Plan Review: 76 Issues Found

Summary: 58 index entries | 33 perfect matches | 21 mismatched | 4 missing Mismatched (21): A8.01: Expected: ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS AND INTERIOR ELEVATIONS (A8.01) | Actual: ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS INTERIOR ELEVATIONS (A8.01)(p21) A8.02: Expected: ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS AND INTERIOR ELEVATIONS (A8.02) | Actual: ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS INTERIOR ELEVATIONS (A8.02)(p22) S-001: Expected: GENERAL...

Why it matters: Addressing this before construction prevents rework and supports code compliance.

Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve before construction.

RFI draft: Please clarify: Drawing Index Audit: 4 missing, 21 mismatched out of 58 sheets

Summary: The door schedule lists Door 105 as a 4'-0" wide double door ("DOUBLE DOOR - FULL LITE"). With a total opening of 48 inches split between two leaves, even an unequal leaf configuration (e.g., 2'-8" active / 1'-4" inactive) cannot yield the required 32-inch minimum clear width. A 2'-8" (32") nominal leaf, when measured between the face of the door and the stop with the door open 90 degrees (dedu...

Why it matters: This is a fundamental dimensional non-compliance that will be flagged during plan review and ADA compliance inspection. If built as scheduled, the door would need to be replaced or the opening widened, resulting in significant construction delays and rework costs including potential structural mo...

Suggested next step: Request the architect revise Door 105 to provide a minimum 32-inch clear width on at least one active leaf. The total opening width should be increased to at least 5'-0" (with a 3'-0" active leaf and a 2'-0" inactive leaf) or alternatively changed to a single 3'-0" door if the...

RFI draft: Request the architect revise Door 105 to provide a minimum 32-inch clear width on at least one active leaf. The total opening width should be increased to at least 5'-0" (with a 3'-0" active leaf and a 2'-0" inactive leaf) or alternatively changed...

Summary: The Design Loads section (Section 09) on this sheet explicitly states 'WIND LOADS: (NOT APPLICABLE)' with no wind design parameters provided whatsoever. IBC Section 1603.1.4 requires the following wind design information to be shown on construction documents 'regardless of whether wind loads govern the design of the lateral force-resisting system of the structure': (1) Ultimate design wind spee...

Why it matters: The complete absence of wind design data for a building located in Louisiana, a coastal state subject to significant hurricane and wind hazards with ultimate design wind speeds commonly ranging from 130 to 160+ mph, is a critical omission that will almost certainly result in plan review rejection a...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record provide all wind design data required by IBC Section 1603.1.4 on the construction documents, including: (1) Ultimate design wind speed Vult and nominal design wind speed Vasd per Section 1609.3.1, (2) Risk category, (3) Wind exposure c...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record provide all wind design data required by IBC Section 1603.1.4 on the construction documents, including: (1) Ultimate design wind speed Vult and nominal design wind speed Vasd per Section 1609.3.1, (2) Risk...

Summary: The drawing states under 'TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION': "IBC 602.2 Type II construction is that type of construction in which the exterior walls are of noncombustible materials and the interior building elements are of any material permitted by the IBC. Fire retardant treated wood framing complying with Section 2303.2 shall be permitted within exterior wall assemblies of 2 hour rating or less." This t...

Why it matters: This mischaracterization of Type IIB construction is critical because it could lead contractors to believe combustible materials are permitted for interior structural elements (primary structural frame, bearing walls, floor construction). If construction proceeds based on this incorrect definitio...

Suggested next step: Request that the design team correct the Type IIB construction definition on sheet G0.01 to match IBC Section 602.2, which requires all building elements listed in Table 601 to be of noncombustible materials, and remove the language describing interior building elements as bei...

RFI draft: Request that the design team correct the Type IIB construction definition on sheet G0.01 to match IBC Section 602.2, which requires all building elements listed in Table 601 to be of noncombustible materials, and remove the language describing int...

