Ralph,
Let me play “Devil’s Advocate” for a moment since I worked part time for one of the 3rd party (actually second party since the first is the municipality and I am the third party in the chain) plan checkers. What bothered me most was to have a response to my corrections (not following a list but noted on the last sheet where I had latitude to write my own) was a response from the engineer “See S-01” or “See plan” or “Corrected” without any further response.
These are extremes and the ideal solution is somewhere in middle. I tend to write a paragraph for each correction (yes, I’m verbose) so that I am perfectly clear that not only is the change made but where it is located or why I felt I covered it per code.
It’s frustrating, I know, but the problem I was addressing is an ambiguously written code that leaves both sides of the submittal package to debate and waste the time of the client who wants to break ground.
Regards,
Dennis
From: Rhkratzse@aol.com [mailto:Rhkratzse@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 11:14 AM
To: d.topete73@gmail.com; seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Paying for clarification
In a message dated 1/7/09 10:47:25 AM, d.topete73@gmail.com writes:
My experience with 3rd party plan checkers that some municipalities use around here in the SF area has been very tedious to say the least... For the most part, they seem to follow the code letter as written, with very little grey area/wiggle room given to the designer...
I can second that, especially as concerns one (unnamed) reviewing firm. They seem to run down a checklist with almost no regard for what's actually on the drawings. My responses are often of the "look at Detail ___" variety. But some comments of their comments are truly inane, such as "What *brand* are the anchor bolts?" (really)
Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
Structural Engineer
Richmond CA USA
**************
New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)