Architectural clause calculates an occupant load of 85 persons for this floor based on the final room program, while fire protection's hydraulic calculation, exit sign quantity, and panic hardware count are based on a design occupant load of only 60 persons per an earlier space program. This discrepancy means the fire protection system's egress capacity provisions (signage, hardware, hydraulic demand) may be under-designed relative to the actual occupant load, creating a functional life-safety incompatibility that must be reconciled.
Architectural clause 5 notes emergency egress lighting on E-101 stops near Grid 2 and does not extend to the exit at Vestibule 101, directly matching electrical clause 4's identification that EM fixtures along Corridor 106 are spaced only as far as Grid 2 and do not continue west to the Vestibule 101 exit. Both describe the same gap in emergency lighting coverage along the same egress path, confirming a real coordination conflict that must be resolved by extending fixture coverage.
The architectural occupant load of 85 persons (basis for exit signage and panic hardware counts on the architectural sheet) conflicts with the fire protection sheet FP-101's design occupant load of 60 persons, which is used for exit sign quantity and hydraulic demand calculations. Since both disciplines must use a consistent occupant load for exit signage counts and life safety calculations, this mismatch is a direct functional incompatibility that must be resolved before finalizing either sheet.
Clause 4 requires verifying Corridor 106's 3'-4" (40") clear width against the minimum corridor width for an 85-person occupant load, since it is the sole egress path for two-thirds of the tenant space. Fire protection clause 5 independently flags that the architectural life safety plan calculates 85 persons for this floor versus a 60-person design basis used for fire protection calculations. If the 85-person figure is confirmed, the corridor width requirement likely increases (typically to 44" per common egress requirements for occupant loads over 49), making the shown 40" width non-compliant. Both clauses hinge on resolving the same occupant load figure (85 vs. a lower basis) and its downstream effect on egress sizing/design, so they must be reconciled together.
Mechanical clause 7 is a mutual coordination note that directly corresponds to fire_protection clause 7 (both reference the SP-14/D-6 note), and both point to the underlying physical conflict identified in fire_protection clause 2: sprinkler head SP-14 and HVAC diffuser D-6 are shown occupying the same ceiling grid cell, which is a physically incompatible layout that must be resolved before ceiling grid installation.
RA-1's bottom-of-duct elevation of +9'-2" AFF is above BM-4's bottom-of-steel elevation of +9'-0" AFF, meaning the duct does not clear the beam at all (it would need to be at or below +8'-10" to satisfy the 2" clearance, and even below +9'-0" just to avoid physical collision). This directly violates the clearance requirement in structural clause 9 and physically conflicts with BM-4 as documented in structural clause 3.
RTU-1's stated operating weight of 3,200 lb exceeds the 2,000 lb concentrated point load capacity that BM-7 was designed for at Grid B3. Both the mechanical clause and structural clauses 6 and 4 reference the same beam (BM-7) and location (Grid B3), and the mechanical unit's actual weight surpasses the structural design allowance, requiring the beam to be resized before the unit is set.
WH-1 is shown 18" from the wall it shares with Panel EP-2, reducing EP-2's clear working space to ~18" when the panel already only has 30" (needing 36" minimum). Plumbing's clause 8 acknowledges a clearance conflict but only checks against E-101 panel clearance requirements generically; the actual documented conflict is with EP-2's clearance being encroached by WH-1's placement, which is physically incompatible and needs direct coordination.
WH-1 is placed 18" from the east wall of Room 105, the same wall as electrical Panel EP-2. Electrical clause 3 confirms this reduces EP-2's clear working space to ~18", and clause 2 states EP-2 requires 36" of clear working space at its voltage-to-ground condition. The plumbing water heater placement is therefore physically incompatible with the electrical code clearance requirement for EP-2 in the same room.
Plumbing clause 2 confirms electrical clause 3's finding: WH-1 is located near Panel EP-2 and reduces clear working space in front of EP-2 to approximately 18", well below the 36" required clearance for the panel's voltage condition. Both disciplines independently flag the same physical conflict between the water heater placement and the panel's required clear working space, and it also compounds the pre-existing deficiency noted in electrical clause 2 (only 30" shown even before WH-1 is considered).
BM-7 is structurally designed for a 2,000 lb concentrated point load, but the mechanical engineer's selected RTU-1 has a stated operating weight of 3,200 lb including curb and rigging, exceeding the beam's design capacity by 1,200 lb. The beam must be resized before RTU-1 is set, per both the structural and mechanical notes.
Structural clause 9 requires a minimum 2" clearance between the bottom of duct/conduit and bottom-of-steel at beam crossings, specifically citing RA-1 crossing BM-4. Mechanical clause 2 confirms RA-1's bottom-of-duct elevation is +9'-2" AFF while BM-4's bottom-of-steel is +9'-0" AFF, meaning the duct is actually 2" ABOVE (i.e., intruding into) the beam's bottom-of-steel rather than clearing it by 2" below. This is a direct physical clash - the duct as drawn occupies the same space as the beam flange and does not meet the required clearance.
Mechanical clause specifies RTU-1 operating weight of 3,200 lb at Grid B3/BM-7, exceeding the structural clause's assumed allowable point load of 2,000 lb for BM-7. Structural confirms this capacity is unverified against original design documents, creating a direct load-capacity conflict that must be resolved before RTU-1 is set.
Mechanical clause 2 states RA-1 duct bottom elevation is +9'-2" AFF, which clears BM-4 only if BM-4's bottom-of-steel is +9'-0" AFF as noted here. However, structural clause 3 flags an internal discrepancy on the same sheet where BM-4 is alternately called out as W12X26, a deeper section that would raise/lower the effective clearance and could change the bottom-of-steel elevation relationship relied upon by the mechanical routing. Until the beam size/elevation is field-verified and confirmed, the duct clearance calculation in the mechanical clause cannot be confirmed as correct, creating a functional coordination conflict between the two disciplines' assumptions about BM-4's elevation.
Structural clause locates the column at Grid C/3 at 48'-0" from Grid 1 (on grid), while architectural drawing A-101 dimensions the same column at 47'-6" from Grid 1 based on field-verified conditions. This 6" discrepancy in column location directly affects placement of the adjacent Sterilization/Storage partition and casework, and must be reconciled between structural and architectural before those elements are set.
The architectural drawing bases exit signage and panic hardware counts on an 85-person occupant load, while the fire protection drawing FP-101 bases exit sign quantity and hydraulic calculations on a 60-person occupant load. These conflicting occupant load figures must be reconciled between architect and fire protection engineer before finalizing exit signage counts, as stated in this clause.
Sprinkler head SP-14 and HVAC supply diffuser D-6, both serving Sterilization 110, are shown occupying the same ceiling grid cell on FP-101 and M-101 respectively. This is a direct physical clash requiring one device to be relocated before ceiling grid installation so neither obstructs the other's coverage/spray pattern.
The fire protection sheet's exit signage count and hydraulic calculations are based on a design occupant load of 60 persons, while the architectural life safety plan (A-102) calculates the occupant load for the same floor as 85 persons based on the final room program. This is a direct numeric mismatch between the occupant load basis used for life-safety egress calculations (exit signage quantity, panic hardware, hydraulic calc) on two coordinated sheets, and the fire protection design needs to be revised to match the correct 85-person figure.
Fire protection clause bases exit sign quantity, panic hardware count, and hydraulic demand calculations on an occupant load of 60 persons, while architectural clause 2 explicitly states the calculated occupant load for the same floor is 85 persons and flags that these figures should match but currently do not. Using a lower occupant load than the actual code-calculated value could result in undersized/insufficient exit signage, panic hardware, and fire protection hydraulic demand for the actual occupant load.
Panel EP-2 requires 36" of dedicated clear working space per NEC/electrical requirements, but WH-1's placement 18" from the shared wall reduces the clear floor space in front of EP-2 to approximately 18", which is physically incompatible with the required 36" clearance. Both the electrical and plumbing clauses independently confirm this same conflicting dimension.
Electrical clause 6 requires panel working clearance (per EP-1/EP-2 notes) to meet code minimums (typically 36" for the voltage/condition shown). Plumbing clause 2 states WH-1's location reduces the clear working space in front of Panel EP-2 to approximately 18", which is physically incompatible with the required dedicated working clearance.