Summary: The 2-hour fire-rated floor assembly documented as UL Design No. G503 specifies the ceiling gypsum board as "Gypsum Board- 5/8" thick" without designating it as Type "X" gypsum board. On the same drawing sheet, every 1-hour fire-rated wall partition explicitly specifies "5/8" TYPE "X" GYP. BD. EA. SIDE," demonstrating the architect differentiates between regular and Type X gypsum board. Per IBC...

Why it matters: If a contractor follows the detail as written and installs regular 5/8" gypsum board (not Type X) on the underside of the 2-hour floor/ceiling assembly, the assembly will not achieve the required fire-resistance rating. Type X gypsum board contains glass fiber reinforcement that significantly imp...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the gypsum board specified in the UL Design No. G503 floor assembly detail should be designated as 5/8" Type "X" gypsum board (consistent with the UL listing requirements for a 2-hour fire-resistance rating), and revise the detail accordingly.

RFI draft: Please confirm the gypsum board specified in the UL Design No. G503 floor assembly detail should be designated as 5/8" Type "X" gypsum board (consistent with the UL listing requirements for a 2-hour fire-resistance rating), and revise the detail a...

Summary: The Straight Bar Development Length table (Detail 2/S-002) lists identical development length values for Case A and Case B across all bar sizes and concrete strengths. For example, a #8 bar at f'c = 4,000 psi shows Ld = 38" for both Case A and Case B. The drawing's own notes define Case A as favorable conditions (clear spacing ≥ db, cover ≥ db, adequate ties) and Case B as "ALL OTHER CASES." Pe...

Why it matters: If a contractor references this table for conditions that meet only Case B criteria, the reinforcement will be developed with insufficient embedment length, potentially as little as two-thirds of the required length. This directly affects bond capacity between reinforcement and concrete and could ...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record to review and correct the Straight Bar Development Length table (Detail 2/S-002) to provide proper Case B development lengths per ACI 318. Case B values must be greater than Case A values to account for less favorable clear spacing and...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record to review and correct the Straight Bar Development Length table (Detail 2/S-002) to provide proper Case B development lengths per ACI 318. Case B values must be greater than Case A values to account for le...

Summary: The RATED WALL PENETRATION detail shows conduit and sleeve penetrations through a fire-rated wall with only generic instructions to "SEAL PENETRATIONS SO AS TO MAINTAIN RATING OF WALL FOR FIRE PROOFING" and "SEAL AT BOTH ENDS SO AS TO MAINTAIN RATING OF WALL FOR FIRE PROOFING." No specific approved through-penetration firestop system, UL system number, listed product, or testing standard (ASTM ...

Why it matters: Fire-rated wall penetrations are heavily scrutinized during inspections. Without a specified listed firestop system (e.g., a UL system number), the building inspector will likely reject the installation as non-compliant with IBC 714.3.1.2. Contractors will not know which firestop product or assem...

Suggested next step: Request that the design team revise the RATED WALL PENETRATION detail to specify an approved through-penetration firestop system tested in accordance with ASTM E 814 or UL 1479, including the specific UL system number(s), listed firestop product(s), and required F rating match...

RFI draft: Request that the design team revise the RATED WALL PENETRATION detail to specify an approved through-penetration firestop system tested in accordance with ASTM E 814 or UL 1479, including the specific UL system number(s), listed firestop product(s...

Summary: The mechanical RCP shows supply air diffusers (S1 100 CFM) in both Women's Restroom 103 and Men's Restroom 104, but no exhaust air devices are indicated in either restroom. The drawing's color legend explicitly defines green as "NEW MECHANICAL WORK (EXHAUST)," yet no green exhaust symbols appear in the restrooms or anywhere else on this floor plan. IBC Section 2801.1 requires mechanical systems...

Why it matters: Lack of restroom exhaust ventilation will be flagged during plan review and will not pass permitting. Toilet rooms require dedicated exhaust to remove odors and contaminants. Adding exhaust ductwork, fans, and roof or wall penetrations after construction has progressed would cause significant cos...

