Plan Review: 130 Issues Found

Summary: Sections 8 and 9 (Details 8/S511 and 9/S511) direct the installation of new structural steel columns ("STL. COL., SEE PLAN") bearing via non-shrink grout directly onto an existing foundation wall. However, the drawings explicitly label the supporting element as "EXIST. FDN. WALL, MATERIAL UNKNOWN". This conflicts with IBC Section 1604.2, which dictates that structural parts must be designed to ...

Why it matters: Without identifying the foundation wall material and verifying its structural capacity, the new concentrated column load could cause a localized bearing failure, punching shear, or excessive settlement. This introduces a severe risk of structural collapse and presents a major liability. Construct...

Suggested next step: Submit an RFI to the Engineer of Record requesting a field investigation and testing to determine the material properties and structural capacity of the existing foundation wall. If the capacity cannot be verified or is inadequate, request revised details for an independent st...

RFI draft: Submit an RFI to the Engineer of Record requesting a field investigation and testing to determine the material properties and structural capacity of the existing foundation wall. If the capacity cannot be verified or is inadequate, request revised...

Summary: The Motor Equipment Schedule on E611 contains two conflicting entries for unit 'AC-43': a 208V unit (FLA 10.60 A) and a 480V unit (FLA 21.97 A on circuit 123-1/5). The Roof Plan (E154) links AC-43 to circuit '123-1/5', matching the 480V schedule entry. However, E154 also tags AC-43 with Keynote 4, which directs to 'PROVIDE ... NEW 20A GE CIRCUIT BREAKER'. A 20A breaker would be appropriately si...

Why it matters: If the 480V equipment is actually being installed, the specified 20A breaker will immediately trip upon startup due to the 21.97 A full load current. The presence of two fundamentally different AC-43 entries in the schedule also creates ambiguity regarding which unit's electrical profile is correct.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct voltage, HP, and FLA for AC-43, and remove the duplicate entry from the Motor Equipment Schedule. Additionally, confirm if the 20A circuit breaker specified in Keynote 4 on E154 is correct, or if it must be upsized to accommodate the 21.97 A FLA of t...

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct voltage, HP, and FLA for AC-43, and remove the duplicate entry from the Motor Equipment Schedule. Additionally, confirm if the 20A circuit breaker specified in Keynote 4 on E154 is correct, or if it must be upsized to ac...

Summary: The horizontal girder along grid line T4 is labeled W14X22 on S154 (Roof Framing Plan West) at column C7 with T.O.S. 681'-6 1/2", while the same girder at grid T4 on S155 (Roof Framing Plan East) is labeled W16X26 at column C7 with the identical T.O.S. 681'-6 1/2". The matching column designation (C7) and top-of-steel elevation confirm these beams are at the same structural level, yet they are ...

Why it matters: A W14X22 (14" deep, 22 lb/ft) and W16X26 (16" deep, 26 lb/ft) have significantly different section properties and depths. If the incorrect size is fabricated, the beam may be structurally inadequate or result in connection geometry conflicts. The 2" difference in nominal depth affects deck bearin...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer confirm the correct beam size for the girder along grid line T4. Specifically, clarify whether the beam transitions from W14X22 (west of TC.1) to W16X26 (east of TC.1) at the column at grid TC.1, or if one designation is in error. If the beam do...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer confirm the correct beam size for the girder along grid line T4. Specifically, clarify whether the beam transitions from W14X22 (west of TC.1) to W16X26 (east of TC.1) at the column at grid TC.1, or if one designati...

Summary: The Column Schedule specifies an HSS6X6X1/4 column for mark C6, with a Type A base plate sized 7" wide by 1'-0" long. Detail 1/S511 for the Type A base plate indicates anchor rods are located 1 1/2" from the plate edges. Subtracting these edge distances from the 7" plate width results in a 4" center-to-center spacing for the anchors. Because the HSS column is 6" wide, this 4" anchor spacing pla...

