Texas Multifamily Wrap: 141 Issues Found

Summary: 37 indexed pages | 35 match | 2 minor mismatch | 0 mismatch | 0 missing Minor Mismatch (2): S2.7: Expected: OUTDOOR STAGE ROOF: STEEL FRAMING LAYOUT (S2.7) | Actual: OUTDOOR STAGE ROOF STEEL FRAMING LAYOUT (S2.7)(p24) | Reason: Sheet number matches exactly on page 24; title differs only by missing punctuation/formatting. S5.4: ...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 S0.0 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1

Summary: Keynote 3.2 on sheet S3.1 directs the contractor to find the slab reinforcement Schedule 300 on sheet S1.2, while the same keynote 3.2 on sheet S3.2 directs the contractor to find Schedule 300 on sheet S1.1. Both keynotes define the same slab reinforcement requirement and are called out extensively across the foundation details on both sheets,...

Why it matters: During construction, the contractor, inspector, and rebar detailer will not know which sheet (S1.1 or S1.2) contains the correct slab reinforcement schedule. If the schedule exists on only one of those sheets, one reference is simply wrong; if different schedules exist on both sheets, the wrong slab steel could be installed. This impacts slab...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify whether Schedule 300 (Slab Reinforcement) is located on sheet S1.1 or S1.2, and issue a revision to correct the keynote on the sheet that contains the erroneous reference.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify whether Schedule 300 (Slab Reinforcement) is located on sheet S1.1 or S1.2, and issue a revision to correct the keynote on the sheet that contains the erroneous reference.

Summary: Keynote 3.3 on sheet S3.1 directs the contractor to find the foundation grade beam reinforcement Schedule 301 on sheet S1.2, while the same keynote 3.3 on sheet S3.2 directs the contractor to find Schedule 301 on sheet S1.1. Both keynotes define the same grade beam reinforcement requirement and are called out in multiple foundation details...

Why it matters: The grade beam reinforcement schedule governs bar sizes, quantities, and placement for all foundation grade beams. An incorrect sheet reference could lead the rebar detailer and field crew to use wrong reinforcement, directly impacting the structural capacity of the foundation system. This is a life-safety and code-compliance concern that must...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify whether Schedule 301 (Foundation Grade Beam Reinforcement) is located on sheet S1.1 or S1.2, and issue a revision to correct the keynote on the sheet that contains the erroneous reference.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify whether Schedule 301 (Foundation Grade Beam Reinforcement) is located on sheet S1.1 or S1.2, and issue a revision to correct the keynote on the sheet that contains the erroneous reference.

Summary: Sheet S3.3 keynote 3.4 specifies a '4' REINFORCED 3000 PSI CONCRETE SLAB ON 1.0C METAL DECK' reinforced with 'WELDED WIRE MESH (4 x 4 x W2.9/W2.9)'. Sheet S4.3 keynote 3.61 specifies a '3-INCH CONCRETE NON-COMPOSITE SLAB ON METAL DECK' reinforced with '4' x 4' x W1.4 x W1.4 WWM'. Both keynotes describe the concrete floor slab on metal deck...

Why it matters: A 1-inch difference in slab thickness directly affects structural dead loads, composite or non-composite slab capacity, fire rating, and material quantities for concrete. The difference in welded wire mesh gauge (W2.9 vs W1.4) significantly changes the reinforcement area provided, affecting crack control and load distribution. The steel joist...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct concrete slab thickness on metal deck for the steel floor framing level: is it 4 inches as shown in keynote 3.4 on S3.3 or 3 inches as shown in keynote 3.61 on S4.3? Also confirm the correct welded wire mesh reinforcement: W2.9/W2.9 per S3.3 or W1.4/W1.4 per S4.3. Please revise the conflicting sheet to match the...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct concrete slab thickness on metal deck for the steel floor framing level: is it 4 inches as shown in keynote 3.4 on S3.3 or 3 inches as shown in keynote 3.61 on S4.3? Also confirm the correct welded wire mesh reinforcement: W2.9/W2.9 per S3.3 or W1.4/W1.4 per S4.3....

Summary: Sheet S5.1 keynote 3.4 specifies the floor slab as '4' REINFORCED 3000 PSI CONCRETE SLAB ON 1.0C METAL DECK' reinforced with 'WELDED WIRE MESH (4 x 4 x W2.9/W2.9).' This keynote is applied at all main floor levels (Levels 2, 3, 4, and outdoor pavilion) throughout both building sections. Sheet S4.3 keynote 3.61 specifies the same floor slab...

