Plan Review: 106 Issues Found

Summary: Detail 3 on Sheet 80-AS-7 presents entirely different structural content between the two document versions. In the 90% Structural set, Detail 3 shows an L4X4X1/4 bracket connection to an existing 12" concrete wall using drill-and-epoxy anchor bolts to support an existing wall purlin at the conveyor opening. In the update file, Detail 3 shows a wall section with 3" insulated metal panels, existi...

Why it matters: If both versions are in circulation, the contractor will not know which Detail 3 to follow for conveyor opening construction. The 90% version requires L4X4X1/4 angles with epoxy anchor bolts into the concrete wall, while the update requires C6X8.2 channels with IMP cladding connections. This disc...

Suggested next step: Clarify which version of Detail 3 on Sheet 80-AS-7 is current and applicable. Confirm whether the L4X4X1/4 bracket connection from the 90% set has been superseded by the C6X8.2 channel framing with IMP cladding shown in the update file. Issue a formal revision to supersede the...

RFI draft: Clarify which version of Detail 3 on Sheet 80-AS-7 is current and applicable. Confirm whether the L4X4X1/4 bracket connection from the 90% set has been superseded by the C6X8.2 channel framing with IMP cladding shown in the update file. Issue a fo...

Summary: The floor plan establishes the building's geographic orientation with a North arrow ('N'). However, the referenced building elevations on sheet 80-AS-11 are mislabeled by 90 degrees. - On the East side of the plan, a callout references detail '3 / 80-AS-11', but Elevation 3 is incorrectly titled 'SOUTH ELEVATION'. - On the West side of the plan, a callout references detail '4 / 80-AS-11', but ...

Why it matters: If contractors follow the elevation titles rather than verifying the detail callout numbers from the floor plan, exterior modifications (such as canopies, man doors, and HVAC openings) will be installed on the wrong building facades, leading to significant rework.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the geographic orientation of the building elevations on sheet 80-AS-11. We recommend revising the elevation titles to align with the floor plan's North arrow (e.g., Elevation 1 = North Elevation, Elevation 2 = South Elevation, Elevation 3 = East Elevation, Elev...

RFI draft: Please confirm the geographic orientation of the building elevations on sheet 80-AS-11. We recommend revising the elevation titles to align with the floor plan's North arrow (e.g., Elevation 1 = North Elevation, Elevation 2 = South Elevation, Elev...

Summary: The floor plan shows overhead door 8005 (12'-0" wide opening) in the partition wall separating the Dryer Room from the Electrical Room and Thermal Fluid Room enclosure. The Electrical Room is shown enclosed by walls with 'A 2 HR' fire rating designations. Section 08 33 23 (Overhead Coiling Doors) specifies only non-fire-rated 'Coiling Doors Type C: Steel slat curtain' with no fire-rated assembl...

Why it matters: A 12'-0" overhead door opening in a 2-hour fire-rated wall without a specified fire-rated coiling door assembly creates a critical code compliance gap. The contractor cannot properly procure or install a rated opening protective because no specification section establishes the required fire testi...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the fire-protection rating requirements for overhead door 8005 in the 2-hour fire-rated wall enclosing the Electrical Room and Thermal Fluid Room. Specifically: (1) Confirm whether door 8005 requires a fire-protection-rated coiling door assembly and th...

RFI draft: Request clarification on the fire-protection rating requirements for overhead door 8005 in the 2-hour fire-rated wall enclosing the Electrical Room and Thermal Fluid Room. Specifically: (1) Confirm whether door 8005 requires a fire-protection-rate...

Summary: The drawing general notes specify a maximum slump of 6"±1" for all concrete, which allows slump values from 5" up to 7". Specification Section 03 30 00 explicitly limits maximum slump to 4 inches for both Slab-On-Grade (2.07.E.6.c) and Interior Elevated Slabs (2.07.E.7.c). The drawing's allowable slump is 50–75% higher than the specification limit. This is not a case of exceeding a minimum requ...

Why it matters: If the contractor follows the drawing's 6"±1" slump allowance, concrete batches placed at 5–7 inch slump would be rejected by the independent testing agency enforcing the specification's 4-inch maximum. This would result in rejected pours, required removal and replacement, project delays, and sig...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the governing maximum slump for all concrete placements. The drawing general notes specify a maximum slump of 6"±1" while Specification Section 03 30 00, Paragraphs 2.07.E.6.c and 2.07.E.7.c specify a maximum slump of 4 inches for slabs-on-grade and in...

