University Campus Plan Review: 78 Issues Found

Summary: 11 index entries | 0 perfect matches | 9 mismatched | 2 missing Mismatched (9): 0101: Expected: COVERSHEET | Actual: COVERSHEET (p1) 0102: Expected: GENERAL NOTES | Actual: GENERAL NOTES (p2) 0201: Expected: SITE PLAN | Actual: SITE PLAN (p3) 0301: Expected: GROUND FLOOR PLAN | Actual: GROUND FLOOR PLAN (p4)...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 3025 / 0101 / 1 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX, page 1

Summary: Two separate documents both contain a detail with the reference bubble '1' over '0501' but depicting entirely different building assemblies. DocumentIndex 0 contains a detail 1/0501 titled 'DETAIL SECTION BOX GUTTER & RENLITA DOOR', while documentIndex 1 (sheet 0601) contains a detail 1/0501 titled 'DETAIL - FACADE SECTION - 1'. Both details...

Why it matters: During construction, when a builder or sub-contractor references section mark 1 on plan sheet 0501, it will be unclear which detail is the correct one, as two different details with different titles and content share the same reference number 1/0501. This numbering clash undermines the cross-referencing system for the entire drawing set,...

Suggested next step: Request the design team to renumber one of the two details so that each section cut on plan sheet 0501 has a unique reference number, and update all corresponding callout markers on sheets 0501 and 0601 (and any other affected sheets) accordingly.

RFI draft: Request the design team to renumber one of the two details so that each section cut on plan sheet 0501 has a unique reference number, and update all corresponding callout markers on sheets 0501 and 0601 (and any other affected sheets) accordingly.

Summary: Section - Stair - 01 on Sheet 0603 Rev B shows individual riser heights of 172mm across the stair flight with tread goings of 280mm. Section - Stair - 01 on Sheet 0603 Rev 1 shows individual riser heights of 175mm with a total rise of 1571mm for 9 equal risers and the same 280mm tread goings. This 3mm per riser difference results in a...

Why it matters: The riser height directly affects compliance with BCA/NCC and AS1428.1 requirements for stair geometry, including maximum/minimum riser dimensions and uniformity. Both documents note 'CONCRETE STAIR TO ENGINEERS DESIGN AND DETAILS', meaning the structural engineer's design must coordinate with the correct riser height. Constructing to the wrong...

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct riser height for Stair 01, is it 172mm (as shown in Rev B) or 175mm (as shown in Rev 1)? Confirm the total rise dimension and ensure coordination with the structural engineer's stair design and the finished floor levels at both landings.

RFI draft: Clarify the correct riser height for Stair 01, is it 172mm (as shown in Rev B) or 175mm (as shown in Rev 1)? Confirm the total rise dimension and ensure coordination with the structural engineer's stair design and the finished floor levels at both landings.

Summary: Both the ground floor plan and stair detail plan show the stair run numbered with 9 treads ('1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9'). However, the section details call out both '9 EQ RISERS' and '9 EQ TREADS'. Geometrically, a standard single stair flight cannot have an equal number of treads and risers (a flight with 9 treads must have 10 risers).

Why it matters: If there are 9 treads of 280mm (2520mm total run), there must be 10 risers. If there are 9 risers, there can only be 8 treads (2240mm total run). This fundamental geometrical conflict means the stairs cannot be constructed as drawn without altering either the total run length or the total rise height.

Suggested next step: Review and correct the stair geometry in Section 01 and Section 02. Please confirm if the stair should have 9 risers (and therefore 8 goings) or 10 risers (with 9 goings), and update the dimension strings and numbering on all associated plans and sections to match.

RFI draft: Review and correct the stair geometry in Section 01 and Section 02. Please confirm if the stair should have 9 risers (and therefore 8 goings) or 10 risers (with 9 goings), and update the dimension strings and numbering on all associated plans and sections to match.

Summary: The Detail Plan - Stair - 01 on sheet 0603 dimensions the overall stair width as 1950mm (with 1734mm clear width), while the Ground Floor Plan on sheet 0301 shows a width dimension of 1880mm at the same proposed stair near grid F. Both drawings depict the identical stair with 9 treads at 280mm going, yet the perpendicular (width) dimension...

Why it matters: A 70mm discrepancy in the stair width affects the retaining wall setout, balustrade/handrail layout, tactile indicator zone extents, and the structural slab opening at the stair location. If the as-built width follows the floor plan dimension of 1880mm, the clear width between handrails would be reduced below the 1734mm shown on the detail,...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct overall width of Stair-01: is it 1950mm as dimensioned on the Detail Plan - Stair - 01 (sheet 0603), or 1880mm as dimensioned on the Ground Floor Plan (sheet 0301)? Please coordinate and update both drawings to reflect the agreed dimension, and confirm the resulting clear width satisfies AS1428.1 requirements.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct overall width of Stair-01: is it 1950mm as dimensioned on the Detail Plan - Stair - 01 (sheet 0603), or 1880mm as dimensioned on the Ground Floor Plan (sheet 0301)? Please coordinate and update both drawings to reflect the agreed dimension, and confirm the resulting...

Summary: The Detail Plan - Stair - 01 on Sheet 0603 Rev B shows an overall stair width of 1950mm and a clear stair width of 1734mm. The same Detail Plan on Sheet 0603 Rev 1 shows a stair width dimension of 1720mm in the equivalent location. This represents a 14mm reduction in the clear width dimension between the two document revisions.

Why it matters: Stair clear widths are regulated by BCA/NCC and accessibility standards (AS1428.1). A reduction from 1734mm to 1720mm may affect compliance with minimum width requirements for the intended occupancy classification. The balustrade/handrail coordination, tactile indicator layout, and structural engineer's design of the concrete stair may also be...

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct clear stair width for Stair 01. Is the clear dimension 1734mm (with 1950mm overall, as shown in Rev B) or 1720mm (as shown in Rev 1)? Verify compliance with applicable width requirements under BCA/NCC and AS1428.1.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct clear stair width for Stair 01. Is the clear dimension 1734mm (with 1950mm overall, as shown in Rev B) or 1720mm (as shown in Rev 1)? Verify compliance with applicable width requirements under BCA/NCC and AS1428.1.

Summary: The 1:10 envelope detail drawings on Sheet 3025/0601/B are at Revision B dated 10.09.2025 issued 'FOR TENDER'. The building section and elevation sheets that reference these details (e.g., Sheet 3025/0402/1) are at Revision 1 dated 25.02.2026 issued 'FOR CONSTRUCTION', having progressed through multiple intermediate revisions (FOR DISCUSSION,...

Why it matters: A 5-month revision gap between the referenced detail drawings and the calling section/elevation drawings means the details may not reflect design changes made during the coordination and construction documentation phases. The facade details (Danpal panels, Spantech screen, roof junctions, metal sheeting connections) shown at 1:10 scale are...

Suggested next step: Confirm whether Detail Sheet 3025/0601/B has been updated to reflect all design changes incorporated during the coordination and construction documentation phases (Revisions H through 1 on the section/elevation sheets). Request that the detail sheet be reissued at the current FOR CONSTRUCTION revision level to ensure consistency with Sheets...

RFI draft: Confirm whether Detail Sheet 3025/0601/B has been updated to reflect all design changes incorporated during the coordination and construction documentation phases (Revisions H through 1 on the section/elevation sheets). Request that the detail sheet be reissued at the current FOR CONSTRUCTION...

Summary: The structural detail sheet 3025/0604/A consistently designates the perimeter facade columns along the north and west facades as COL1 (Column - Type 1). This is shown in the structural floor plan P1 where COL1 tags are placed at column locations along the north roof edge and west wall, and in Section 1 (North Facade Structural Detail) and...