Suggested next step: Request the mechanical engineer confirm how exhaust ventilation will be provided for Women's Restroom 103 and Men's Restroom 104 in compliance with the International Mechanical Code as required by IBC Section 2801.1. Request revised mechanical drawings showing exhaust air devi...

RFI draft: Request the mechanical engineer confirm how exhaust ventilation will be provided for Women's Restroom 103 and Men's Restroom 104 in compliance with the International Mechanical Code as required by IBC Section 2801.1. Request revised mechanical dra...

Summary: The First Floor Plan shows Stair 108 as the only interior exit stairway in the building, located in the northeast corner with its east side against the building exterior wall. The east exterior wall of the stair enclosure shows no door, only layered wall construction lines. The only exit from the stair enclosure is door 108 located at the south side of the enclosure, which opens through the 1-ho...

Why it matters: This is a fundamental life-safety egress deficiency that will likely result in plan review rejection by the building department. Occupants descending from upper floors via Stair 108 would be required to traverse through the Multi-Purpose Space 101 to reach an exterior exit door, which does not sa...

Suggested next step: Clarify how Interior Exit Stairway 108 complies with IBC Section 1023.1, which requires interior exit stairways to lead directly to the exterior of the building or be extended with an exit passageway per Section 1024. If relying on Section 1028.2 Exception 1 for discharge thro...

RFI draft: Clarify how Interior Exit Stairway 108 complies with IBC Section 1023.1, which requires interior exit stairways to lead directly to the exterior of the building or be extended with an exit passageway per Section 1024. If relying on Section 1028.2 ...

Summary: The door schedule assigns Hardware Set 3 to doors 106 and 110, both of which carry a UL 60 MIN. fire rating. Hardware Set 3 specifies only a push plate, pull plate, surface closer, kick plate, and silencers, it contains no latchset, lockset, or any positive latching device. IBC Section 716.1 requires that opening protectives (fire door assemblies) be installed in accordance with NFPA 80, which...

Why it matters: Fire-rated doors without positive latching hardware will not maintain compartmentation during a fire, as they can be pushed open by pressure differential from smoke and heat. This compromises the 1-hour fire-rated partition for door 110 and the fire separation at door 106. These doors would fail ...

Suggested next step: Request the architect to revise the hardware specification for fire-rated doors 106 and 110 to include a positive latching device (latchset, lockset, or exit device with latch) in compliance with IBC Section 716.1 and NFPA 80. If push/pull plate operation is desired for these ...

RFI draft: Request the architect to revise the hardware specification for fire-rated doors 106 and 110 to include a positive latching device (latchset, lockset, or exit device with latch) in compliance with IBC Section 716.1 and NFPA 80. If push/pull plate o...

Summary: The structural general notes explicitly state 'WIND LOADS: (NOT APPLICABLE)' with no wind design parameters provided whatsoever. IBC Section 1603.1.4 requires wind design data to be shown on construction documents 'regardless of whether wind loads govern the design of the lateral force-resisting system of the structure.' The five required items, basic design wind speed (V and Vasd), risk categ...

Why it matters: The complete absence of wind design data on the construction documents will almost certainly result in permit rejection during plan review. If the building was not actually designed for wind loads, the structure may be unsafe and would require significant redesign of the lateral force-resisting s...

Suggested next step: Request that the Structural Engineer of Record provide all wind design data required by IBC Section 1603.1.4, including basic design wind speed (V and Vasd), risk category, wind exposure, applicable internal pressure coefficient, and design wind pressures for exterior componen...

RFI draft: Request that the Structural Engineer of Record provide all wind design data required by IBC Section 1603.1.4, including basic design wind speed (V and Vasd), risk category, wind exposure, applicable internal pressure coefficient, and design wind p...

Summary: The Design Loads section (Note 09.A) explicitly states the design codes as 'INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) 2015 / ASCE 7-10.' The 2021 IBC requires structural concrete to be designed 'in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and ACI 318 as amended in Section 1905 of this code' (Section 1901.2), and cold-formed steel to be designed 'in accordance with AISI S100' (Section 2210.1). T...

Why it matters: This is a fundamental code compliance issue affecting the entire structural design basis. A plan reviewer checking against the 2021 IBC would flag the incorrect code edition reference, likely requiring either a redesign to the current code or a detailed analysis demonstrating full compliance. Thi...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer confirm whether the structural design has been reviewed against and complies with the 2021 International Building Code and ASCE 7-16. If the design was performed to IBC 2015 / ASCE 7-10, request that the design be updated to reflect the current ...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer confirm whether the structural design has been reviewed against and complies with the 2021 International Building Code and ASCE 7-16. If the design was performed to IBC 2015 / ASCE 7-10, request that the design be u...

Summary: The Straight Bar Development Length table (Detail 2/S-002) shows identical development lengths for both Case A (favorable bar spacing/cover conditions) and Case B ("ALL OTHER CASES") across all bar sizes and all concrete strengths. For example, #3 at f'c=3000 psi shows Ld=14" for both Case A and Case B; #8 at f'c=4000 psi shows Ld=38" for both cases. Per ACI 318, as required by IBC Section 1901...

Why it matters: Using these unconservative Case B development lengths during construction would result in insufficient bar anchorage wherever Case A favorable conditions are not met, which is a common field occurrence. Insufficient development length can lead to reinforcement bond failure and compromised structu...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record to verify and correct the Straight Bar Development Length table (Detail 2/S-002). The Case B development lengths currently show the same values as Case A, but should be approximately 25% longer per ACI 318 development length requiremen...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record to verify and correct the Straight Bar Development Length table (Detail 2/S-002). The Case B development lengths currently show the same values as Case A, but should be approximately 25% longer per ACI 318...

Summary: The 'RATED WALL PENETRATION' detail shows conduit and sleeve penetrations through a fire-rated wall with only generic instructions to 'SEAL PENETRATIONS SO AS TO MAINTAIN RATING OF WALL FOR FIRE PROOFING' and 'SEAL AT BOTH ENDS SO AS TO MAINTAIN RATING OF WALL FOR FIRE PROOFING.' No listed penetration firestop system, UL system number, or specific firestop product is referenced. IBC Section 714...

Why it matters: This omission is a common point of rejection during plan review and fire inspections. Without a listed firestop system specification, contractors may install non-listed sealants or generic caulking that does not carry the required fire-resistance rating. Fire marshals and inspectors will reject t...

Suggested next step: Request that the electrical engineer revise the 'RATED WALL PENETRATION' detail to specify that all penetrations through fire-resistance-rated assemblies shall be protected by a listed penetration firestop system installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation ins...

RFI draft: Request that the electrical engineer revise the 'RATED WALL PENETRATION' detail to specify that all penetrations through fire-resistance-rated assemblies shall be protected by a listed penetration firestop system installed in accordance with the m...

Summary: The First Floor Lighting Plan shows a Stair enclosure at the northeast portion of the building with no lighting fixtures or callouts indicated within it. Every other room on the plan, Women's Restroom (QTY:9 C6), Men's Restroom (QTY:9 C6), Vestibule (C6), Offices (D24), Room (D24), Mechanical Room (QTY:2 S4), and Storage (QTY:14 S4), has lighting fixtures with quantity and type callouts. The ...

Why it matters: The complete absence of lighting in a stair enclosure is a life safety code violation that will be identified during plan review and will result in permit rejection. Stairways are critical egress components requiring both normal illumination (10 footcandles) and emergency illumination. This omiss...

Suggested next step: Request the electrical engineer provide lighting fixtures within the Stair enclosure to meet the 10 footcandle illumination requirement per IBC Section 1008.2.1 and the emergency illumination requirement per IBC Section 1008.3.2. Fixture type, quantity, and emergency power pro...

RFI draft: Request the electrical engineer provide lighting fixtures within the Stair enclosure to meet the 10 footcandle illumination requirement per IBC Section 1008.2.1 and the emergency illumination requirement per IBC Section 1008.3.2. Fixture type, qua...