Why it matters: If fabricated according to the schedule and dimensioned detail, the anchor rods will physically clash with the walls of the closed HSS column, making standard installation impossible without access holes (which are not detailed) or redesigning the base plate to be wider.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the base plate width or anchor rod edge distances for Column C6. Should the base plate be widened to keep the anchors outside the HSS6X6 column face as graphically shown in Detail Type A?

RFI draft: Please clarify the base plate width or anchor rod edge distances for Column C6. Should the base plate be widened to keep the anchors outside the HSS6X6 column face as graphically shown in Detail Type A?

Summary: The architectural floor plan A123 labels the horizontal grid line between T3.2 and T5 as 'T4.1'. However, both the fire protection plan F123 and the mechanical plan M123 label what appears to be the corresponding horizontal grid line as 'T4'. Since A123 shows no grid 'T4' and F123/M123 show no grid 'T4.1', this is a direct naming conflict for the same structural grid line across disciplines. Ad...

Why it matters: Grid lines are the fundamental coordinate system used by all trades to locate elements during construction. A mismatch between 'T4.1' and 'T4' will cause confusion for contractors trying to locate walls, ductwork, sprinkler mains, and equipment referenced to this grid. Tradespeople referencing A1...

Suggested next step: Request the design team to confirm and reconcile the horizontal grid line designations between T3.2 and T5. Is the grid labeled T4.1 on A123 the same grid as T4 on F123 and M123? If so, which label is correct, and all drawings should be updated for consistency. Also confirm wh...

RFI draft: Request the design team to confirm and reconcile the horizontal grid line designations between T3.2 and T5. Is the grid labeled T4.1 on A123 the same grid as T4 on F123 and M123? If so, which label is correct, and all drawings should be updated fo...

Summary: Architectural floor plan A124 and RCP A134 show the Level 1 West area partitioned into distinct rooms (e.g., "127A") with a "2' x 4' ACP System" ceiling at "14' - 0\" A.F.F.". Conversely, Mechanical plan M124 indicates this exact same area is an industrial space containing large equipment, specifically "NO. 1 OVEN", "NO. 16 OVEN", and "OVEN NO. 3". Furthermore, a Mechanical Keynote explicitly m...

Why it matters: This represents a critical failure in inter-disciplinary coordination regarding the fundamental scope of the Phase 2 West area. The Architectural plans depict a newly partitioned interior fit-out (offices/labs), while the Mechanical plans indicate an existing industrial layout with operational ov...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the interior scope of work for Building 1400 Phase 2 West. Mechanical drawings (M124) state that existing ovens (No. 1, 3, 16) are to remain operational. However, Architectural drawings (A124, A134) show the same footprint being partitioned into enclosed rooms (...

RFI draft: Please clarify the interior scope of work for Building 1400 Phase 2 West. Mechanical drawings (M124) state that existing ovens (No. 1, 3, 16) are to remain operational. However, Architectural drawings (A124, A134) show the same footprint being par...

Summary: Electrical drawing ED153 Keynote 2 directs the contractor to provide support for existing conduits, feeders, and devices during the removal of the old roof, to be reattached to the new roof deck once construction is complete. However, Structural drawing SD153 calls for the complete demolition of all existing roof framing purlins, girders, timber columns, and knee braces (Keynotes 1, 2, and 3).

Why it matters: Because the structural demolition scope removes the entire roof support system down to and including the columns and girders, it is physically impossible to support the existing electrical conduits 'in place' during the roof replacement without substantial and complex temporary bridging structure...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the coordination between electrical and structural roof demolition. Given that SD153 indicates complete removal of the roof structure including columns and girders, how should existing electrical conduits and devices be supported? Should the electrical scope be ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the coordination between electrical and structural roof demolition. Given that SD153 indicates complete removal of the roof structure including columns and girders, how should existing electrical conduits and devices be supported? S...

Summary: Architectural building sections mandate that the existing roof must remain in place to protect the interior until the new roof is completely built. In direct contradiction, Structural detail 3/S551 for the South Wall explicitly dictates that the existing roof must be demolished first before the new South Wall metal stud framing can be constructed.

