Plan Review: 74 Issues Found

Summary: 31 index entries | 13 perfect matches | 1 mismatched | 17 missing Mismatched (1): A3.01: Expected: BUILDING SECTIONS 1 (A3.01) | Actual: BUILDING SECTIONS (A3.01)(p7) Missing (17) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: T: - T1.00 TITLE SHEET Structural: - S1.01 FOUNDATION PLAN - S1.02 ROOF FRAMING PLAN - S2.01 SECTION AND DETAILS - S2.02 ...

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: 17 missing, 1 mismatched out of 31 sheets

Summary: The door schedule on the drawing lists Door 102 (Water Room) and Door 103 (Electrical Room) each with a fire rating of 1 HR. However, the Code Compliance & Egress Plans specification shows that the walls separating the Water Room (102) and Electrical Room (103) from the adjacent tenant spaces are 2-hour fire-rated walls. Per IBC 2003 (the applicable code referenced in the specification) Table 7...

Why it matters: Installing 1-hour fire-rated doors in 2-hour fire-rated walls would compromise the fire compartmentalization between the utility rooms and the tenant spaces, potentially violating the building code and failing fire marshal inspection. This could delay permitting and require costly door and frame ...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the required fire protection rating for doors 102 and 103. Per IBC 2003 Table 714.2, doors in 2-hour fire-rated walls require a minimum 1-1/2 hour fire protection rating. Please confirm whether the door schedule should be revised to specify 1-1/2 HR (9...

RFI draft: Request clarification on the required fire protection rating for doors 102 and 103. Per IBC 2003 Table 714.2, doors in 2-hour fire-rated walls require a minimum 1-1/2 hour fire protection rating. Please confirm whether the door schedule should be ...

Summary: The First Floor Code Compliance Plan explicitly shows a required egress door for 'TENANT-1 101' on the exterior wall between vertical Grids 1 and 2.2, complete with a '60 / 180' exit capacity notation. However, the North Elevation for this same exterior wall area (between Grids 1 and 2.2) shows a continuous 'CEMENTITIOUS WALL PANEL SYSTEM' and three 'SF-3' storefront windows, with no exterior e...

Why it matters: Omitting a required egress door on the architectural elevations contradicts the approved life safety egress strategy. This will result in a failure to meet the egress capacity required for the space, leading to building code violations, failed permitting, and severe safety risks. The architectura...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if an exterior egress door should be added to the North Elevation for Tenant-1 between Grids 1 and 2.2 to match the Life Safety Plan, or if the egress plan will be revised to route this capacity elsewhere.

RFI draft: Please clarify if an exterior egress door should be added to the North Elevation for Tenant-1 between Grids 1 and 2.2 to match the Life Safety Plan, or if the egress plan will be revised to route this capacity elsewhere.

Summary: Detail 1/A8.01 illustrates a stepped exterior wall profile near the intersection of Grids 3 and F, featuring an outside corner and a recessed inside corner where fiberboard transitions to masonry. This indicates a complex building footprint with a jog or recess. However, the First Floor Plan on T1.05 indicates that the area bounded by Grids 1-3 and B-F is fully enclosed as the interior of Tenan...

Why it matters: A mismatch between the detailed building envelope geometry (showing a jog/recess) and the overall floor/code plan (showing a simple rectangle) creates a major coordination failure. If the stepped facade with the inside corner is physically accurate, the building footprint, area calculations, and ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the building footprint near the intersection of Grids 3 and F. Does the exterior envelope feature a stepped jog with an inside corner as shown in Detail 1/A8.01, or is the perimeter a simple 4-sided rectangle as indicated by the First Floor Plan (T1.05) and area...

RFI draft: Please clarify the building footprint near the intersection of Grids 3 and F. Does the exterior envelope feature a stepped jog with an inside corner as shown in Detail 1/A8.01, or is the perimeter a simple 4-sided rectangle as indicated by the Fir...

Summary: The drawing's Concrete Notes state that all concrete for foundations shall have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3,000 PSI. However, Specification Section 03 30 00 requires foundation concrete to have a 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 PSI, air-entrained. This is a direct, measurable conflict between the drawing and the specification — the drawing underspecifies the required foundat...