Why it matters: A 1-inch difference in concrete slab thickness directly affects structural dead loads, fire resistance ratings, acoustic performance, and material quantities. The WWM difference (W2.9 is approximately twice the cross-sectional area of W1.4) affects crack control and load distribution capacity. These discrepancies would impact structural...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct concrete slab thickness and welded wire mesh specification for the floor slab on metal deck. Sheet S5.1 keynote 3.4 specifies a 4-inch slab with 4x4 W2.9/W2.9 WWM, while sheet S4.3 keynote 3.61 specifies a 3-inch non-composite slab with 4x4 W1.4/W1.4 WWM. Please confirm the correct slab thickness,...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct concrete slab thickness and welded wire mesh specification for the floor slab on metal deck. Sheet S5.1 keynote 3.4 specifies a 4-inch slab with 4x4 W2.9/W2.9 WWM, while sheet S4.3 keynote 3.61 specifies a 3-inch non-composite slab with 4x4 W1.4/W1.4 WWM. Please...

Summary: Sheet S3.3 keynote 3.4 specifies a '4' REINFORCED 3000 PSI CONCRETE SLAB ON 1.0C METAL DECK' for the floor slab on metal deck. However, sheet S4.5 under the Metal Floor Form Deck notes states 'SECOND FLOOR CONCRETE SLAB SHALL BE 3-INCH THICK.' This is a direct 1-inch discrepancy in slab thickness for the same floor slab assembly. S3.3...

Why it matters: A 1-inch difference in slab thickness (4' vs 3') significantly affects the dead load on the steel joists and supporting structure, the structural capacity of the slab itself, and the total concrete quantity for the project. Steel joist design loads submitted by the joist manufacturer depend on the correct slab weight. If the joists are designed...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct concrete slab thickness on 1.0C metal deck for the floor level. Sheet S3.3 keynote 3.4 indicates 4' while Sheet S4.5 note (05 31 33) item 4 indicates 3'. Please confirm the correct thickness so that steel joist design loads and concrete quantities can be finalized.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct concrete slab thickness on 1.0C metal deck for the floor level. Sheet S3.3 keynote 3.4 indicates 4' while Sheet S4.5 note (05 31 33) item 4 indicates 3'. Please confirm the correct thickness so that steel joist design loads and concrete quantities can be finalized.

Summary: Sheet S5.3 keynote 3.4 specifies a '4' REINFORCED 3000 PSI CONCRETE SLAB ON 1.0C METAL DECK' for the floor construction. However, S4.5 Metal Floor Form Deck note 4 states the 'SECOND FLOOR CONCRETE SLAB SHALL BE 3-INCH THICK.' S5.3 keynote 3.4 explicitly references S4.5 for metal deck schedules, yet the slab thickness is inconsistent between...

Why it matters: A 1-inch difference in concrete slab thickness on metal deck has significant structural implications, affecting dead loads on joists, girders, columns, and foundations. It also impacts the composite deck design, concrete volume for procurement, and the structural capacity of the floor system. This discrepancy must be resolved before...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct concrete slab thickness on 1.0C metal deck for the second floor. S5.3 keynote 3.4 indicates 4' while S4.5 note 4 under Metal Floor Form Deck indicates 3'. Which specification governs, and should the other sheet be revised accordingly?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct concrete slab thickness on 1.0C metal deck for the second floor. S5.3 keynote 3.4 indicates 4' while S4.5 note 4 under Metal Floor Form Deck indicates 3'. Which specification governs, and should the other sheet be revised accordingly?

Summary: Sheet S5.1 keynote 3.4 specifies a '4' REINFORCED 3000 PSI CONCRETE SLAB ON 1.0C METAL DECK' for the floor assembly. However, sheet S4.5, which S5.1 explicitly references for metal deck schedules, specifies that the 'SECOND FLOOR CONCRETE SLAB SHALL BE 3-INCH THICK' on metal deck. This is a direct 1-inch discrepancy in the concrete slab...

Why it matters: A 1-inch difference in concrete slab thickness has significant structural implications including dead load calculations, joist design loads, composite action capacity, and fire rating. If the joists on S4.5 were designed for a 3-inch slab but a 4-inch slab is placed per S5.1, the joists could be overstressed. Conversely, placing only 3 inches...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct concrete slab thickness for the second floor on 1.0C metal deck. S5.1 keynote 3.4 specifies 4 inches while S4.5 metal floor form deck notes specify 3 inches. Which dimension governs, and should the steel joist schedule and dead load calculations be revised accordingly?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct concrete slab thickness for the second floor on 1.0C metal deck. S5.1 keynote 3.4 specifies 4 inches while S4.5 metal floor form deck notes specify 3 inches. Which dimension governs, and should the steel joist schedule and dead load calculations be revised accordingly?

