Advice

[FP1873]

Hello All,

As a long time reader of these forums, I have learned much from all of you. Thank you.

I have been a licensed contractor for 4 years, much less time than many of you out there, and until now, I have never posted or requested information for something specific like this. I thank you all, in advance for your input. Here goes:

Over the last year we have been working on chain "high-end" convenience stores, installing the low-voltage systems. We have been given drawings by the customer, which we have used to apply for permits-successfully in about 25-30 locations spanning most of FL, Until now.

I know that the "diversity" of AHJ requirements can be tricky, but in this particular situation, the words "money-grab" immediately come to mind. The AHJ has rejected our submittal package 3 times now, with the third time costing us a double permit fee. We work in some very demanding jurisdictions including Miami-Dade, Collier, etc. and we have successfully used this submittal package in all of them. In this case, each time we have provided what he wants, this reviewer has provided a new laundry list of different "codes/requirements" that I feel should have been mentioned in the first rejection punch list. This has incensed our customer and we are holding up the job.

Now my question: Has anyone out there ever appealed this type of situation to the next level? If so, I would truly appreciate your knowledge on how this is done procedurally, and what options I have.

I am concerned that I will lose this account because of this issue.

 

[__dan]

There is no question that there exists some people in positions of power who have less than noble intentions and are genetically lacking in certain qualities that you would expect a civilized person to have. There is a basic assumption of honestly, a duty to not injure arbitrarily, that each will be treated equally, that the law will be followed.

This is only the idealistic case and there is no mandatory requirement it be applied. The ancient Chinese had the mandarin system where the top 1% became the administrators and the top 1% of administrators became the inspectors.

So there is no determining what you are facing and guesstimates about local protectionism, unleashed psychopathy, generally pervasive graft and extortion, the possibilities exceed the imagination.

Since the customer is involved my advice would be to disclose the artificial but real impasse with the town to the customer and discuss the possible next steps. There is either added time and cost or the option of using the local inspector's nephew's contracting business. The customer should decide if they want to go scorched earth on the impassable grifter or if there is a wiser course of action.

If it was your own house or property and there was no customer involved. My advice would be to go scorched earth and hit them as hard as you can as fast as you can. The next time around you may find the mistake you made on the first go round was not hitting hard enough fast enough.

If it's just one person, battle on the code references. As soon as a second person joins in against you, try citing US 18-241, conspiracy to injure and intimidate. There may be no magic charm the does what you want, they could be crooked and grifting with no recourse of any kind, but the advantage to hitting hard and fast early is you want to find that out as quickly as possible wasting no time trusting them to do the right thing.

 

[luckylerado]

Are they legitimate code issues? I have been down this road with the government. Sometimes if the design was pencil whipped by the engineer or drafter, the reviewer will just stop reviewing and kick it back. It is not the reviewers job to produce a work list for the designer / engineer.

When I do submittal review for a sub-contractor and it is clear that very little attention was paid to the specifications or code, I will just kick it back for corrections and simply say not compliant with XYZ section. I will not create a list of every deficiency that I find as it is not my job to do design work and I do not have the time. As a GC it is expected that my subs read the spec, know their trade and apply their codes.

If they are legit code issues then the designer is holding up the show not you and is wasting the time of the plan reviewer and probably setting up a poor relationship with the inspector. An appeal would waste more time and resources than putting a competent designer on the job.

 

[iwire]

Are they legitimate code issues?

Asking the important question.:thumbsup:


The fact it passed in other places does not mean they did not miss things.

 

[petersonra]

I agree with the posters who are asking if the issues are legit or not. Some places do not look real close at submittals, others do.

 

[FP1873]

Thank you all very much for your responses.

As for the question of "is it for code reasons". The answer is: The reviewer says they are, but will not provide references, publications, or anything other than "per code". The plans were put together by the customer's engineers, stamped by their P.E. and I do not see any issues with non-compliance. This, in addition to the fact that we have done 25 of these without a rejection in multiple counties leads me to believe they are at least "compliant" drawings.

Example issues are: "Add a grid to the drawings showing the effective range of each type of device, notification appliance, box required, etc. per code." This information was included in the project submittal package and furnished to plan review. This Fire alarm plan started as a 1 page Arch D document and grown to 3 sheets for a convenience store.

I am far from perfect, but I do take considerable pride in the fact that I do everything I can to make sure our installations meet or exceed the applicable codes.

I have no desire to upset the apple-cart here, ("go scorched earth", although it is sounding better by the day), but I do want to know what my next step is to bring this to someone above this person.

I sincerely thank you again for your responses and thoughts

 

[luckylerado]

Thank you all very much for your responses.

As for the question of "is it for code reasons". The answer is: The reviewer says they are, but will not provide references, publications, or anything other than "per code". The plans were put together by the customer's engineers, stamped by their P.E. and I do not see any issues with non-compliance. This, in addition to the fact that we have done 25 of these without a rejection in multiple counties leads me to believe they are at least "compliant" drawings.

Example issues are: "Add a grid to the drawings showing the effective range of each type of device, notification appliance, box required, etc. per code." This information was included in the project submittal package and furnished to plan review. This Fire alarm plan started as a 1 page Arch D document and grown to 3 sheets for a convenience store.

I am far from perfect, but I do take considerable pride in the fact that I do everything I can to make sure our installations meet or exceed the applicable codes.

I have no desire to upset the apple-cart here, ("go scorched earth", although it is sounding better by the day), but I do want to know what my next step is to bring this to someone above this person.

I sincerely thank you again for your responses and thoughts

If the documents meet the requirements of NFPA 72 Chapter 7, then I would fight. If it does not then I would be pointing at the designer.

Either way I do not know how this can come back on you if you are not on the hook for design.

 

[kenaslan]

Some plan checkers are just what you described. I remember once a drawing I did with a handicap auto door on a high end hotel. The plan checker insisted a fusible disconnect mounted on the glass wall next to the door, because the automatic door had a motor inside of it, and the internal on off switch was not acceptable to him. It took over a month to get it resolved with a threatened law suite to the city for loss of revenue to the hotel. As the plan checker could not back up via any code what he wanted.

 

[gadfly56]

Some plan checkers are just what you described. I remember once a drawing I did with a handicap auto door on a high end hotel. The plan checker insisted a fusible disconnect mounted on the glass wall next to the door, because the automatic door had a motor inside of it, and the internal on off switch was not acceptable to him. It took over a month to get it resolved with a threatened law suite to the city for loss of revenue to the hotel. As the plan checker could not back up via any code what he wanted.

There is a right to appeal to the Florida Building Commission. Certainly, if there is a failure to specify the particular deficiencies in the plan review that would be a prima facie case for appeal.