Why it matters: This presents a critical physical sequencing conflict. The contractor cannot simultaneously keep the existing roof intact to satisfy the Architectural phasing requirement while also demolishing it to build the new Structural South Wall envelope. This will lead to major scheduling delays and poten...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required construction sequence for the South Wall and existing roof. If the existing roof must remain in place until the new roof is complete per Architectural, how should the new South Wall metal studs be constructed given the structural sequence in 3/S551 ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the required construction sequence for the South Wall and existing roof. If the existing roof must remain in place until the new roof is complete per Architectural, how should the new South Wall metal studs be constructed given the ...

Summary: The Architectural OVERALL ROOF DEMOLITION PLAN (AD153) explicitly differentiates the demolition scope between the West and East sides of the roof matchline. It indicates a 'HATCHED AREA OF ROOF TO BE DEMOLISHED' pointing to the West side, while designating the East side strictly as an 'AREA OF ROOFING WORK SEE ENLARGED PLAN' (implying non-structural roofing replacement). However, the Structural...

Why it matters: If the architectural intent is only to replace the roofing materials on the East side, the structural plan's requirement to demolish the underlying framing (purlins/girders) and support columns creates a critical scope conflict. This discrepancy will severely impact bidding accuracy, scheduling, ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the exact scope of demolition for the East side of the roof (right of the matchline). Architectural plan AD153 designates this as 'AREA OF ROOFING WORK', whereas Structural plan SD154 indicates complete removal of the existing roof framing purlins and girders. D...

RFI draft: Please clarify the exact scope of demolition for the East side of the roof (right of the matchline). Architectural plan AD153 designates this as 'AREA OF ROOFING WORK', whereas Structural plan SD154 indicates complete removal of the existing roof ...

Summary: The mechanical keynote 4 on M124 identifies a single existing condensing unit, "AC-43", to be relocated. However, the electrical "MOTOR AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE" on E611 lists two separate entries for "AC-43" with completely contradictory electrical characteristics: one entry specifies 208 V, 3 Phase, 3 HP, while the second entry specifies 480 V, 3 Phase, 15 HP.

Why it matters: This direct contradiction in the electrical schedule makes it impossible to determine the correct electrical infrastructure, breaker sizing, and wiring required for the AC-43 unit referenced on the mechanical plans. Supplying incorrect voltage or amperage sizing could severely damage the equipmen...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct electrical requirements (voltage, phase, HP, FLA) for the relocated condensing unit AC-43 shown on M124, and update the Motor Equipment Schedule on E611 to remove the duplicate and incorrect entry.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct electrical requirements (voltage, phase, HP, FLA) for the relocated condensing unit AC-43 shown on M124, and update the Motor Equipment Schedule on E611 to remove the duplicate and incorrect entry.

Summary: The Hazardous Area Classification Plan (E011) limits specific hazardous areas (requiring NEC 500/501 compliance) to localized hatched zones immediately surrounding the ovens (e.g., NO. 16 OVEN, as located on M124). However, the Lighting Plan (E123) assigns Keynote 1 (mandating Class 1, Div 2 explosion-proof ratings) to standard fixtures (T1/a, E2) located far outside these hatched zones in uncl...

Why it matters: Specifying explosion-proof lighting in unclassified areas will result in massive unnecessary procurement and installation costs. Failing to specify these fixtures in actual hazardous areas directly violates NEC 500/501, posing severe life-safety explosion risks and guaranteeing inspection failure.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the exact intended extent of the Class 1, Div 2 lighting requirement. Should all fixtures within Building 1400 Phase 2 be rated Class 1, Div 2 (contradicting E011 zones), or only those within the hatched areas? If limited to the hatched zones, please update E123...

RFI draft: Please clarify the exact intended extent of the Class 1, Div 2 lighting requirement. Should all fixtures within Building 1400 Phase 2 be rated Class 1, Div 2 (contradicting E011 zones), or only those within the hatched areas? If limited to the hat...

Summary: Structural Note F.4.b states: "WHERE BARS OF DIFFERENT SIZES ARE LAPPED, THE LAP LENGTH SHALL BE BASED ON THE SMALLER BAR." This directly conflicts with the fundamental development requirement of ACI 318-14 Section 25.4.1.1, which requires that calculated tension or compression in reinforcement at each section shall be developed on each side of that section. At a splice between bars of differen...