Summary: Sheet S2.6B (Low Roof: Perimeter Deck Angle Layout) dimensions the spacing from Grid 18 to Grid 19 as 20'-0'. Sheet S2.7 (Outdoor Stage Roof Steel Framing Layout) dimensions the same Grid 18 to Grid 19 spacing as 8'-3 3/8', and introduces additional grids 20 and 21 beyond Grid 19. On S2.7, the cumulative distance from Grid 18 to Grid 20 (8'-3...

Why it matters: A structural grid numbering inconsistency of this magnitude will cause critical coordination failures during construction. Steel fabrication, column layout, and erection rely on consistent grid references across all sheets. If the contractor uses Grid 19 from S2.6B to locate structural elements, the result will differ by nearly 12 feet from...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify the correct grid numbering and spacing for Grids 18 through 21. Confirm whether S2.6B's Grid 19 corresponds to S2.7's Grid 20, and whether S2.7's intermediate Grid 19 (at 8'-3 3/8' from Grid 18) applies to all structural sheets. Request revised sheets with consistent grid labeling across the entire...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify the correct grid numbering and spacing for Grids 18 through 21. Confirm whether S2.6B's Grid 19 corresponds to S2.7's Grid 20, and whether S2.7's intermediate Grid 19 (at 8'-3 3/8' from Grid 18) applies to all structural sheets. Request revised sheets with...

Summary: The Level 2 steel framing layout (S2.3B) calls out '20LH09 STEEL JOIST (5' SEATS)' throughout its floor framing bays. The Level 3 steel framing layout (S2.4A) calls out '32LH15 STEEL JOIST (5' SEATS)' and '20LH10 STEEL JOIST (5' SEATS)' in its floor framing bays. However, Schedule 502 on sheet S4.5—the only steel joist schedule provided—lists...

Why it matters: K-series and LH-series (Longspan) joists are fundamentally different product families with different depths, load capacities, chord sizes, seat requirements, and connection details. The framing plans specify 5' seats consistent with LH-series bearing requirements (as shown in Detail B on S4.5 for LH-series), while K-series joists would require...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify which joist designations govern: the LH-series designations on the framing plans (20LH09, 32LH15, 20LH10) or the K-series designations in Schedule 502 (10K1, 28K10). If the LH-series designations on the framing plans are correct, request that Schedule 502 be revised to include the correct LH-series joist...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify which joist designations govern: the LH-series designations on the framing plans (20LH09, 32LH15, 20LH10) or the K-series designations in Schedule 502 (10K1, 28K10). If the LH-series designations on the framing plans are correct, request that Schedule 502...

Summary: Section detail A2 on S1.6 (WALL #W10 AND #W8 SECTION DETAILS) shows the maximum wall height 'H' as VARIES, 6'-0' MAX. However, the Reinforced Concrete Table No. 1 on S1.6 lists Wall Type W10 with a maximum height of 10' MAX and Wall Type W8 with a maximum height of 8' MAX — both significantly exceeding the 6'-0' shown on the section detail...

Why it matters: This discrepancy directly impacts structural reinforcement design and footing sizing for the retaining walls. The section detail drawing, the reinforcement table, and the site plan all present inconsistent maximum wall height values for the same wall types. If the contractor follows the section detail's 6'-0' maximum, the reinforcement and...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify the correct maximum wall height for Detail A2 on S1.6. The detail section drawing states 'H' VARIES, 6'-0' MAX, but Table No. 1 on the same sheet lists W10 at 10' MAX and W8 at 8' MAX. Additionally, on S1.4 the A2/S1.6 section is called out on Wall #1 where wall heights (TW minus BW) reach approximately...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify the correct maximum wall height for Detail A2 on S1.6. The detail section drawing states 'H' VARIES, 6'-0' MAX, but Table No. 1 on the same sheet lists W10 at 10' MAX and W8 at 8' MAX. Additionally, on S1.4 the A2/S1.6 section is called out on Wall #1...

Summary: On sheet S5.1 (Building Sections), keynote 3.5 is defined as '1.0C METAL DECK. ADD CONTINUOUS PERIMETER DECK ANGLE' and is used in the building sections to call out the roof deck assembly. On sheet S4.3 (Steel Floor Framing), keynote 3.5 is defined as 'SLAB SAW CUT JOINT AS SPECIFIED/NOTED. SEE DETAIL E ON SHEET S3.1' and is used in Details C...

Why it matters: Since S5.1 explicitly directs the reader to S4.3 for steel framing information, having the same keynote number represent different components creates ambiguity. During construction, a contractor viewing keynote bubble 3.5 would get contradictory information depending on which keynote schedule they reference. This could affect deck installation,...

