diagram may be an error. Ordering an incorrectly sized pane...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct bus and main circuit breaker ratings for Panel LA. Should it be rated 225A bus / 175A MCB as shown in the schedule, or 100A as labeled on the one-line diagram?

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct bus and main circuit breaker ratings for Panel LA. Should it be rated 225A bus / 175A MCB as shown in the schedule, or 100A as labeled on the one-line diagram?

Summary: Sheet E-601 Sheet Keynote 2 states that existing panels A and B are to be refed from "NEW PANEL LA". However, the actual one-line diagram on the same sheet shows Panels A and B being refed from ECB1, a 300A breaker. Furthermore, the Panel LA schedule on Sheet E-701 confirms Panel LA is a smaller panel (225A Mains Rating) configured only for 15A and 20A branch circuits, with no feeder provision ...

Why it matters: Specifying the wrong source panel in the notes causes confusion regarding the intended electrical distribution topology. A 225A rated panel (Panel LA) cannot support feeding 400A existing panels. Clarification is needed to ensure the correct feeder routing, equipment purchasing, and breaker insta...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the power source for existing Panels A and B. Should they be fed from ECB1 as shown on the one-line diagram, rather than from Panel LA as stated in Sheet Keynote 2?

RFI draft: Please confirm the power source for existing Panels A and B. Should they be fed from ECB1 as shown on the one-line diagram, rather than from Panel LA as stated in Sheet Keynote 2?

Summary: A-202 establishes a single relative finished floor datum of 100'-0" for all exterior elevations and directs the reader to the Civil Grading Plan for control datum and benchmark information. However, the C-102 Grading Plan specifies multiple differing Finished Floor (FF) elevations at the building perimeter, including FF 6522.75, FF=6522.52, and FF=6522.84. The architectural elevations show a si...

Why it matters: Because the civil drawings show the building's finish floor varying by several inches (from 6522.50 up to 6522.84), a single architectural datum of 100'-0" cannot map to a singular civil benchmark. If the building has stepped or sloping interior floor slabs, the architectural exterior elevations ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify which specific Finished Floor elevation on the Civil Grading Plan (C-102) corresponds to the Architectural 100'-0" FIRST FLOOR datum shown on A-202. If the building features stepped floor slabs, please update the architectural elevations to accurately reflect th...

RFI draft: Please clarify which specific Finished Floor elevation on the Civil Grading Plan (C-102) corresponds to the Architectural 100'-0" FIRST FLOOR datum shown on A-202. If the building features stepped floor slabs, please update the architectural eleva...

Summary: The mechanical HVAC plan (M-101) shows ductwork connected to exhaust fans CE-1 (Janitor 105) and CE-2 (Janitor 109) labeled with an airflow of '300 CFM' and using air device mark 'B'. However, the Exhaust Fan Schedule on M-601 specifies a capacity of 125 CFM for both CE-1 and CE-2 (supported by the Roof Hood Schedule which also lists 125 CFM). Additionally, the Air Device Schedule on M-601 list...

Why it matters: This discrepancy creates confusion for procurement, balancing, and installation. Sizing fans and ductwork for 300 CFM contradicts the scheduled 125 CFM capacity, potentially leading to unbalanced exhaust airflow and improper equipment sizing for the janitor closets. Furthermore, installing a 4-wa...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the design exhaust airflow for fans CE-1 and CE-2 (125 CFM as scheduled vs. 300 CFM as shown on the plan). Additionally, confirm if the air device for these exhaust branches should be revised from mark 'B' (Supply) to an appropriate exhaust register.

RFI draft: Please clarify the design exhaust airflow for fans CE-1 and CE-2 (125 CFM as scheduled vs. 300 CFM as shown on the plan). Additionally, confirm if the air device for these exhaust branches should be revised from mark 'B' (Supply) to an appropriate...

Summary: Wall Section A6 (Page 32) calls out detail 'C7 / A-502' for the high parapet connection. Section A6 explicitly illustrates a double-stud framing assembly for this parapet, pointing to two distinct vertical stud layers and calling out '05 4000.S (6")' twice. However, the referenced Detail C7 (Page 38) contradicts this by illustrating a standard single-stud parapet framing assembly with only one ...

Why it matters: This conflict directly affects structural framing calculations, material takeoffs, and the overall thickness of the parapet wall. It also impacts the required width of the metal coping cap (07 7100.C). If unaddressed, it will lead to RFIs, incorrect material procurement, and potential delays duri...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required framing configuration for the high parapet at Wall Section A6. Should the parapet be framed with a single 6" stud layer as shown in Detail C7/A-502, or a double 6" stud layer as depicted in Wall Section A6/A-305?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required framing configuration for the high parapet at Wall Section A6. Should the parapet be framed with a single 6" stud layer as shown in Detail C7/A-502, or a double 6" stud layer as depicted in Wall Section A6/A-305?

Summary: The Enlarged Stair Plan A1/A-403, referenced from the Floor Plan on A-102, specifies a stair run as "(17) T @ 11" = 14' - 8"". This contains a mathematical contradiction: 17 treads at 11 inches equals 15'-7", not 14'-8". A run dimension of 14'-8" corresponds exactly to 16 treads (176 inches). Furthermore, Stair Section C1/A-403 for this same flight explicitly indicates "(17) R @ 7"", confirming...

Why it matters: Incorrect tread counts on stair plans can lead to framing layout errors, incorrect stringer fabrication, and issues meeting code-required run lengths and clearances during construction. The discrepancy must be clarified to ensure the stair fits within the designated shaft dimensions and complies ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the stair run shown in Plan A1/A-403 should be labeled as "(16) T @ 11" = 14'-8"" to align with the overall run dimension and the 17 risers detailed in Section C1/A-403.

RFI draft: Please confirm if the stair run shown in Plan A1/A-403 should be labeled as "(16) T @ 11" = 14'-8"" to align with the overall run dimension and the 17 risers detailed in Section C1/A-403.

Summary: The Architectural exterior elevations define a single, continuous 'FIRST FLOOR' datum at 100'-0" across the building facade (as shown on the North Elevation) and state that this 100'-0" elevation refers to the Civil Grading Plan. Conversely, the Civil Grading Plan specifies multiple differing Finished Floor (FF) elevations across the building footprint (e.g., FF 6522.75, FF=6522.52, FF=6522.50,...

Why it matters: This discrepancy prevents accurate coordination of the architectural 100'-0" datum with the civil real-world coordinates. If the building has stepped slabs varying by over 4 inches (e.g., 6522.50 to 6522.84), using a single 100'-0" First Floor reference on the exterior elevations will result in i...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the architectural First Floor datum coordinate. Should the architectural elevations be updated to reflect stepped floor lines, or should the civil grading plan be revised to a single unified finished floor elevation? Please provide the specific civil elevation t...

RFI draft: Please clarify the architectural First Floor datum coordinate. Should the architectural elevations be updated to reflect stepped floor lines, or should the civil grading plan be revised to a single unified finished floor elevation? Please provide ...