New Jersey has that covered as well and many a submission has been rejected because of such"legal" language; (Emphasis in CAPS)
5:23-2.15 Construction permits--application (f) Plans, plan review, plan release: 1. "Plans and specifications: The application for the permit shall be accompanied by no fewer than two copies of specifications and of plans drawn to scale, with sufficient clarity and detail dimensions to show the nature and character of the work to be performed. Plans submitted shall be required to show only such detail and include only such information as shall be necessary to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the code and these regulations or to facilitate inspections for code conformity. When quality of materials is essential for conformity to the regulations, specific information shall be given to establish such quality; and this code shall not be cited, or the term "legal" or its equivalent be used, as a substitute for specific information." Bottom line anyone can write "Furnish and Install a system in compliance with IBC..NFPA... etc", or "Provide system in compliance with the NJ Uniform Construction Code", it doesn't take an engineer or technician to do that relegating such tasks to the contractor. If you commissioned to design then design. There's been considerable discussion again about plan stamping where professional engineers are paid a fee and do little if any actual supervision. If that's the case we might as well accept the NICET certified technicians design and save the owner money. Last but not least the architect of record is typically the principal design professional responsible overall for a project and commissioned by the client and the first on the project well in advance of the MEPF. Don't forget where the RCP comes from. John Drucker, CET Assistant Construction Official Fire Protection Subcode Official Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Borough of Red Bank Red Bank, New Jersey Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Cell/Text: 732-904-6823 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: 100 PSI requirement at top of Standpipe Isn't it suppose to be if you stamp it, you own it. Granted they think saying meet all codes and standards exempts them from oversights (like calling the entire school Light Hazard despite it having a working aircraft hangar as part of the facility) and it's often easier to fix than fight but until they consistently get kicked in the ... lets go with wallet, it isn't going to change. Just like in the parking lot of most stores, where it says not responsible for damage caused by carts. If accepted, it's true. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX <http://www.firesprinkler.org> http://www.firesprinkler.org On Feb 19, 2014, at 1:20 PM, Todd Williams < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote: > First of all there has to be an EoR in the first place. Today you get a lot of stuff that is design-build because no one wants to take responsibility. The project ends up being "specified" by the estimator when he figures the job and the it is designed by a Nicet designer. If the designer does not have a state license, then the former septic system engineer-turned baptist minister (actual case here in CT) stamps it. So who is ultimately responsible? > > Todd G Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, CT > 860-535-2080 > <http://www.fpdc.com> www.fpdc.com > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.or g> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