Suggested next step: Please clarify and reconcile the definition of keynote 3.5 between sheets S5.1 and S4.3. On S5.1, keynote 3.5 is defined as '1.0C METAL DECK. ADD CONTINUOUS PERIMETER DECK ANGLE' while on S4.3 it is defined as 'SLAB SAW CUT JOINT AS SPECIFIED/NOTED.' Please confirm which definition is correct for each sheet and revise the keynote schedules to...

RFI draft: Please clarify and reconcile the definition of keynote 3.5 between sheets S5.1 and S4.3. On S5.1, keynote 3.5 is defined as '1.0C METAL DECK. ADD CONTINUOUS PERIMETER DECK ANGLE' while on S4.3 it is defined as 'SLAB SAW CUT JOINT AS SPECIFIED/NOTED.' Please confirm which definition is correct...

Summary: Drawing keynote 314 states to 'ADD SOD ALONG THE FULL PERIMITER' of the building. However, the structural specification on sheet S1.1, under section (31 23 00) Building Pad - Soil Preparation, explicitly requires 'A 10-FEET WIDE CONCRETE APRON SHALL ALSO BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG THE FULL PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING.' Sod (pervious turf/grass) and a...

Why it matters: The specification identifies the site soils as expansive with an effective Plasticity Index (PI) > 15. In expansive soil conditions, a concrete apron is critical to limiting moisture infiltration adjacent to the foundation, which helps control soil volume changes (heaving and shrinkage). Installing sod instead of a concrete apron would allow...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the structural engineer on whether a 10-foot wide concrete apron per the specification (S1.1, section 31 23 00) is required along the full building perimeter, or if sod as indicated by keynote 314 on sheet S2.2 is the intended treatment. If a concrete apron is required, keynote 314 should be revised to remove the sod...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the structural engineer on whether a 10-foot wide concrete apron per the specification (S1.1, section 31 23 00) is required along the full building perimeter, or if sod as indicated by keynote 314 on sheet S2.2 is the intended treatment. If a concrete apron is...

Summary: The drawing note under (05 31 33) Metal Floor Form Deck, item 4, specifies second floor concrete slab reinforced with 4' X 4' X W1.4 X W1.4 WWM. However, the specification requires 6' X 6' X W2.9 X W2.9 WWM. The W1.4 wire (0.014 sq in cross-sectional area) provides roughly half the reinforcement area of W2.9 wire (0.029 sq in). The drawing also...

Why it matters: Using undersized welded wire mesh could result in insufficient crack control and reduced slab capacity. This directly impacts the structural integrity of the second floor. The discrepancy affects material procurement and concrete placement, and if built to the drawing specification, the slab reinforcement would not meet the project structural...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the correct second floor concrete slab reinforcement: the drawing specifies 4' X 4' X W1.4 X W1.4 WWM and 3-inch thickness, while the specification requires 6' X 6' X W2.9 X W2.9 WWM and 3' - 4-1/2' thickness. Please confirm which reinforcement and thickness are to be used, and issue a revised drawing if needed.

RFI draft: Request clarification on the correct second floor concrete slab reinforcement: the drawing specifies 4' X 4' X W1.4 X W1.4 WWM and 3-inch thickness, while the specification requires 6' X 6' X W2.9 X W2.9 WWM and 3' - 4-1/2' thickness. Please confirm which reinforcement and thickness are to be...

Summary: Foundation plan keynote 315 on sheet S2.2 states 'FOOTING WITH CURB AT CMU WALL: SEE SECTION 3 ON SHEET S3.2,' and keynote 300 also lists 'FOOTING WITH CURB AT CMU WALL - SECTION 3/S3.2.' However, Detail 3 on sheet S3.2 is titled 'DROP AT INTERIOR BEAM,' which is an unrelated interior beam condition. The actual CMU wall section on S3.2 is...

Why it matters: During construction, contractors and inspectors following keynotes 300 or 315 for CMU wall footing/curb information would be directed to the wrong detail (an interior beam drop section). This could result in CMU wall foundations being constructed without proper reference to the intended section detail, potentially causing incorrect footing...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct detail reference for the 'FOOTING WITH CURB AT CMU WALL' condition referenced in keynotes 300 and 315 on S2.2. Should these keynotes reference Section 10 on Sheet S3.2 ('SECTION AT CMU WALL') instead of Section 3?

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct detail reference for the 'FOOTING WITH CURB AT CMU WALL' condition referenced in keynotes 300 and 315 on S2.2. Should these keynotes reference Section 10 on Sheet S3.2 ('SECTION AT CMU WALL') instead of Section 3?