Select-Service Hotel: 209 Issues Found

Summary: The Mechanical exhaust fan schedule on sheet M600 lists EF-7 as a pool equipment exhaust fan (Greenheck SQ-140, inline type, 2760 CFM, 1.00 hp, 208V, 3-phase). The Electrical equipment schedule on sheet EG604 lists EF-7 as a 120V, single-phase, 0.20 hp unit — completely different specifications. Notably, the Electrical schedule includes an...

Why it matters: This appears to be an ID numbering mismatch between the Mechanical and Electrical engineers. The Electrical schedule has EF-9 and EF-10 entries that do not appear in the Mechanical schedule, while EF-7 data differs drastically. The Electrical EF-10 (208V/3ph/1.00hp) likely corresponds to the Mechanical EF-7 (pool equipment fan). The numbering...

Suggested next step: Exhaust fan EF-7 specifications differ completely between Mechanical (M600: 208V/3ph/1.00hp pool exhaust, Greenheck SQ-140) and Electrical (EG604: 120V/1ph/0.20hp). Additionally, Electrical shows EF-9 and EF-10 which do not appear in the Mechanical schedule. Please reconcile the exhaust fan numbering and confirm correct electrical data for each...

RFI draft: Exhaust fan EF-7 specifications differ completely between Mechanical (M600: 208V/3ph/1.00hp pool exhaust, Greenheck SQ-140) and Electrical (EG604: 120V/1ph/0.20hp). Additionally, Electrical shows EF-9 and EF-10 which do not appear in the Mechanical schedule. Please reconcile the exhaust fan...

Summary: The acoustical schedule assigns Type 2 'GUESTROOM SEPARATION WALL (INCLUDING SHAFT / CHASE WALL BETWEEN GUEST BATHS)' to '3/A007'. Detail 3/A007 is titled 'FRAMING DETAIL - ELEVATOR SHAFT' and is labeled 'ELEV. SHAFT'. The scheduled wall type and the referenced detail do not describe the same assembly, so the cross-reference is inconsistent.

Why it matters: This creates ambiguity for Type 2 partitions required to achieve '55'. If the contractor follows '3/A007' as listed, the construction basis would be an elevator shaft detail rather than a guestroom separation/chase wall assembly, which could affect acoustical compliance and field construction.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct detail reference for Type 2 'GUESTROOM SEPARATION WALL (INCLUDING SHAFT / CHASE WALL BETWEEN GUEST BATHS)'. The schedule currently lists '3/A007', but 3/A007 is 'FRAMING DETAIL - ELEVATOR SHAFT'.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct detail reference for Type 2 'GUESTROOM SEPARATION WALL (INCLUDING SHAFT / CHASE WALL BETWEEN GUEST BATHS)'. The schedule currently lists '3/A007', but 3/A007 is 'FRAMING DETAIL - ELEVATOR SHAFT'.

Summary: The roof condition beside 'ROOF BEARING\nEL.54'-0\'' is called out as '5\nA007'. However, on A007, detail 5 is 'SECTION VIEW AT FLOORS\n5\nA007\nFIRE BARRIER DETAILS', while A007 separately includes a roof-specific condition labeled 'SECTION VIEW AT ROOF'. This is a cross-reference mismatch because the roof location is pointing to a floor detail.

Why it matters: If 5/A007 is followed at the roof, the assembly could be built from a floor condition instead of the roof condition that requires the fire barrier construction to continue 'TO UNDERSIDE OF ROOF SHEATHING'. That creates avoidable risk for rated-continuity review and field inspection.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct A007 reference for the roof bearing callout now labeled '5/A007'. If the intent is the roof condition, revise the callout to the A007 roof detail labeled 'SECTION VIEW AT ROOF'.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct A007 reference for the roof bearing callout now labeled '5/A007'. If the intent is the roof condition, revise the callout to the A007 roof detail labeled 'SECTION VIEW AT ROOF'.

Summary: One note lists roof, floor, and wall sheathing as 5/8 in. APA Exp. 1 rated sheathing, but the detailed schedules show different thicknesses for the same assemblies: wall sheathing includes 15/32 in. APA, roof sheathing is 23/32 in., and floor sheathing is 3/4 in.