Why it matters: This note applies project-wide to every splice where bars of different sizes are lapped. In practice, bar size transitions are common at column-to-footing connections, wall-to-foundation dowels, and beam reinforcement transitions. If the contractor follows this note and uses the smaller bar to de...

Suggested next step: Request the engineer revise Structural Note F.4.b to clarify that when bars of different sizes are lapped in tension, the lap splice length shall be the greater of (a) the development length of the larger bar and (b) the Class B splice length of the smaller bar, per ACI 318-14...

RFI draft: Request the engineer revise Structural Note F.4.b to clarify that when bars of different sizes are lapped in tension, the lap splice length shall be the greater of (a) the development length of the larger bar and (b) the Class B splice length of t...

Summary: Detail 2/S511 specifies "(2)-#4 TIES AROUND ANCHORS", depicting closed ties wrapping exclusively around the anchor rods. However, ACI 318-14 Section 25.3.2 explicitly requires that standard hooks for ties enclose longitudinal reinforcement. Anchor rods are not classified as longitudinal reinforcement, meaning the detail directly violates the code. Furthermore, the Column Schedule specifies post...

Why it matters: Fabricating and placing cast-in-place ties that only enclose post-installed anchor locations is unbuildable. If the ties are placed without enclosing actual vertical rebar, they provide no structural confinement or shear resistance, potentially compromising the foundation's structural integrity a...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 2/S511 to show ties enclosing the pier's vertical longitudinal reinforcement rather than the anchor rods, and clarify the coordination between the cast-in-place ties and the scheduled post-installed adhesive anchors.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 2/S511 to show ties enclosing the pier's vertical longitudinal reinforcement rather than the anchor rods, and clarify the coordination between the cast-in-place ties and the scheduled post-installed adhesive anchors.

Summary: TMS 402 Section 1.2.1(i) explicitly requires the project drawings to show both the size and permitted location of conduits, pipes, and sleeves in masonry structures. While General Note G.15 provides location constraints (stipulating they must not interrupt horizontal or vertical reinforcing), it fails to specify the maximum allowable size for these penetrations.

Why it matters: Failing to specify a size limit on the structural drawings leaves the masonry walls vulnerable to excessively large cores or embedments by MEP trades. Oversized penetrations can drastically reduce the net cross-sectional area of the walls, sever critical webs, and severely compromise structural i...

Suggested next step: Please update Note G.15 or provide a typical detail on the drawings that clearly defines the maximum permitted size (e.g., maximum diameter) for conduits, pipes, and sleeves passing through or embedded in the concrete masonry walls.

RFI draft: Please update Note G.15 or provide a typical detail on the drawings that clearly defines the maximum permitted size (e.g., maximum diameter) for conduits, pipes, and sleeves passing through or embedded in the concrete masonry walls.

Summary: The roof framing plan (S153) calls out detail '2 S551' at the perimeter boundary adjacent to 'BLDG. 346'. The referenced detail, 'SECTION AT EAST WALL' (2/S551), specifies a 'C10x15.3 GIRT' for the perimeter framing. Similarly, the girt-to-column connection in Section 8/S551 labels the member as a 'C10x15.3 GIRT, TYP.'. However, the installation note for the connection plate in Section 8/S551 d...

Why it matters: This discrepancy in structural girt sizing between the member labels and the fabrication/installation notes will cause coordination issues during procurement and erection. If the connecting plates are detailed and the columns are prepared for a 10-inch channel but an 8-inch channel is supplied (o...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct size for the perimeter girts referenced in Section 2/S551 and 8/S551. Should the girts be C10x15.3 as labeled on the members, or C8 as indicated in the field drill fit-up note in Detail 8/S551?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct size for the perimeter girts referenced in Section 2/S551 and 8/S551. Should the girts be C10x15.3 as labeled on the members, or C8 as indicated in the field drill fit-up note in Detail 8/S551?