Electrical clause 2 states EP-2 requires 36" clear working space but only 30" is shown, already a deficiency. Plumbing clause 2 further indicates WH-1 as located reduces usable clear floor space in front of EP-2 to approximately 18", compounding the code clearance violation at the same panel/wall location.
Both clauses identify the same deficiency: emergency/egress lighting fixtures along Corridor 106 (shown on E-101/A-102) stop near Grid 2 and fail to extend the remaining distance west to the exit at Vestibule 101, leaving a portion of the egress path shown on the architectural life safety plan without emergency lighting coverage. This is a direct cross-discipline coordination gap between the architectural life safety/egress plan and the electrical emergency lighting layout.
Civil clause 9 and electrical clause 5 both identify a crossing between the new domestic water service and the electrical duct bank shown on C-101, but neither clause specifies the actual required horizontal/vertical clearance dimension, leaving the separation unresolved and requiring active coordination to avoid an unsafe or code-noncompliant utility crossing.
Civil clause 5 places the new domestic water service (Station 0+30, east-west) and the electrical duct bank (Station 0+20, north-south) in intersecting alignments without specifying clearance. Electrical clause 5 confirms C-101 shows this crossing with no horizontal/vertical separation called out, creating an unresolved utility clearance conflict that must be coordinated between civil and electrical.
Civil clause 6 and electrical clause 5 both identify the same unresolved crossing near Station 0+20 (C-101) between the new domestic water service and the electrical duct bank, with no horizontal or vertical separation specified. Both call for coordination between civil and electrical to establish the required clearance, confirming this is a shared, unresolved design gap rather than a true incompatibility, but it represents a coordination conflict that must be resolved jointly.
The architectural egress path runs the full length of Corridor 106 to the Vestibule 101 exit, but the electrical emergency lighting layout only provides EM fixture coverage as far as Grid 2, not continuing west to Vestibule 101. This leaves a portion of the designated egress path without emergency lighting coverage, which is functionally incompatible with life safety requirements for the full egress route shown on A-102.
Mechanical clause requires verifying roof structure capacity for RTU-1 with the structural engineer, but structural notes indicate the original roof design documents are unavailable and the 2,000 lb allowance for BM-7 is only an assumed allowable pending verification. Additionally, structural clause 6 requires the mechanical engineer to confirm the actual RTU weight does not exceed the 2,000 lb allowance, or the beam must be resized. If RTU-1's actual operating weight exceeds 2,000 lb, or if the unverifiable original design documents reveal insufficient capacity, the mechanical assumption that the roof can support the equipment as currently planned would be invalid, creating a functional coordination gap between the mechanical verification step and the structural capacity uncertainty.
The structural note indicates the 2,000 lb allowance for BM-7 is only an assumed value pending verification against unavailable original roof design documents, adding further uncertainty to whether BM-7 can support RTU-1's 3,200 lb operating weight, compounding the incompatibility identified with the beam's design load.
Mechanical clause 6 requires coordination of RA-1 duct crossing beam lines with structural bottom-of-steel elevations on S-101. Structural clause 9 specifies a minimum 2" clearance below bottom-of-steel at BM-4 and flags that the RA-1 duct's noted bottom-of-duct elevation at BM-4's bay needs to be verified/confirmed to actually meet that clearance - this is an open coordination item that could result in a physical clash if the duct elevation as shown does not provide the required 2" clearance.
Mechanical clause 3 and fire_protection clause 2 both identify that diffuser D-6 and sprinkler head SP-14 in Sterilization 110 occupy the same ceiling grid cell, which is physically incompatible since both require unobstructed coverage in that location. Both clauses call for coordination/relocation of one device before ceiling grid installation, confirming the same underlying physical clash documented from each discipline's plan.
Mechanical clause 5 requires roof structure capacity verification with the structural engineer before setting rooftop equipment, referencing the RTU-1/BM-7 issue; this directly depends on the structural clause's unresolved verification status for the 2,000 lb assumed allowable, indicating a coordination gap that needs closure.
Fire protection sprinkler head SP-14 and mechanical diffuser D-6 are both located in the same ceiling grid cell in Sterilization 110, creating a physical clash. Both clauses acknowledge the conflict and call for coordination/relocation before ceiling grid installation, but the underlying spatial conflict must be resolved.