Why it matters: These panel thicknesses affect structural sheathing selection, nailing, and diaphragm/shear-wall performance. Leaving both sets of values in the drawings could lead to procurement or installation of panels that do not match the intended structural design.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required roof, floor, and wall sheathing thickness for each assembly and revise either the general note or the detailed schedules so one consistent requirement governs.

RFI draft: Please confirm the required roof, floor, and wall sheathing thickness for each assembly and revise either the general note or the detailed schedules so one consistent requirement governs.

Summary: On the indoor pool plan, note A5 calls for an 'ADA COMPLIANT GRAB BAR FOR TRANSFER WALL' at the upper-left pool corner, and that same corner is referenced to '2 / 434'. On the referenced sheet, view 2 is 'POOL LADDER DETAIL' and identifies a 'STAINLESS STEEL LADDER'. The plan therefore calls for a transfer-wall grab bar at the location where...

Why it matters: A transfer wall with grab bar and a pool ladder are different pool access types with different ADA implications, deck anchors, and installation requirements. If this is not resolved before construction, the contractor could build the wrong pool access assembly and fail accessibility review or require deck rework.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended upper-left pool access condition: is it an ADA transfer wall with grab bar or a stainless steel pool ladder? Revise the plan callout and/or provide the correct matching detail so the referenced view aligns with the intended assembly.

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended upper-left pool access condition: is it an ADA transfer wall with grab bar or a stainless steel pool ladder? Revise the plan callout and/or provide the correct matching detail so the referenced view aligns with the intended assembly.

Summary: A008 identifies L41 as 'DOUBLE 2x4 1-HR. RATED - BASED ON GA FILE WP3370 - SEE 7/A240 FOR STC DETAIL REFERENCE' and the Wall Type L build-up includes '1/2\' RESILIENT CHANNELS AT ONE SIDE OF WALL.' The referenced 7/A240 detail is instead 'PGD-02-10-055' with 'STC 56 NOAL 17-1107 1 Hour UL U341' and a build-up of '2 x 4 wood studs 16” o.c....

Why it matters: If this is not corrected, Wall Type L could be priced, submitted, or built from two different tested/listed wall systems. That creates risk of installing the wrong fire-resistance/acoustic partition and of using inconsistent framing and finish requirements in the field.

Suggested next step: Please confirm which assembly governs Wall Type L / L41: the 'GA FILE WP3370' wall shown on A008, or the 'PGD-02-10-055' / 'UL U341' assembly shown at 7/A240. Revise the cross-reference or wall detail so one coordinated fire-rated/STC assembly governs.

RFI draft: Please confirm which assembly governs Wall Type L / L41: the 'GA FILE WP3370' wall shown on A008, or the 'PGD-02-10-055' / 'UL U341' assembly shown at 7/A240. Revise the cross-reference or wall detail so one coordinated fire-rated/STC assembly governs.

Summary: On the 'THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN,' the 3/A501 callout is placed at a core labeled 'ELECT. MECH. 354' and 'ELEV. LOBBY 355.' The referenced view '3 / A501' is titled 'ELEVATOR LOBBY - UPPER FLOOR' but shows 'CHUTE 256' and 'ELEV. LOBBY 255.' The referenced plan therefore depicts a different arrangement than the one shown where the callout is used...

Why it matters: If uncorrected, the third-level elevator core could be coordinated using the wrong referenced plan, causing confusion over the chute/lobby configuration and the correct room layout at this area.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the 3/A501 reference on the third-level plan is intended to apply to the level with 'CHUTE 256' / 'ELEV. LOBBY 255' or to the level with 'ELECT. MECH. 354' / 'ELEV. LOBBY 355.' Revise the callout or the A501 view so the referenced detail matches the third-level core condition.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the 3/A501 reference on the third-level plan is intended to apply to the level with 'CHUTE 256' / 'ELEV. LOBBY 255' or to the level with 'ELECT. MECH. 354' / 'ELEV. LOBBY 355.' Revise the callout or the A501 view so the referenced detail matches the third-level core condition.