Why it matters: Foundations poured at 3,000 PSI instead of the specified 4,000 PSI would be structurally deficient and would not meet the durability requirements for concrete exposed to weather, freezing, and thawing. If discovered after placement, removal and replacement of foundations would cause significant c...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer confirm the required compressive strength for all foundation concrete. Specification Section 03 30 00, Paragraph 2.2.E requires 4,000 PSI air-entrained for foundations and work exposed to weather, while the drawing's Concrete Notes state 3,000 P...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer confirm the required compressive strength for all foundation concrete. Specification Section 03 30 00, Paragraph 2.2.E requires 4,000 PSI air-entrained for foundations and work exposed to weather, while the drawing'...

Summary: The drawing's Roof Deck Notes explicitly state 'STEEL DECK SHALL BE PAINTED' and Roof Framing Note 2 reiterates 'ROOF DECK SHALL BE PRIME-PAINTED 1-1/2" 20 GAGE, TYPE "B" ROOF DECK'. However, Specification Section 05 30 00, Part 2.01.B.1 requires 'Metal roof deck: 1-1/2" deep, Type "B", 20 gage galvanized steel deck with nesting side seams formed from hot dipped galvanized steel sheets, conform...

Why it matters: This material conflict will directly impact procurement. If the contractor orders painted deck per the drawing, the material will not comply with the specification and will be rejected during submittals or field inspection. If discovered after installation, the deck would need to be removed and r...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the roof deck finish requirement. The drawing Roof Deck Notes and Roof Framing Note 2 specify a prime-painted roof deck, while Specification Section 05 30 00, 2.01.B.1 requires a hot-dipped galvanized steel deck with G-60 zinc coating. Please confirm w...

RFI draft: Request clarification on the roof deck finish requirement. The drawing Roof Deck Notes and Roof Framing Note 2 specify a prime-painted roof deck, while Specification Section 05 30 00, 2.01.B.1 requires a hot-dipped galvanized steel deck with G-60 ...

Summary: Roof Framing Note 10 on S1.02 explicitly instructs the contractor to provide masonry piers beneath steel girder ends and states: "REFER TO 9 AND 10/S2.03." However, Detail 9 on S2.03 is a bond beam lintel detail over an opening, and Detail 10 on S2.03 is a roof support detail over metal studs. Neither illustrates the required masonry pier construction. Furthermore, Detail 11 on S2.03 (the actua...

Why it matters: A chain of broken references leaves the structural requirements for the masonry piers (pilasters) undefined. Without the correct details, the contractor cannot properly construct or reinforce the masonry support beneath the steel girders, which poses a significant structural risk and will halt ma...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct detail references for the masonry piers beneath steel girder ends. Confirm if Roof Framing Note 10 should reference Details 11 and 12/S2.03 instead of 9 and 10/S2.03, and provide the correct references for the bond beam and pilaster called out in Det...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct detail references for the masonry piers beneath steel girder ends. Confirm if Roof Framing Note 10 should reference Details 11 and 12/S2.03 instead of 9 and 10/S2.03, and provide the correct references for the bond beam ...

Summary: The architectural roof plan (A1.02) dimensions the spacing between grid lines 2.2 and 3 as 12'-5", while the structural roof framing plan (S1.02) dimensions this same grid spacing as 12'-3". This is a 2" discrepancy in a fundamental building grid dimension that both drawings share.

Why it matters: A 2" discrepancy in the structural grid directly affects column placement, beam lengths, steel joist spans, roof deck layout, and all subsequent trade coordination referenced from grid line 3. If steel is fabricated to the structural dimension, architectural cladding and partitions dimensioned fr...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct dimension between grid lines 2.2 and 3. The architectural roof plan (A1.02) shows 12'-5" while the structural roof framing plan (S1.02) shows 12'-3". Which is the correct grid spacing? Please confirm and issue revised drawings to the affected discipl...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct dimension between grid lines 2.2 and 3. The architectural roof plan (A1.02) shows 12'-5" while the structural roof framing plan (S1.02) shows 12'-3". Which is the correct grid spacing? Please confirm and issue revised dr...