Why it matters: Column type designations directly affect structural sizing, connection details, base plate design, and fabrication shop drawings. If COL1 and COL7 represent different steel section sizes or column configurations, fabricating and erecting the wrong column type could have significant structural implications. Since both the architectural plan...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct column type designation for the perimeter facade columns along the north and west facades. The structural detail sheet 3025/0604/A shows these as COL1 (Column - Type 1), while the architectural plan 3025/0301/1 and the concrete setout plan 3025/0320/1 both designate them as COL7 (Column - Type 7). Please confirm which...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct column type designation for the perimeter facade columns along the north and west facades. The structural detail sheet 3025/0604/A shows these as COL1 (Column - Type 1), while the architectural plan 3025/0301/1 and the concrete setout plan 3025/0320/1 both designate...

Summary: The 1:10 Box Gutter Awning details on sheet 3025/0605/A are titled '3/0501', despite a plan callout on the same sheet referencing '3/0605'. This creates cross-referencing conflicts across the architectural elevations. The 3D detail specifically indicates a 'BOX GUTTER AWNING' with a 'RENLITA DOOR BELOW' (a 7000mm wide opening shown in the plan...

Why it matters: Incorrect detail markers and mismatched sheet references will cause confusion on site, potentially leading the builder to apply the box gutter awning details to incorrect locations (like the Services Room or Outdoor Enclosure) while missing the intended details at the Renlita door.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct detail numbers for the Box Gutter Awning details on sheet 3025/0605/A (e.g., revise '3/0501' to '3/0605'). Additionally, update the detail callouts on the South, East, and West elevations to point to the correct section details.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct detail numbers for the Box Gutter Awning details on sheet 3025/0605/A (e.g., revise '3/0501' to '3/0605'). Additionally, update the detail callouts on the South, East, and West elevations to point to the correct section details.

Summary: The box gutter plan on sheet 3025 / 0605 / A shows the downpipe/grid setout associated with the box gutter as being between grids A–B and 9–10 (with 'DP1' called up). However, the same sheet’s box gutter section explicitly references the 'BREAK-OUT SPACE', and the Ground Floor Plan shows the 'BREAK-OUT SPACE' located at 'BUILDING GRID 9/F'....

Why it matters: If the box gutter/DP1 is set out to the wrong grid location, the vertical downpipe may not land in the intended external drainage zone/connection point, creating drainage coordination conflicts and potential rework of façade penetrations, stormwater connections, and associated civil works.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the intended building grid location for the box gutter/awning and associated DP1 serving the Break-out Space. Should the box gutter plan on 3025 / 0605 / A be revised to match the Break-out Space location at grid 9/F, or is the Break-out Space/grid reference on 3025 / 0301 / 1 different for this detail scope?

RFI draft: Please confirm the intended building grid location for the box gutter/awning and associated DP1 serving the Break-out Space. Should the box gutter plan on 3025 / 0605 / A be revised to match the Break-out Space location at grid 9/F, or is the Break-out Space/grid reference on 3025 / 0301 / 1...

Summary: Document 1 establishes the structural ground floor datum as 'GROUND - BUILDING 27.340'. Document 2 anchors the base of Stair 01 to this exact 27.340 datum. However, the vertical geometry shown in Document 2 fails to coordinate with this baseline. Document 2 Section 1 labels the top landing of the stair as 'R.L. 30.0 / 30.000' (requiring a 2.66m...

Why it matters: The stair assembly as detailed cannot be constructed to physically bridge the gap between the established structural ground datum (27.340) and the R.L. 30.000 upper level. It is unclear whether the R.L. 30.000 callout is a drafting error (given the plan's RL 28.910 spot level, which roughly aligns with the ~1.5m rise), or if the stair is...

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct upper elevation for Stair 01 and adjust the stair rise dimensions accordingly. Verify if the top landing should be at RL 28.910 (which roughly matches the 1544mm/1574mm rise dimensions shown in section) or R.L. 30.000 (which would require a completely redesigned stair with additional treads to bridge the 2.66m gap from the...

RFI draft: Clarify the correct upper elevation for Stair 01 and adjust the stair rise dimensions accordingly. Verify if the top landing should be at RL 28.910 (which roughly matches the 1544mm/1574mm rise dimensions shown in section) or R.L. 30.000 (which would require a completely redesigned stair with...

