|
“Improving the quality of plan review and inspections, one step at a time!” |
|
Did you know that architecture and engineering programs do not teach codes!
Most design professionals formally learn codes through red-line comments from review agencies.
Is your jurisdiction training them? |
|
Welcome to CSA Plan Review Services |
|
Since 2002 CSA has been developing and delivering contractor qualification assessments to improve the quality of plan submittals and inspections. During this time we have informally provided plan review services for several clients. In 2007, at the request of several jurisdictions, CSA formally began providing third-party plan review services. These jurisdictions acknowledged limited resources in keeping up with growth and development within their communities. Some jurisdictions, such as counties, often do not have any formal positions in place to enforce building and fire codes. With the rapid growth in many areas they are seeing buildings and facilities constructed without being code compliant. In an effort to keep up with growth, jurisdictions are opting to exercise provisions within the model codes allowing them to utilize third-party reviews and even third-party inspections of new construction projects. Exercising these provisions allow a jurisdiction to avoid raising taxes while still working to obtain compliance with local and state building / fire codes. To help jurisdictions achieve successful implementation CSA has been working to develop services beyond just code enforcement. We could easily achieve the needs of jurisdictions by just providing plan reviews. But we wanted to identify how we could meet additional needs of the customer (i.e. the designers, contractors, and owners). To do this, we identified common obstacles. Here are just a few that were identified: 1. Many problems with a fire alarm system design starts with the electrical engineers design documents. Frequently the electrical engineer places devices and information on the plans to show the basic intent of an alarm system and then relies on the fire alarm contractor to provide a system to code. However, contractors are not allowed to alter an engineers sealed plans. The individual can be fined and even charged with “practicing engineering”. More importantly, the engineer is responsible to design a system around the owners needs. The contractor is responsible to install to the engineers criteria while satisfying the code. An engineers fire alarm plans must show devices in accordance with code and provide complete information to the contractor. All too often the contractor will bid and typically install from these initial non-compliant plans. Without effective plan review of the engineers initial documents by an AHJ before the project is bid, the system may be doomed from the start. AHJ’s need to review plans before this occurs. Compliance and success with codes is also compromised when AHJ’s are not consistent in their requirements, reviews, enforcement, and inspections. 2. Many electrical contractors will start installing junction boxes and pull wire based on the original engineers plans long before a fire alarm contractor is on-board or is given time to prepare shop drawings. Frequently the boxes already roughed in are not even indicated in the correct locations to satisfy minimum code. 3. There is often a lack of proper shop drawings or submittal documents to support engineers criteria. Instead circuits are penciled in on the original engineers plans with no calculations to support the loads, wire size, or number of circuits. 4. The architectural design may take credits for sprinklers with respect to allowable area. Often, the plans will not communicate to others that the credits have been taken and that a full NFPA 13 system was required. To get the project with a lowest bid a contractor may bid and install a NFPA 13R system for a 4 story apartment complex. After all, it would be the least expensive and minimum compliant system if no area credits were needed and draft stopping was provided. Is anyone checking on this coordination? 5. Architects and contractors may submit 6 to 10 sets of submittal documents only to find out that they are being turned down for corrections. For most design offices, there is a significant amount of time and expense in plotting, copying, binding, delivering, and then picking up submittal documents only to find most have or will be thrown away. Then the process starts over.
These are just a few areas CSA and jurisdictions have identified were improvements could be made. Working closely with jurisdictions, we hope that our services can help to address many of the common challenges normally encountered. Learn how CSA can help the process!
|
|
Compliance Services and Assessments, LC P.O. Box 723 17 Business Park Dr. #10 Greenbrier, AR 72058 |
|
To contact us: |
|
Phone: (501) 679-3345 Fax: (501) 679-3345 E-mail: info@CSAexams.com Email Plans to: Plans@CSAexams.com |