RFI draft: Request clarification on the governing maximum slump for all concrete placements. The drawing general notes specify a maximum slump of 6"±1" while Specification Section 03 30 00, Paragraphs 2.07.E.6.c and 2.07.E.7.c specify a maximum slump of 4 in...

Summary: Detail 05200 'TYPICAL CONCRETE ON METAL DECK SECTION' specifies 'LIGHTWEIGHT CONC. f'c = 3000 PSI MIN' for the concrete fill on the steel composite deck. Section 03 30 00 requires interior elevated slabs to have a compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch at 28 days. The concrete on metal deck constitutes an elevated slab and the drawing's specified 3,000 PSI is 25% below the specifi...

Why it matters: Using concrete with a 25% lower compressive strength than specified could compromise the structural capacity of the elevated slab, potentially resulting in inadequate load-carrying ability. This would likely require redesign of the deck section, possible concrete removal and replacement if alread...

Suggested next step: Request the Engineer clarify the required concrete compressive strength for the lightweight concrete on metal deck. The drawing specifies f'c = 3,000 PSI minimum while Section 03 30 00 requires 4,000 PSI for interior elevated slabs. Confirm whether the drawing should be revise...

RFI draft: Request the Engineer clarify the required concrete compressive strength for the lightweight concrete on metal deck. The drawing specifies f'c = 3,000 PSI minimum while Section 03 30 00 requires 4,000 PSI for interior elevated slabs. Confirm whethe...

Summary: The door schedule specifies doors 8002 and 8005 (overhead coiling doors Type C) with '480V 3PH MOTOR'. However, Section 08 33 23 explicitly requires 'Motor Voltage: 120 volts, single phase, 60 Hz.' This is a direct voltage and phase conflict for the coiling door operators.

Why it matters: This mismatch would affect electrical service design, panel sizing, wiring, and conduit. If 480V 3-phase infrastructure is installed per the drawing but the spec-compliant motor is 120V single-phase, significant rework of electrical feeders, disconnects, and branch circuits would be required. Ord...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the correct motor voltage and phase for overhead coiling doors 8002 and 8005. The door schedule indicates 480V 3PH while Section 08 33 23 specifies 120V single phase 60 Hz. Confirm which requirement governs so electrical service and motor procurement c...

RFI draft: Request clarification on the correct motor voltage and phase for overhead coiling doors 8002 and 8005. The door schedule indicates 480V 3PH while Section 08 33 23 specifies 120V single phase 60 Hz. Confirm which requirement governs so electrical s...

Summary: Detail 05200 'TYPICAL CONCRETE ON METAL DECK SECTION' Note 1 states 'PROVIDE 2" MIN. BEARING LENGTH AT SUPPORTS, TYP.' Section 05 31 00 requires minimum 4-inch bearing on concrete and masonry surfaces and minimum 3-inch bearing on steel supports. The drawing's 2-inch minimum bearing is less than both specification requirements. This building includes deck bearing on masonry walls as shown in de...

Why it matters: Insufficient bearing length can lead to deck slippage or localized failure at supports, creating a structural safety hazard. If deck is installed per the drawing's 2-inch bearing note, it would need to be removed and reinstalled with proper bearing, causing significant cost and schedule impacts.

Suggested next step: Request the Engineer revise Detail 05200 Note 1 to reflect the minimum bearing lengths required by Section 05 31 00: 4-inch minimum on concrete and masonry surfaces and 3-inch minimum on steel supports, or confirm the intended bearing lengths for each support condition.

RFI draft: Request the Engineer revise Detail 05200 Note 1 to reflect the minimum bearing lengths required by Section 05 31 00: 4-inch minimum on concrete and masonry surfaces and 3-inch minimum on steel supports, or confirm the intended bearing lengths for ...

Summary: Doors 8006 (1.5-hour rating) and 8007 (3/4-hour rating) are fire-rated double doors assigned M-1 flush bolts, defined as 'FLUSH BOLTS IVES 262.' The IVES 262 is a standard manually-operated flush bolt. Specification Section 2.04.A explicitly requires 'Automatic and Self-Latching Flush Bolts: BHMA A156.16; minimum 3/4-inch (19-mm) throw; designed for mortising into door edge.' Additionally, Sect...

