Flushing Design & Coordination Literally Down the Toilet

Having seen this post on LinkedIn, gave me something to consider. I made my comments and thought I should cover the matter as I see it from the photo provided in the original post by @Modesto Millo, at KAST., who brings attention to this matter.

I thought it might make a good article if I were to combine all my observations and thoughts, I had posted, together in response to this photo. 

I response to Modesto’s post, “MEP Coordination is an important part of what we do. Quality comes with preparation and planning.”

I responded, "That is why Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing (“MEP”), Fire Alarm, Fire Sprinkler, Communications, and Security designs need to be coordinated and on a 3D platform to help us identify and resolve conflicts, errors, and omissions (E&O), during the construction documents stage and not when the designs are released to the field and the issue is resolved (or partially resolved as shown on the attached photo) and cost the contractor and/or Owner's design team money…”

3D BIM Review Process

I have contracted and worked with design teams that use BIM to design projects. As I reviewed the design team's Conceptual Designs, Design Development, and Construction Documents. I had identified no less than 300 and no more than 700+ issues, without the use of any automated conflict detections or tool, for each project I had reviewed.

I sent each issue, I had identified involving Civil, Landscape, Irrigation, Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing (“MEP”), Fire Alarm, Fire Sprinkler, Communications and Security designs, in writing to the design team (for each project with my comments).

The design team would review each issue and provide a snippet of the modification to the drawings as a resolution to the issue or provide a reason for the design they had originally included.

The design team would send their responses to me for my review. I would determine if the responses were acceptable, so I could close the issue, or if the response required additional follow-up, which would allow me to keep the issue open.

Do not get me wrong, we must still use 2D drawings for permits (but that is a limitation set by Authority Having Jurisdiction (“AHJ”) review. I am sure they will convert, but that would be an exceedingly difficult conversion.

Contractor Rule for Cutting Steel Embedded in the Building

Based on the photo it seems to me, the shell contractor/subcontractor cut steel to allow the plumbing subcontractor the ability to install sanitary pipe. So, the contractor informed the structural engineer of record, and the structural engineer of record provided permission/instructions in writing to the contractor, and the contractor cut the beam steel after receiving the document.

I posted “The rule is the contractor cannot cut any steel designed and placed into the structure without informing the structural engineer of record and receiving instructions in writing from the structural engineer of record.” 

What Does Florida Building Code Say?

To support my post, I researched the Florida Building Code (“FBC”) and cite the following:

“1927.8 Cutting of holes. No openings or channels not provided for in the structural design shall be made on the job without the specific approval of the Professional Engineer following his written, detailed instructions covering such work.”

Was Steel Cut?

By the photo - To me, the beam size seems to need more than two (2) rebars (shown in the photograph). It is likely, the structural engineers had other rebars inside the beam. They conflicted with the sanitary line shown.

 Therefore, the Contractor cut the rebars somewhere along the sides of the sanitary pipe.

If this is not the case (meaning, the contractor did not cut rebars); but the structural engineer’s designs show other rebars in the beam that would have conflicted with the sanitary pipe: we may be looking at the contractor casting the beam with missing rebars. 

Possible Action to Take

If I were in this position, I would review the drawings, discuss this issue with the Structural Engineer of Record, and determine if the design called out rebars like those I had described. If there were other rebars in the design; then the contractor did cut the rebars.

Otherwise, the contractor poured the beam without the other rebars, which would not comply with the Structural Engineer of Record's design of that beam. Making this a bigger issue where the beam’s design and strength might not comply. 

One Condition Might be OK, More Might Not.

Finally, I have one more point. The photo shown at the top of this article has an area I circled in blue which seems to me to be the same issue except it affects another beam. Are there other beams affected? Does the Structural Engineer of Record know this is an issue that involves more than one location? 

If you have any questions or want to discuss the issue go to https://www.linkedin.com/in/josephgarcia3

More about me: