Multi-Discipline Drawing Package QA: 385 Issues Found

Summary: The civil grading/drainage sheet identifies the 'CTE BUILDING' as 20,015 S.F., while the architectural enlarged site plan identifies the 'CTE BUILDING' as 17,847 S.F. These are conflicting building areas for the same named building.

Why it matters: This discrepancy can affect permitting and construction coordination, including building footprint/site work limits, civil grading/drainage quantities, and downstream code/occupancy-related calculations that rely on building area.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct CTE BUILDING square footage to be used for this project and revise the sheet(s) as needed so the C.01 and A1.03 labels match. If one value represents a different area basis (e.g., gross vs. net), clarify explicitly on both sheets.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct CTE BUILDING square footage to be used for this project and revise the sheet(s) as needed so the C.01 and A1.03 labels match. If one value represents a different area basis (e.g., gross vs. net), clarify explicitly on both sheets.

Summary: The title sheet “APPLICABLE CODES” identifies the governing electrical and energy codes as later editions (2025 CEC and 2022 Energy Code). Division 26 (spec ground truth) requires the electrical work to be constructed in accordance with the 2019 California Electrical Code and 2019 California Energy Code. These code editions are not the same,...

Why it matters: Conflicting code editions can trigger DSA/permit review comments, redesign, and re-submittals (e.g., differing NEC/CEC and Title 24 energy requirements), causing schedule delays and cost impacts if the project is bid/constructed under the wrong code basis.

Suggested next step: Confirm the governing code editions for the project (CEC and Title 24 Energy) to be used for design/permitting. Revise the title sheet code list to match the specification-required code editions, or issue a specification addendum revising Division 26 requirements to the approved governing code year.

RFI draft: Confirm the governing code editions for the project (CEC and Title 24 Energy) to be used for design/permitting. Revise the title sheet code list to match the specification-required code editions, or issue a specification addendum revising Division 26 requirements to the approved governing code year.

Summary: The drawing note at the Pump Station Discharge Structure states: “FORCE MAIN DISCHARGE PIPE MUST BE AWWA C-900 CLASS 165 OR EQUIVALENT.” The project specification for “PVC DISTRIBUTION PIPE (AWWA C900)” requires C900 pipe to be “DR 14,” which is not aligned with a “Class 165” callout and creates a material/wall class ambiguity for C900 PVC. In...

Why it matters: If the discharge/force main piping is procured and installed to “C900 Class 165 (or equivalent)” without reconciling the DR 14 requirement, the installed pipe may not meet the specified C900 DR requirement. Separately, unclear segmentation between “individual ductile iron discharges below surface grade” and the downstream force main/discharge...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required material and wall class/pressure class for: (1) the 3-inch individual pump discharge piping below surface grade, and (2) the downstream force main discharge pipe at/through the discharge structure/valve vault. Should the discharge structure note be revised to specify AWWA C900 DR14 (or other required DR/pressure...

RFI draft: Please confirm the required material and wall class/pressure class for: (1) the 3-inch individual pump discharge piping below surface grade, and (2) the downstream force main discharge pipe at/through the discharge structure/valve vault. Should the discharge structure note be revised to specify...

Summary: The floor plan keynote identifies the large exterior opening/door assembly as a “SCHWEISS STEEL BI-FOLD DOOR”. Section 08 36 00 requires glazed aluminum sectional overhead doors by Overhead Door Corporation (521 Series) and explicitly does not allow substitutions, so the specified bi-fold door conflicts with the specification-required overhead...

Why it matters: This conflict will prevent compliant submittals/procurement and can cause major schedule and cost impacts if discovered after shop drawings are underway (re-design of opening/headroom, structural supports, operator coordination, and re-bidding).

Suggested next step: Confirm whether Opening/Door at Keynote 201 is intended to be a sectional overhead door per Section 08 36 00 (Overhead Door 521 Series). If a bi-fold door is intended, issue a specification revision identifying the correct section/product and explicitly allowing that manufacturer/product; otherwise revise the drawings/keynote to match Section...

RFI draft: Confirm whether Opening/Door at Keynote 201 is intended to be a sectional overhead door per Section 08 36 00 (Overhead Door 521 Series). If a bi-fold door is intended, issue a specification revision identifying the correct section/product and explicitly allowing that manufacturer/product;...

Summary: The roof plan keynotes explicitly direct to “PROVIDE BUILD-UP ROOFING,” which conflicts with Section 07 52 00 identifying a specific roofing system materials schedule (FlexBase Plus 80 base sheet with KEE-Stone HP thermoplastic/modified cap sheet).

Why it matters: If built-up roofing (BUR) is purchased/installed per the roof plan notes instead of the specified membrane system, it can cause submittal rejection, warranty/manufacturer inspection failure, and significant rework/cost due to incompatibility with specified installation requirements and materials.

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended roof system for all roof areas: revise Keynote 302 (and any related roof-type notes) to match the Section 07 52 00 specified system (FlexBase Plus 80 base + KEE-Stone HP cap), or formally modify the specification to match the drawings.

RFI draft: Confirm the intended roof system for all roof areas: revise Keynote 302 (and any related roof-type notes) to match the Section 07 52 00 specified system (FlexBase Plus 80 base + KEE-Stone HP cap), or formally modify the specification to match the drawings.

Summary: The door schedule identifies D05 as a “MOTORIZED BI-FOLD DOOR” with “FRAME MATERIAL” and “DOOR MATERIAL” listed as “ALUM” and the finish noted as “DARK BRONZE ANODIZED.” Section 08 36 19 (Vertically Bi-Fold Hangar Door) requires the bi-fold door framework to be “jig welded steel tube sections” with framing members “ASTM A500 Grade B” steel...

Why it matters: If the bi-fold door is procured per the schedule (aluminum and anodized bronze), it may not meet the specified structural design basis and coating system, leading to rejected submittals, redesign/re-fabrication, and major installation delays/cost overruns for a specialty door package.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether D05 is the Section 08 36 19 vertically bi-fold door. If yes, revise D05 materials/finish to comply (steel tube framework ASTM A500 Grade B with factory gray primer) or issue a formal spec change if aluminum/anodized is intended.

RFI draft: Confirm whether D05 is the Section 08 36 19 vertically bi-fold door. If yes, revise D05 materials/finish to comply (steel tube framework ASTM A500 Grade B with factory gray primer) or issue a formal spec change if aluminum/anodized is intended.

Summary: The door schedule general notes state panic hardware may be mounted as low as 34 inches above finished floor and allow up to 15 lb unlatching force. The door type elevations also show the 34' MIN / 44' MAX mounting zone. Section 08 71 00 requires panic hardware to be located between 36' and 44' AFF and limits operable-part activation force to...

Why it matters: If installed per the drawing note (34' AFF and/or 15 lb operation), the work would not meet the project’s door hardware specification and could fail accessibility/code review and inspections, causing rework and schedule impacts (replacement/re-drilling of devices/patching/refinishing).

Suggested next step: Revise Door Schedule general notes and door type/elevation mounting-zone callouts to match Section 08 71 00 requirements for panic hardware mounting height (36'-44' AFF) and maximum operating force (5.0 lb). Confirm whether any doors are intended to have non-panic hardware at 34'-44' AFF and clarify which callouts apply to panic vs. other...

RFI draft: Revise Door Schedule general notes and door type/elevation mounting-zone callouts to match Section 08 71 00 requirements for panic hardware mounting height (36'-44' AFF) and maximum operating force (5.0 lb). Confirm whether any doors are intended to have non-panic hardware at 34'-44' AFF and...

Summary: Multiple roof penetration details call out a PVC roof membrane and Hypalon flashing membrane, and one detail states Siplast requirements apply. This directly conflicts with the specification, which defines the roof system as a modified bituminous “Cold Applied 2-Ply Thermoplastic Hybrid Roof System (KEE-Stone)” with Garland as the acceptable...

Why it matters: If the project is bid/installed using the drawn PVC/Hypalon/Siplast materials, it will not comply with the specified Garland KEE-Stone system and single-manufacturer requirement, creating major procurement conflicts, warranty invalidation risk, and likely rework/delay to reconcile roof system selection.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required roof system for this project: (1) revise these roof details to match Section 07 52 00 Garland KEE‑Stone requirements (materials, flashings, accessories, manufacturer), or (2) issue a specification revision if PVC/Hypalon/Siplast is intended.

RFI draft: Confirm the required roof system for this project: (1) revise these roof details to match Section 07 52 00 Garland KEE‑Stone requirements (materials, flashings, accessories, manufacturer), or (2) issue a specification revision if PVC/Hypalon/Siplast is intended.

Summary: The toilet partition pilaster mounting detail specifies a '22 GA. STAINLESS STEEL PLINTH' and a '1/4\' X 1 7/8\' TITEN HD ANCHOR'. The specification requires pilaster shoes/caps to be formed one-piece plastic and requires pilaster anchorages to have not less than 2 in. penetration into the structural floor (unless otherwise recommended by the...

Why it matters: This is likely to be rejected during submittal review/installation inspection, and could require replacement of installed pilaster bases and re-drilling/patching of floor anchor locations, causing schedule delays and added cost.

Suggested next step: Revise the pilaster base detail to match the specified HDPE compartment system: show manufacturer’s formed one-piece plastic pilaster shoe/cap and anchorage with minimum 2' penetration into structural floor (or provide written manufacturer recommendation supporting an exception). Confirm the intended base/shoe product and anchorage type/length.

RFI draft: Revise the pilaster base detail to match the specified HDPE compartment system: show manufacturer’s formed one-piece plastic pilaster shoe/cap and anchorage with minimum 2' penetration into structural floor (or provide written manufacturer recommendation supporting an exception). Confirm the...

Summary: The structural general notes state the project design criteria is based on “(CBC 2025) BUILDING CODE.” However, the project specifications require all work to conform to the “2022 Edition of California Building Code and State Building Code, Title 24.”

Why it matters: Using a different adopted code basis can lead to DSA/authority rejections, redesign, and rework (e.g., seismic/wind provisions, detailing, inspections), causing permitting and construction delays and added cost.

Suggested next step: Confirm the governing code edition for this project. If 2022 CBC/Title 24 is required, revise the drawings to remove “CBC 2025” references and align all design criteria/notes accordingly (or issue a formal spec change if 2025 is intended and permitted).

RFI draft: Confirm the governing code edition for this project. If 2022 CBC/Title 24 is required, revise the drawings to remove “CBC 2025” references and align all design criteria/notes accordingly (or issue a formal spec change if 2025 is intended and permitted).

Summary: The Title 24 fenestration assembly summary identifies the exterior fenestration glazing as “SOLARBAN 65 (2)” and also lists “SOLARBAN 65 (1)” for the storefront door assembly. The specification requires “PPG Solarban 60 (3)” for exterior glazing. This is a direct product conflict between the energy compliance documentation in the drawing set...

Why it matters: If the project is built per spec (Solarban 60 (3)) but the permitted Title 24 compliance documentation is based on Solarban 65, the compliance forms may not match installed construction and could require re-modeling/re-issuance and re-acceptance. If the project is built per the Title 24 report (Solarban 65), it would not comply with the...

Suggested next step: Confirm the required exterior glazing product for all fenestration. If Solarban 60 (3) is required by the specification, revise/re-issue the Title 24 documentation (and any related schedules) to match. If Solarban 65 is intended, issue a formal spec revision/approved substitution direction.

RFI draft: Confirm the required exterior glazing product for all fenestration. If Solarban 60 (3) is required by the specification, revise/re-issue the Title 24 documentation (and any related schedules) to match. If Solarban 65 is intended, issue a formal spec revision/approved substitution direction.

Summary: The drawing’s “APPLICABLE CODE REQUIREMENTS” note identifies the governing codes as 2025 editions (including the California Electrical Code). The project specifications explicitly require construction in accordance with the 2019 California Electrical Code (and other 2019 Title 24 codes). This is a direct contradiction between the drawing...

Why it matters: Conflicting governing code editions can lead to DSA/AHJ plan review rejection, incorrect equipment/material selection and installation criteria, and rework/change orders if work is performed to the wrong code cycle.

Suggested next step: Confirm the governing code cycle for this project (2019 vs 2025). Revise the drawing “APPLICABLE CODE REQUIREMENTS” note to match the specifications, or issue a formal addendum revising the specifications and design basis if 2025 is intended.

RFI draft: Confirm the governing code cycle for this project (2019 vs 2025). Revise the drawing “APPLICABLE CODE REQUIREMENTS” note to match the specifications, or issue a formal addendum revising the specifications and design basis if 2025 is intended.

Summary: The drawing symbol legend defines the smoke detector and smoke/CO detector as 'INTERCONNECTED W/ BATTERY BACK-UP,' which indicates a standalone interconnect-type system. Section 28 31 00 requires addressable Notifier smoke detectors (FAPT-851 with B710LP base) as part of an addressable fire alarm system.

Why it matters: If contractors follow the legend, they may furnish/install non-addressable, battery-backed interconnect detectors instead of addressable initiating devices on the FACP SLC, causing failed submittals/inspection, rework of devices and wiring, and schedule delays.

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended smoke/CO detection device type is addressable (per Section 28 31 00) and revise the E0.00 symbol legend device descriptions to match the specified addressable Notifier devices and system architecture (FACP/SLC), removing 'interconnected w/ battery back-up' if not applicable.

RFI draft: Confirm the intended smoke/CO detection device type is addressable (per Section 28 31 00) and revise the E0.00 symbol legend device descriptions to match the specified addressable Notifier devices and system architecture (FACP/SLC), removing 'interconnected w/ battery back-up' if not applicable.

Summary: The fire alarm riser/symbol schedule identifies the new main fire alarm panel/FACP as NOTIFIER N-16X. The specification requires the Main FACP (or network node) to be a NOTIFIER Model NFS2-640.

Why it matters: A different FACP model affects compatibility, programming, interfaces, and required submittals. If the specified panel is enforced during review/submittals, this discrepancy can cause re-submittals, procurement changes, and installation rework.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the project’s required Main FACP is NOTIFIER NFS2-640 (per specification). If so, revise the riser diagram, symbol matrix, and battery calculations to match. If N-16X is intended, request an approved substitution and update the specification accordingly.

RFI draft: Confirm whether the project’s required Main FACP is NOTIFIER NFS2-640 (per specification). If so, revise the riser diagram, symbol matrix, and battery calculations to match. If N-16X is intended, request an approved substitution and update the specification accordingly.

Summary: The riser diagram shows the notification appliance circuit terminated with “EOL STROBE” and “EOL SPEAKER” and the symbol matrix includes an “END OF LINE RESISTOR.” The specification requires Notification Appliance Circuits (NAC) to be wired Class A (NFPA Style Z).

Why it matters: If installed as shown with EOL terminations (i.e., not a Class A return), the NAC wiring topology would not meet the specified performance requirement, potentially causing AHJ review/inspection failure and requiring re-pulling/rewiring of NAC circuits.

Suggested next step: Confirm required NAC wiring class. If Class A (Style Z) is required (per specification), revise the riser/NAC diagram to show Class A return wiring (no EOL termination as the circuit endpoint). If Class B is intended, request specification revision/approved deviation.

RFI draft: Confirm required NAC wiring class. If Class A (Style Z) is required (per specification), revise the riser/NAC diagram to show Class A return wiring (no EOL termination as the circuit endpoint). If Class B is intended, request specification revision/approved deviation.