Why it matters: Manual flush bolts on fire-rated door pairs are a direct violation of NFPA 80 and would fail fire door inspection. If the inactive leaf is not automatically latched during a fire event, the fire-rated assembly is compromised, allowing fire and smoke spread. This would result in failed inspections...

Suggested next step: Request that the door hardware schedule be revised to specify automatic/self-latching flush bolts for fire-rated double doors 8006 and 8007, per Section 08 71 00, 2.04.A and NFPA 80 requirements. The IVES 262 manual flush bolt should be replaced with an automatic flush bolt su...

RFI draft: Request that the door hardware schedule be revised to specify automatic/self-latching flush bolts for fire-rated double doors 8006 and 8007, per Section 08 71 00, 2.04.A and NFPA 80 requirements. The IVES 262 manual flush bolt should be replaced w...

Summary: All hinged doors in the schedule (8001, 8003, 8004, 8006, 8007, 8008) carry fire assembly ratings (3/4-hour or 1.5-hour) and are assigned L-1 hardware, defined as 'VON DUPRIN, 9875L-626 PANIC HARDWARE.' Specification Section 2.12.A.5 requires 'UL (DIR) listed exit device assemblies for fire-rated doors and panic device assemblies for non-fire-rated doors.' The drawing designates all exit hardwa...

Why it matters: Installing panic hardware (non-fire-rated exit devices) on fire-rated doors violates NFPA 80 and the project specification. Fire exit hardware must be tested and listed for fire-rated assemblies per UL 10C. Using non-fire-rated panic devices would void the fire-rated door assembly listing, fail f...

Suggested next step: Request confirmation that all exit devices on fire-rated doors (8001, 8003, 8004, 8006, 8007, 8008) will be UL-listed fire exit hardware assemblies per Section 08 71 00, 2.12.A.5. The door hardware schedule and hardware notes should be revised to clearly specify 'FIRE EXIT HAR...

RFI draft: Request confirmation that all exit devices on fire-rated doors (8001, 8003, 8004, 8006, 8007, 8008) will be UL-listed fire exit hardware assemblies per Section 08 71 00, 2.12.A.5. The door hardware schedule and hardware notes should be revised to ...

Summary: The building elevations specify the Finished Floor Elevation (FFE) as "796.00±" and the Top of Concrete Wall (T.O. CONC. WALL) as "806.00±". However, the building wall section (Section F) specifies the FFE as "796.50'±" and the T.O. CONC. WALL as "805.90'±". This creates a 6-inch discrepancy for the FFE and a 0.1-foot discrepancy for the top of the concrete wall.

Why it matters: Conflicting elevation datums can cause significant issues during grading, foundation pouring, and structural coordination, potentially affecting door clearances, conveyor alignments, and structural transition points.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct elevation datums for the FFE and T.O. CONC. WALL. Should they match the Building Elevations (796.00' and 806.00') or Section F (796.50' and 805.90')?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct elevation datums for the FFE and T.O. CONC. WALL. Should they match the Building Elevations (796.00' and 806.00') or Section F (796.50' and 805.90')?

Summary: Sheet 80-AS-7 specifies the Bottom of Conveyor elevation at the building wall (IMP penetration) as 809.00'±. However, Sheet 80-AS-12 specifies the Bottom of Conveyor elevation at the external support structure as 811.75'±.

Why it matters: A 2.75-foot discrepancy between the exterior support elevation and the wall penetration could result in severe misalignment during construction. If the conveyor is intentionally sloped between the support and the wall, it should be explicitly detailed on the structural drawings. Without clarifica...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct Bottom of Conveyor elevation. If the conveyor is intentionally sloped between the external support and the wall opening, please provide the slope and confirm that the structural support heights and wall opening dimensions are coordinated to accommoda...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct Bottom of Conveyor elevation. If the conveyor is intentionally sloped between the external support and the wall opening, please provide the slope and confirm that the structural support heights and wall opening dimension...

Summary: The Foundation Plan contains a section cut for 'D' that explicitly references sheet '80-S-6' and is located across grid lines 6 and 7. However, the provided detail sheet is '80-AS-6', which contains 'SECTION D'. This 'SECTION D' indicates it is cut from sheet '80-AS-1' and displays grid lines 4 and 5, directly contradicting the cut location (grids 6-7) and source sheet shown on the Foundation P...

