Plan Review: 411 Issues Found

Summary: Sheet S409 shows site/basin vertical control using elevations like "GRADE EL 870.00'" and "TOC EL 855.00'". However, sheet S413’s pipe support/stanchion baseplate schedule lists "TOC EL (FT)" values such as "742.67" (e.g., PS-1/PS-2). These TOC elevations are not in the same elevation range as S409, suggesting a conflicting vertical datum or incorrect TOC values for the pipe support schedule re...

Why it matters: If these TOC elevations are intended to coordinate with the same AGS Basin structural surfaces shown on S409, the discrepancy could cause pipe supports to be fabricated/installed at the wrong elevation, affecting process piping elevations/clearances and potentially requiring rework or field modif...

Suggested next step: Confirm whether S413 pipe support schedule elevations ("TOC EL (FT)") use a different vertical datum than S409. If they should match the same project datum, provide corrected TOC/grade elevations for PS-1 through PS-4 (and any other pipe supports) and identify the controlling ...

RFI draft: Confirm whether S413 pipe support schedule elevations ("TOC EL (FT)") use a different vertical datum than S409. If they should match the same project datum, provide corrected TOC/grade elevations for PS-1 through PS-4 (and any other pipe supports)...

Summary: S407 shows a base plate anchor note calling for 3/4" diameter anchor rods with adhesive and an embedment of 6" typical, while S412 shows 3/4" anchor rods with 1'-0" typical embedment. These two embedment requirements conflict for 3/4" anchor rod installation.

Why it matters: Embedment depth directly affects anchor capacity, edge distance/rebar conflicts, drilling/setting requirements, and inspection acceptance. Using the wrong embedment could result in inadequate anchorage or field rework.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required 3/4" anchor rod embedment for the applicable AGS Basin base plate/GB conditions: is the correct embedment 6" (adhesive) or 1'-0" (typ)? Also confirm whether anchors are intended to be adhesive-installed or cast-in, and revise details/notes to match.

RFI draft: Confirm the required 3/4" anchor rod embedment for the applicable AGS Basin base plate/GB conditions: is the correct embedment 6" (adhesive) or 1'-0" (typ)? Also confirm whether anchors are intended to be adhesive-installed or cast-in, and revise ...

Summary: On the AGS Basin elevation, the overall span dimension is not consistent between the two sheets. S407 shows an overall dimension of 358'-0", while S406 shows 354'-0" for the elevation callout labeled "A". These cannot both be correct for the same basin elevation run.

Why it matters: A 4'-0" discrepancy in the overall structure length can shift grid alignment, wall joint/penetration locations, and associated foundations/supports, creating major fit-up conflicts with process/mechanical interfaces and construction layout.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct overall AGS Basin elevation length for Elevation "A" and identify which sheet(s) must be revised so the overall dimension and dependent segment dimensions match throughout the drawing set.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct overall AGS Basin elevation length for Elevation "A" and identify which sheet(s) must be revised so the overall dimension and dependent segment dimensions match throughout the drawing set.

Summary: S407 calls out four pipe penetrations as 30" diameter, while S409 calls out four 36" penetrations and four 24" penetrations. For the same AGS Basin wall/panel system, these penetration sizes and counts cannot both be correct without clarification of which penetrations/locations each callout applies to.

Why it matters: Mismatch in penetration diameters/quantities can cause incorrect blockouts/sleeves in precast and mis-sized reinforcing around openings, leading to field core-drilling, rework, schedule delays, and potential structural nonconformance.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required pipe penetration diameter(s) and total quantity for the AGS Basin wall shown on these sheets, and identify which grid spans/locations each penetration note applies to. Update S407 and/or S409 to match the process/mechanical requirements and penetration rei...

RFI draft: Confirm the required pipe penetration diameter(s) and total quantity for the AGS Basin wall shown on these sheets, and identify which grid spans/locations each penetration note applies to. Update S407 and/or S409 to match the process/mechanical re...

Summary: On S805, the wall in SECTION D (referenced as D/S804) is labeled as a precast wall. On S806, SECTION D (also referenced as D/S804) is labeled as an 8" CMU wall. The same section reference (D/S804) cannot represent two different primary wall systems.

Why it matters: This conflict affects the structural load path, connection detailing, quantities, and likely foundation/reinforcing requirements. If not corrected, it can lead to incorrect procurement/fabrication and field installation conflicts.

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended wall system for SECTION D (D/S804): precast wall or CMU wall. Revise the conflicting sheet(s) so SECTION D uses a single, coordinated wall type and associated connection details.

RFI draft: Confirm the intended wall system for SECTION D (D/S804): precast wall or CMU wall. Revise the conflicting sheet(s) so SECTION D uses a single, coordinated wall type and associated connection details.

Summary: On S404, a section labeled with the tag "A / S404" is for member mark BM-1 and shows "TOC EL 879.00'". On S413, a different section is also tagged "A / S404" but shows levels "TOS EL 873.25'" and "TOC EL 870.50'" with a steel frame/concrete beam condition. Additionally, the S404 plan calls out "A / S413", which conflicts with the S413 detail being tagged "A / S404" and increases the likelihood ...