Summary: The floor plan places the Stair #2 cross-reference at 'STAIR #2 152 1 A511' and dimensions grids 19-20 at '10'-1 1/4\''. The referenced 'FIRST LEVEL STAIR PLAN' dimensions grids 19-20 at '10'-4\''. The same Stair #2 bay is therefore shown with two different overall widths.

Why it matters: If this is not resolved, the stair enclosure width could be laid out differently in the floor plan versus the stair plan, affecting wall, landing, and door coordination at a primary stair.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct overall width of Stair #2 between grids 19 and 20 and revise either the floor plan or the referenced stair plan so both sheets use one dimension.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct overall width of Stair #2 between grids 19 and 20 and revise either the floor plan or the referenced stair plan so both sheets use one dimension.

Summary: The egress legend states 'SEE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN FOR LOCATION OF EXIT SIGNAGE.' The reflected ceiling plan notes state 'SEE INTERIOR DESIGN AND ELECT SHEETS FOR FINAL FIXTURE TYPE AND LOCATION.' The second note does not explicitly name exit signage, so the original issue overstated this as a direct exit-sign conflict. However, because exit...

Why it matters: Exit signage is a life-safety item, and the egress legend also requires it to be provided 'AT THE CEILING AND FLOOR LEVELS.' The drawing set should clearly state whether exit sign locations are finalized on the RCP or coordinated on interior design/electrical sheets so reviewers and installers are not sent to multiple potential controlling sources.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether exit sign locations are intended to remain controlled on the reflected ceiling plan or are subject to the general RCP note directing final fixture locations to the interior design/electrical sheets. If exit signage is excluded from Note A, please clarify that exception; otherwise revise the cross-reference so a single...

RFI draft: Please confirm whether exit sign locations are intended to remain controlled on the reflected ceiling plan or are subject to the general RCP note directing final fixture locations to the interior design/electrical sheets. If exit signage is excluded from Note A, please clarify that exception;...

Summary: A008 identifies L42 as 'DOUBLE 2x4 2-HR. RATED - BASED ON GA FILE WP3820 - SEE A010 FOR NAILING, MATERIALS, AND STC AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THIS RATED ASSEMBLY,' but the same wall type is drawn with '1/2\' RESILIENT CHANNELS AT ONE SIDE OF WALL' and 'AIRSPACE (VARIES).' On A010, GA File WP 3820 instead requires the double-row wall to be 'on...

Why it matters: Because this is a 2-hour rated separation, conflicting construction criteria can lead to an unlisted field assembly, rejection during plan review or inspection, and uncertainty about the required fire and acoustic performance.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether Wall Type L42 is to be built as drawn on A008 with resilient channels and variable airspace, or exactly per GA File WP 3820 on A010 with separate plates 1' apart and direct-nailed gypsum layers. Revise the wall type and reference so only one rated assembly is shown.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether Wall Type L42 is to be built as drawn on A008 with resilient channels and variable airspace, or exactly per GA File WP 3820 on A010 with separate plates 1' apart and direct-nailed gypsum layers. Revise the wall type and reference so only one rated assembly is shown.

Summary: On A008, the CM1450 detail says it 'APPLIES TO ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL COLUMNS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT,' and the CM1001 detail says it 'APPLIES TO ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL COLUMNS AT PORTE-COCHERE.' On A010, the corresponding assemblies are limited to a 'TS4x4x0.188 tube steel column' for CM1450 and a 'W10x49 column' for CM1001. The application notes...

Why it matters: If these details are used on column shapes or sizes that are not covered by the cited GA files, the structural steel fireproofing may not match the tested assembly used for permit approval and inspection.

Suggested next step: Please identify which project column sizes and shapes are intended to use CM1450 and CM1001, and revise A008 or A010 so the field application matches the listed assembly limitations.

RFI draft: Please identify which project column sizes and shapes are intended to use CM1450 and CM1001, and revise A008 or A010 so the field application matches the listed assembly limitations.

Summary: On A218, Building Sections 2 and 3 place the callout '5 / A007' at the roof-to-wall/top-of-wall fire-barrier condition above the corridor wall. On A007, detail 5 is 'SECTION VIEW AT FLOORS' and states the assembly continues 'TO UNDERSIDE OF FLOOR DECK ABOVE.' A007 separately shows the roof condition as 'SECTION VIEW AT ROOF' with the barrier...