Summary: Architectural wall section Detail 2/A4.03 (WALL SECTION @ SEAMED METAL WALL SYSTEM) shows the foundation wall thickness dimensioned as 1'-4". Structural Detail 10/S2.01 (FOUNDATION WALL DETAIL) for the same general condition—a concrete foundation wall supporting metal stud framing—shows the foundation wall as 1'-0" thick, with 6" footing projections on each side yielding a total 2'-0" footing w...

Why it matters: A 4-inch difference in foundation wall thickness impacts concrete quantities, formwork sizing, excavation widths, and coordination with below-grade waterproofing, protection board, and rigid insulation. If the structural design and footing reinforcement were calculated based on a 1'-0" wall, incr...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the foundation wall thickness at metal stud/panel wall perimeter locations. Architectural Detail 2/A4.03 and Detail 3/A4.02 indicate a foundation wall thickness of 1'-4", while Structural Detail 10/S2.01 indicates 1'-0". Which dimension is correct? If 1'-4" is t...

RFI draft: Please clarify the foundation wall thickness at metal stud/panel wall perimeter locations. Architectural Detail 2/A4.03 and Detail 3/A4.02 indicate a foundation wall thickness of 1'-4", while Structural Detail 10/S2.01 indicates 1'-0". Which dimen...

Summary: The architectural roof plan (A1.02) shows the bay between grids 4 and 4.8 with sub-dimensions of 8" (from grid 4 to inner edge of the right roof section) plus 24'-6" (from inner edge to grid 4.8), totaling 25'-2". The structural roof framing plan (S1.02) dimensions this same grid spacing as 25'-4". This is a 2" discrepancy in a primary building grid dimension.

Why it matters: This 2" discrepancy in the largest bay of the building affects steel joist spans, beam lengths, column locations, roof deck layout, and exterior wall/cladding coordination in the right-hand bay. The structural steel fabricator requires a single correct dimension for shop drawings, and this confli...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct grid-to-grid dimension between lines 4 and 4.8. The architectural roof plan (A1.02) sub-dimensions (8" + 24'-6") imply a total of 25'-2", while the structural roof framing plan (S1.02) shows 25'-4". Which is correct? Please confirm and issue revised ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct grid-to-grid dimension between lines 4 and 4.8. The architectural roof plan (A1.02) sub-dimensions (8" + 24'-6") imply a total of 25'-2", while the structural roof framing plan (S1.02) shows 25'-4". Which is correct? Ple...

Summary: Architectural plan A1.01 shows an interior "STEEL TUBE COLUMN, TYP." located on grid line 2 (between horizontal grids E and F). However, Structural foundation plan S1.01 does not show an isolated footing or pier at this interior location along grid 2; it only details a perimeter pier (P1) at the exterior wall on grid 2.

Why it matters: If the foundation is poured according to S1.01, there will be no structural support for the interior column specified by the architectural drawings. This will cause construction delays as a new footing and pier must be designed, excavated, and poured retroactively.

Suggested next step: Architectural plan A1.01 details an interior steel tube column on Grid 2 between Grids E and F, but Foundation Plan S1.01 does not show a corresponding isolated footing/pier. Please clarify if a foundation should be added at this location on S1.01, or if the column should be r...

RFI draft: Architectural plan A1.01 details an interior steel tube column on Grid 2 between Grids E and F, but Foundation Plan S1.01 does not show a corresponding isolated footing/pier. Please clarify if a foundation should be added at this location on S1.01...

Summary: Wall Section 2 on A4.02 is titled 'WALL SECTION @ PANELIZED METAL WALL SYSTEM' and Wall Section 3 is titled 'WALL SECTION @ STOREFRONT ON PANELIZED METAL PANEL,' both designating the exterior assembly as EW-3 with a 'STEEL CLIP SYSTEM' at the parapet. These wall sections reference Detail 5/A8.01 at the parapet and Detail 6/A8.01 at the base. However, Detail 5 on A8.01 is titled 'PARAPET @ CEMEN...