Why it matters: This creates a high risk that the contractor will reference/build the wrong section at the called-out locations, leading to incorrect elevations and incorrect structural assemblies being installed.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct sheet/detail designation for each distinct section (BM-1 section at TOC EL 879.00' vs. the steel frame/concrete beam section at TOC EL 870.50'/TOS EL 873.25') and revise callouts so each section tag is unique and matches the intended sheet number (S4...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct sheet/detail designation for each distinct section (BM-1 section at TOC EL 879.00' vs. the steel frame/concrete beam section at TOC EL 870.50'/TOS EL 873.25') and revise callouts so each section tag is unique and matches...

Summary: The Administration Building north-side overall horizontal dimensioning does not match between the foundation plan and the floor plan. S801 shows an overall dimension of 74'-6" along the north exterior precast wall line, while S802 shows 79'-0" along the corresponding north exterior precast concrete wall line. These are direct contradictions for the same building perimeter baseline.

Why it matters: If the overall building length is inconsistent between foundation and slab/plan layout, grade beam/footing locations, precast wall panelization/embeds, and slab joints/equipment pads could be set out incorrectly, leading to field conflicts, rework, or misfit precast.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct overall north-side building dimension (is it 74'-6" or 79'-0"), identify the reference points being dimensioned (outside face of precast, gridlines, or control lines), and revise S801/S802 so the overall and intermediate dimension strings match and align wi...

RFI draft: Confirm the correct overall north-side building dimension (is it 74'-6" or 79'-0"), identify the reference points being dimensioned (outside face of precast, gridlines, or control lines), and revise S801/S802 so the overall and intermediate dimens...

Summary: On the Grading Plan, the beginning of the road is labeled at station 0+00.00, and spot elevations adjacent to station 0+00 are shown in the 912–913 range. The same station 0+00 is shown on the Stormwater Plan along MAIN ROAD-1 with structure tags “22” and “23”, but the Stormwater Schedule lists rim elevations for 22 and 23 as 874.99 and 869.30. These values do not align and suggest the sheets m...

Why it matters: If roadway finished grades and storm structure rim elevations are not coordinated at/near the same stationing, inlet rim settings, pipe cover, and drainage flowlines may be built at incorrect elevations, creating ponding, inadequate cover, or rework during construction.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct vertical datum and intended finished grades at MAIN ROAD 1 / MAIN ROAD-1 STA 0+00, and verify the correct rim elevations for storm structures 22 and 23 at that location. Provide revised grading and/or stormwater sheet updates so stationing and elevations ma...

RFI draft: Confirm the correct vertical datum and intended finished grades at MAIN ROAD 1 / MAIN ROAD-1 STA 0+00, and verify the correct rim elevations for storm structures 22 and 23 at that location. Provide revised grading and/or stormwater sheet updates s...

Summary: S410 depicts the roof/cover element as “KALWALL” (sloped panel). However, S413A roof notes and load/design assumptions explicitly reference a precast/hollowcore roof system (including “HOLLOWCORE SLAB” and “PRECAST PANELS”), which conflicts with a Kalwall panel system. In addition, S413A discusses “CMU WALLS”/precast-to-CMU connections, while S410 identifies reinforced concrete elements (e.g., ...

Why it matters: If S413A loads/connection design requirements are applied to the wrong roof system (hollowcore vs Kalwall) or the wrong wall material (CMU vs reinforced concrete), roof-to-wall anchorage, diaphragm/chord behavior, uplift assumptions, and delegated design responsibilities could be incorrect, creat...

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended AGS Basin roof system and supporting wall type for this area: is the roof “KALWALL” panels or precast hollowcore panels? Clarify whether supporting walls are CMU or reinforced concrete for the roof system described on S413A. Revise either S410 or S413A so ...

RFI draft: Confirm the intended AGS Basin roof system and supporting wall type for this area: is the roof “KALWALL” panels or precast hollowcore panels? Clarify whether supporting walls are CMU or reinforced concrete for the roof system described on S413A. R...

Summary: C133 shows Inlet 11 on Stormwater Line 14 with a rim elevation of 845.00, while C127 Stormwater Schedule lists Inlet 11 rim elevation as 842.63 (both described as 5' MH).

Why it matters: This is a 2.37 ft vertical discrepancy at a storm structure rim, which can materially change finished grading, inlet capture, and storm pipe cover/vertical geometry. Construction staking and structure ordering/install could proceed to the wrong elevation.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct Inlet 11 rim elevation and update either the Stormwater Schedule (C127) or the profiles (C133) so rim/structure elevations are consistent for construction staking and procurement.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct Inlet 11 rim elevation and update either the Stormwater Schedule (C127) or the profiles (C133) so rim/structure elevations are consistent for construction staking and procurement.

Summary: Civil sheet C120 identifies the blower building pad elevation as "FUTURE BLOWER\nBUILDING\nFFE: 859". Structural sheet S419 shows slab/pavement elevations at the blower building wall sections as "TOC EL 871.00'" and also calls out "TOC EL 871.50'" at "EXTERIOR PAVEMENT\nREF CIVIL". These elevations are inconsistent for the same facility area and indicate the civil pad/finish floor elevation doe...

Why it matters: If constructed without resolving the datum/elevation mismatch, foundations, door/stoop interfaces, exterior pavement tie-ins, and process penetrations (shown with fixed elevations in the structural sections) may not match site grading, potentially causing rework, drainage problems, and misaligned...

Suggested next step: Confirm the project vertical datum used on C120 and S419 and issue a coordinated blower building pad/FFE and adjacent exterior pavement/TOC elevations. Clarify whether the civil "FFE: 859" should be revised, or whether structural "TOC EL 871.00'" / "TOC EL 871.50'" apply to a ...

RFI draft: Confirm the project vertical datum used on C120 and S419 and issue a coordinated blower building pad/FFE and adjacent exterior pavement/TOC elevations. Clarify whether the civil "FFE: 859" should be revised, or whether structural "TOC EL 871.00'" ...

Summary: Civil grading for the Blower Building pad shows a finished floor elevation of 859, while the structural floor plan calls out the slab top-of-concrete at elevation 871.00'. These two elevation targets cannot both be correct for the same finished floor/slab unless a datum conversion or offset is explicitly defined.

Why it matters: If the pad/slab elevation is built to the wrong value, site grading tie-ins, drainage slopes, approach slabs/door stoops, and process/mechanical penetrations could be constructed at incorrect elevations, causing rework and potential constructability conflicts at building interfaces.

Suggested next step: Confirm the design elevation datum and the required Blower Building finished floor / slab TOC elevation to be used for civil grading and structural construction. Clarify whether "FFE: 859" and "TOC EL 871.00'" are intended to match (and provide the conversion/offset if differe...

RFI draft: Confirm the design elevation datum and the required Blower Building finished floor / slab TOC elevation to be used for civil grading and structural construction. Clarify whether "FFE: 859" and "TOC EL 871.00'" are intended to match (and provide th...

Summary: Multiple storm structures shown on C132 profiles conflict with the C127 Stormwater Schedule for the same structure numbers. Examples: C132 shows INLET 30 as a curb inlet with rim 864.80, while C127 lists 30 as a 5' MH with rim 864.74. C132 shows INLET 4 as a 5' dia manhole with rim 864.44, while C127 lists 4 as a curb inlet with rim 872.97. C132 shows INLET 36 as an 8' square MH with rim 835.60...

Why it matters: These conflicts affect both layout and construction: the wrong structure type (curb inlet vs. manhole/field inlet) changes installation, materials, and connections, and large rim elevation differences (e.g., Structure 4) can invalidate design slopes/covers and site grading tie-ins.

Suggested next step: Verify correct structure types and rim elevations for Structures 4, 30, and 36. Update the Stormwater Schedule and/or the profile callouts so structure descriptions and rim elevations are consistent across C127 and C132, and confirm any downstream impacts to pipe inverts and g...

RFI draft: Verify correct structure types and rim elevations for Structures 4, 30, and 36. Update the Stormwater Schedule and/or the profile callouts so structure descriptions and rim elevations are consistent across C127 and C132, and confirm any downstream...

Summary: The stormwater detention outfall information is inconsistent between the profile/detail sheet and the grading plan. On C132, the outfall is shown as a 36-inch outlet/flared end section ("CONST. 36\" FLARED END SECTION" and "36\" OUTLET"). On C121, the detention basin outlet is called out as "30\" RCP FLARED OUTLET". These cannot both be correct for the same detention basin outfall.

Why it matters: Pipe diameter affects hydraulic capacity, outlet structure configuration, excavation limits, and riprap/outlet protection sizing. If construction proceeds with the wrong diameter, the basin may not meet design performance and may require rework and/or permitting revisions.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required detention basin outfall pipe diameter (30\" vs 36\"). Revise the grading plan callout and/or the stormwater profile/outfall detail so the outfall pipe size and flared end section match across sheets, including any associated outlet protection sizing.

RFI draft: Confirm the required detention basin outfall pipe diameter (30\" vs 36\"). Revise the grading plan callout and/or the stormwater profile/outfall detail so the outfall pipe size and flared end section match across sheets, including any associated o...

Summary: The stormwater plan schedule lists Inlet 1 and Inlet 2 rim elevations as 884.20, but the stormwater profile labels Inlet 1 and Inlet 2 rim elevations as 894.20 for the same inlet numbers on STM LINE 1.

Why it matters: A 10.00 ft rim elevation discrepancy will directly impact grading tie-ins, inlet casting selection, cover over storm pipe, and the ability to achieve the designed pipe slopes/inverts. Construction staking for these structures cannot proceed reliably until the correct rims are confirmed.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct rim elevations for Inlet 1 and Inlet 2 on STM LINE 1 and revise either the STORMWATER SCHEDULE (plan) or the STORMWATER LINE 1 profile so the inlet rims match for Inlet 1 and Inlet 2.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct rim elevations for Inlet 1 and Inlet 2 on STM LINE 1 and revise either the STORMWATER SCHEDULE (plan) or the STORMWATER LINE 1 profile so the inlet rims match for Inlet 1 and Inlet 2.