Why it matters: If uncorrected, the roof top-of-wall rated intersection could be built from the floor detail instead of the roof detail, creating uncertainty for permit review and field inspection of the required rated continuity at the roof line.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct A007 detail for the roof/top-of-wall fire-barrier intersections shown in A218 Building Sections 2 and 3. If these are roof conditions, revise the callout so it references the roof detail with continuation to the 'ROOF SHEATHING' rather than detail 5, which continues to the 'FLOOR DECK ABOVE'.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct A007 detail for the roof/top-of-wall fire-barrier intersections shown in A218 Building Sections 2 and 3. If these are roof conditions, revise the callout so it references the roof detail with continuation to the 'ROOF SHEATHING' rather than detail 5, which continues to...

Summary: The 15/S602 callout on the enlarged second level framing plan is placed at an 'OPEN' condition labeled 'HSS6x4x1/4' and 'HSS5x3x1/4 STL COL'. The referenced 15/S602 detail instead shows 'HSS5x3x5/16 ELEV. BEAM' at a 'WOOD COLUMN, PER PLAN'. This is a cross-reference mismatch because the plan indicates a steel-column / HSS-framed condition,...

Why it matters: If this is not corrected, the contractor could fabricate the wrong support connection, including the wrong column material and HSS thickness, for the framed 'OPEN' condition.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the 15/S602 callout at the 'OPEN' condition should use 'HSS6x4x1/4' with 'HSS5x3x1/4 STL COL', or whether detail 15/S602 should be revised from 'HSS5x3x5/16 ELEV. BEAM' at 'WOOD COLUMN, PER PLAN' to match the plan.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the 15/S602 callout at the 'OPEN' condition should use 'HSS6x4x1/4' with 'HSS5x3x1/4 STL COL', or whether detail 15/S602 should be revised from 'HSS5x3x5/16 ELEV. BEAM' at 'WOOD COLUMN, PER PLAN' to match the plan.

Summary: A steel column note directs the condition 'WHERE COLUMN OCCURS WITHIN WALL, AND TOP OF FOOTING IS AT TOP OF SLAB ELEVATION' to 'DETAIL 3/S502'. The referenced detail is titled 'FDN WALL SPLICE' and contains '4\' MINIMUM EMBEDMENT w/ SET-3G EPOXY' at an 'EXISTING CONCRETE FDN WALL', so the referenced detail does not match a steel column...

Why it matters: This leaves a structural wall-column anchorage condition unresolved and could lead to incorrect reinforcing, anchor-bolt, or base-plate installation in the field.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct S502 detail for the condition 'WHERE COLUMN OCCURS WITHIN WALL, AND TOP OF FOOTING IS AT TOP OF SLAB ELEVATION' and revise the reference to 3/S502 if it was cited in error.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct S502 detail for the condition 'WHERE COLUMN OCCURS WITHIN WALL, AND TOP OF FOOTING IS AT TOP OF SLAB ELEVATION' and revise the reference to 3/S502 if it was cited in error.

Summary: On S102, the 15/S602 callout is shown at an opening labeled 'HSS6x4x1/4 OPEN.' On S602, Detail 15 is 'ELEVATOR BEAM DETAIL' and calls for 'HSS5x3x5/16 ELEV. BEAM' at a 'WOOD COLUMN, PER PLAN.' The referenced detail therefore does not match the member/condition identified beside the 15/S602 callout on the framing plan.

Why it matters: If this is not clarified before fabrication, the opening connection could be built with the wrong HSS member size or the wrong connection assembly, creating field rework and structural coordination risk.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the intended detail reference and required member at the S102 location tagged 15/S602. If Detail 15 is correct, revise the plan note to match the detail; if the plan note is correct, provide the correct detail reference.

RFI draft: Please confirm the intended detail reference and required member at the S102 location tagged 15/S602. If Detail 15 is correct, revise the plan note to match the detail; if the plan note is correct, provide the correct detail reference.