Why it matters: Because the sheet references (80-S-6 vs 80-AS-1/80-AS-6) and the grid line locations (6-7 vs 4-5) do not match, it is unclear which section detail actually applies to the area marked on the Foundation Plan. This could result in incorrect structural implementation if the wrong detail is applied to...

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct sheet reference for section cut 'D' on the Foundation Plan. Please provide the correct section detail for the cut at grids 6-7, or confirm if 'SECTION D' on sheet 80-AS-6 is intended for this location despite the mismatched grid lines and source sheet refer...

RFI draft: Clarify the correct sheet reference for section cut 'D' on the Foundation Plan. Please provide the correct section detail for the cut at grids 6-7, or confirm if 'SECTION D' on sheet 80-AS-6 is intended for this location despite the mismatched gri...

Summary: Sheet 80-AS-4 Plan Note 2 directs the user to see schedules on sheet 100-S-5.0 for masonry and concrete reinforcing bar lap splice lengths, while sheet 80-AS-6 General Note 2 directs the user to see schedules on sheet 100-S-6 for the same information. Both notes address the same subject (reinforcing bar lap splice lengths for the same building) but reference different schedule sheets, creating ...

Why it matters: Reinforcing bar lap splice lengths are critical structural requirements. If the contractor follows the wrong schedule sheet, the installed lap splices may be too short, compromising the structural capacity of reinforced masonry and concrete elements. This discrepancy could also cause confusion du...

Suggested next step: Clarify which schedule sheet (100-S-5.0 or 100-S-6) contains the correct masonry and concrete reinforcing bar lap splice lengths for the Existing Sludge Cake Storage Building. Update the general/plan notes on both sheets 80-AS-4 and 80-AS-6 to reference the same correct schedu...

RFI draft: Clarify which schedule sheet (100-S-5.0 or 100-S-6) contains the correct masonry and concrete reinforcing bar lap splice lengths for the Existing Sludge Cake Storage Building. Update the general/plan notes on both sheets 80-AS-4 and 80-AS-6 to ref...

Summary: The Structural Framing Plan on sheet 80-AS-4 directs the reader to sheet '80-AS-5' for multiple callouts (e.g., Detail 1 and Section B). However, these details and sections are actually provided on sheet '80-S-5'. Detail 1 on sheet 80-S-5 correctly points back to origin sheet 80-AS-4, but Section B on 80-S-5 incorrectly points to origin sheet 80-AS-1 instead of 80-AS-4.

Why it matters: This broken cross-referencing loop will cause confusion during construction, as contractors will search for sheet 80-AS-5 which is incorrect. Furthermore, Section B pointing back to an unrelated sheet 80-AS-1 disrupts traceability.

Suggested next step: Please update the reference callouts on sheet 80-AS-4 to point to sheet 80-S-5, and update the origin reference title for Section B on sheet 80-S-5 to correctly point back to 80-AS-4.

RFI draft: Please update the reference callouts on sheet 80-AS-4 to point to sheet 80-S-5, and update the origin reference title for Section B on sheet 80-S-5 to correctly point back to 80-AS-4.

Summary: The building elevations on sheet 80-AS-11 consistently show the Finish Floor Elevation (FFE) as EL = 796.00± across all four exterior elevations (East, West, South, and North). However, the structural wall section on sheet 80-S-5 shows FFE as EL = 796.50'±. This is a 0.50-foot (6-inch) discrepancy in the finish floor elevation for the same building (Existing Sludge Cake Storage Building). The F...

Why it matters: A 6-inch discrepancy in the Finish Floor Elevation affects slab pour elevations, door threshold heights, equipment mounting levels, and coordination with all other trades (mechanical, electrical, plumbing). All disciplines reference FFE as a primary control point, so this inconsistency could caus...

Suggested next step: Request the Engineer of Record to confirm the correct Finish Floor Elevation (FFE) for the Existing Sludge Cake Storage Building and coordinate corrections across sheets 80-AS-11 and 80-S-5 to reflect a single consistent FFE value.

RFI draft: Request the Engineer of Record to confirm the correct Finish Floor Elevation (FFE) for the Existing Sludge Cake Storage Building and coordinate corrections across sheets 80-AS-11 and 80-S-5 to reflect a single consistent FFE value.