Summary: Sheet 0602 contains a detail titled 'DETAIL SECTION BOX GUTTER & RENLITA DO' that depicts a 'RENLITA DOOR' located directly vertically beneath a 'SUMP BOX GUTTER'. However, the overall building sections contradict this combined assembly. In Section 5, the 'RENLITA DOOR' is shown under a 'STRUCTURAL ANGLE BEAM TO ENTIRE ELEVATION', with no box...

Why it matters: Merging these two distinct edge conditions into a single detail creates a conflict for the building envelope and structural framing. The contractor will lack the correct, location-specific head detail for the Renlita doors at the structural angle beam, leading to coordination clashes between the door track installation and the roof structure.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the head detail for the Renlita Doors. Section 5 indicates they are located under a structural angle beam, while the detail on Sheet 0602 shows them under a sump box gutter. Please provide updated, location-specific architectural details separating the Renlita Door head condition from the Box Gutter eave condition.

RFI draft: Please clarify the head detail for the Renlita Doors. Section 5 indicates they are located under a structural angle beam, while the detail on Sheet 0602 shows them under a sump box gutter. Please provide updated, location-specific architectural details separating the Renlita Door head condition...

Summary: The Box Gutter Plan (Doc 0) indicates a 'SUMP BELOW' requiring hydraulic engineer design and a 'DP1 BELOW' at the box gutter ends. However, the Ground Floor Plan (Doc 1) shows multiple 'DP1' locations along the south facade but fails to provide any receiving stormwater pits or sumps for these discharge points. The adjacent exterior area is...

Why it matters: Discharging roof downpipes directly onto a concrete driveway or DDA carpark without a designated stormwater collection pit violates standard drainage practices and can cause localized flooding or pavement damage. The grated drains ('GD') shown on the architectural plan are specifically designated for door thresholds, not for roof water collection.

Suggested next step: Please coordinate the architectural ground floor plan with the hydraulic and civil designs to show the required stormwater pits beneath all 'DP1' locations and the 'SUMP BELOW' along the south facade, ensuring they connect properly to the site stormwater network.

RFI draft: Please coordinate the architectural ground floor plan with the hydraulic and civil designs to show the required stormwater pits beneath all 'DP1' locations and the 'SUMP BELOW' along the south facade, ensuring they connect properly to the site stormwater network.

Summary: The Architectural North Elevation indicates a lower horizontal band of lightweight cladding (LWC1) at the base of the facade. However, the Structural North Facade Detail and the Architectural Building Section 1 show the Perforated Spantech Screen (MRS2) and Danpal Panel system continuing down to a concrete hob (HOB) at the base, with no LWC1...

Why it matters: This discrepancy affects the ordering and detailing of the facade base, potentially causing weatherproofing and dimensional conflicts at the foundation interface.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended base cladding for the North Facade. Should the base incorporate an LWC1 band as shown on the elevation, or does the Spantech/Danpal system continue to the concrete hob as detailed in the structural sections?

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended base cladding for the North Facade. Should the base incorporate an LWC1 band as shown on the elevation, or does the Spantech/Danpal system continue to the concrete hob as detailed in the structural sections?

Summary: Sheet 0603 shows the stair set out as nine equal treads/steps (steps numbered through 9 and noted as 9 equal treads). However, the entry stair shown on the North Elevation (sheet 0401) is numbered only up to 5, indicating a different number of steps for what appears to be the same 'NEW STAIRS' at the entry.

Why it matters: A mismatch in step/tread count will change total rise/run, landing levels, and the required handrail/balustrade lengths. This can cause on-site setout errors and may impact AS1428.1 compliance if the constructed geometry differs from the approved details.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct number of risers/treads for the entry stair. Update either the North Elevation (3025/0401) or the stair details (3025/0603) so both drawings show the same step numbering/count and corresponding setout.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct number of risers/treads for the entry stair. Update either the North Elevation (3025/0401) or the stair details (3025/0603) so both drawings show the same step numbering/count and corresponding setout.