Why it matters: This conflict directly impacts material procurement, subcontractor scope, and installation methodology. Panelized metal wall panels and cementitious fiber cement wall panels are fundamentally different products requiring different attachment systems, joint treatments, and weatherproofing details....

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the EW-3 exterior wall assembly uses panelized metal panels (as described in the wall sections on A4.02) or cementitious/fiber cement panels (as described in the details on A8.01). Confirm the correct cladding attachment system—steel clip system or fiber cement...

RFI draft: Clarify whether the EW-3 exterior wall assembly uses panelized metal panels (as described in the wall sections on A4.02) or cementitious/fiber cement panels (as described in the details on A8.01). Confirm the correct cladding attachment system—ste...

Summary: The 'STOREFRONT SCHEDULE' on drawing A9.01 specifies Head Detail 'H1' uniformly for all storefront types (SF-1 through SF-5). However, the 'STOREFRONT TYPES' elevations on A9.01 specify different head details for these assemblies, such as 'H3/A9.02' for SF-1 and 'H2/A9.02' for SF-5. Furthermore, Detail H1 on A9.02 is explicitly titled 'STOREFRONT HEAD @ PORTAL WINDOW' (which corresponds only to...

Why it matters: If contractors follow the STOREFRONT SCHEDULE verbatim, they will prepare the rough openings and frame all storefronts using the 'Portal Window' head condition (H1). This will result in improper integration and potential waterproofing failures where the storefronts actually interface with cementi...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct head detail assignments for storefronts SF-1, SF-2, SF-4, and SF-5. Should the Storefront Schedule on A9.01 be updated to reflect the H2 and H3 head details called out in the elevations and detailed on A9.02?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct head detail assignments for storefronts SF-1, SF-2, SF-4, and SF-5. Should the Storefront Schedule on A9.01 be updated to reflect the H2 and H3 head details called out in the elevations and detailed on A9.02?

Summary: Wall Section 1 (WALL SECTION @ STOREFRONT - RECESSED) and Wall Section 2 (WALL SECTION @ PANELIZED METAL WALL SYSTEM) on sheet A4.02 both reference detail S3/A9.03 at the base of the storefront for the enlarged foundation condition. Both wall sections indicate a 6" dimension at the foundation footing. However, the referenced detail S3 on sheet A9.03 (BASE CONDITION @ STOREFRONT ENTRY) shows a t...

Why it matters: The discrepancy between a 6" and a 10" (2"+8") foundation wall has significant implications for structural adequacy, concrete formwork, and footing sizing. If the contractor follows the wall section dimension of 6", the foundation may be undersized relative to structural requirements. If they fol...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct foundation wall thickness at the base of the storefront. Wall Sections 1 and 2 on A4.02 indicate 6" while the referenced detail S3 on A9.03 indicates 10" (2" + 8"). Please confirm the correct dimension and update the conflicting drawing(s) accordingly.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct foundation wall thickness at the base of the storefront. Wall Sections 1 and 2 on A4.02 indicate 6" while the referenced detail S3 on A9.03 indicates 10" (2" + 8"). Please confirm the correct dimension and update the con...

Summary: The Foundation Plan explicitly calls out section detail 1/S2.03 at the perimeter foundation wall for locations noted as 'T/WALL AT DOOR (-0'-8")'. However, Detail 1 on sheet S2.03 ('FOUNDATION WALL DETAIL') depicts a typical continuous foundation assembly with an 8" CMU wall extending vertically above the concrete slab-on-grade. It does not show a doorway, depressed sill, or threshold condition.

Why it matters: If the contractor strictly follows the referenced Detail 1/S2.03 at the door openings, a full-height 8" CMU wall will be built directly across the doorways, completely blocking access. A specific door sill or threshold detail should be referenced at these locations instead of a typical continuous...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct detail to be used for the foundation wall at door locations. Should a different detail be referenced for the door sill/threshold condition, or will Detail 1/S2.03 be revised to illustrate the wall depression at the door opening?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct detail to be used for the foundation wall at door locations. Should a different detail be referenced for the door sill/threshold condition, or will Detail 1/S2.03 be revised to illustrate the wall depression at the door ...