Fire protection clause establishes sprinkler head SP-14 at Sterilization 110 per Ordinary Hazard Group 1 spacing requirements (130 SF/head), while mechanical clause 3 identifies that supply diffuser D-6 serving the same Sterilization 110 room occupies the same ceiling grid cell as sprinkler head SP-14. This is a direct physical clash between the sprinkler coverage/obstruction requirements implied by the fire protection design and the diffuser placement, requiring relocation of one device before ceiling grid installation.
Electrical clause 5 and civil clauses 5, 6, and 9 all describe the same underground crossing between the new electrical duct bank and the new domestic water service, with no horizontal or vertical separation/clearance called out. This is a genuine coordination gap affecting a shared physical location (the utility crossing near the site), requiring resolution between electrical and civil engineers before trenching.
Plumbing clause 8 calls for verifying WH-1's clearance from the east wall against the electrical panel clearance shown on E-101, directly referencing the same working clearance requirement mandated in electrical clause 6, indicating an unresolved coordination issue between the water heater placement and the panel's required dedicated space.
Architectural clause 5 identifies that the emergency/egress lighting fixtures shown on E-101 stop near Grid 2 and do not extend the full length of the egress path to the exit at Vestibule 101. Electrical clause 7 calls for coordinating emergency/egress fixture locations with the life safety plan (A-102), but as currently drawn the fixture layout is incomplete relative to the egress path, creating a functional incompatibility between the emergency lighting coverage and the life safety egress route it is meant to illuminate.
The electrical duct bank routing (E-101) crosses the new 2" domestic water service at approximately Station 0+20, and civil documents note no horizontal/vertical separation or clearance is specified at this crossing. This is a physical incompatibility risk requiring coordinated clearance resolution between electrical and civil before trenching.
Architectural clause 6 dimensions the column at Grid C/3 as 47'-6" from Grid 1 based on field conditions, while structural clause 1 states the same column is located on grid at 48'-0" from Grid 1 per S-101. This is a direct 6" discrepancy in the located position of the same physical column that must be reconciled before partitions, casework, or framing are set relative to it.
Architectural clause dimensions column at Grid C/3 as 47'-6" from Grid 1 based on field verification, while structural clause states the same column is located on grid at 48'-0" from Grid 1. This 6" discrepancy must be reconciled before partitions or casework are set relative to this column.
Architectural room 103 is labeled as the Accessible Restroom, but the plumbing clause identifies the accessible restroom with matching ADA fixtures as room 104, not 103. This room numbering mismatch between architectural and plumbing drawings needs to be resolved to confirm the fixtures documented actually correspond to this room.
Electrical clause references the Restroom door swinging into Corridor 106 as room 104, conflicting with the panel EP-1 clearance zone. Since architectural clause 103 is the Accessible Restroom (possibly the same room referred to as 104 elsewhere), the door numbering discrepancy (103 vs 104) must be reconciled before confirming whether the door swing conflict applies to this room.
The fire protection clause flags that the A-102 life safety plan's occupant load (85 persons) may conflict with the 60-person design basis used for exit signage and hydraulic calculations on the fire protection sheet. Since clause 3 designates A-102 as the authoritative life safety/egress reference, this discrepancy in occupant load could invalidate the fire protection design assumptions and needs resolution.
The electrical clause identifies a potential gap in emergency/egress lighting coverage along the corridor to Vestibule 101, which is part of the egress path defined by the A-102 life safety plan referenced in clause 3. If the egress lighting does not extend the full length of the designated egress path, it would be functionally incompatible with the life safety plan's requirements.
Clause 5 flags that Corridor 106's clear width (40") needs verification against code minimum for the occupant load served, per the A-102 egress calculation. Fire protection clause ef0c7a2e notes a discrepancy in occupant load basis (60 vs 85 persons) on the same A-102 egress calc, which directly affects the corridor width requirement being checked in this clause -- if the higher occupant load of 85 is correct, the required minimum clear width for Corridor 106 may increase beyond what a 60-person basis would require, compounding the verification needed here.
Architectural clause 104 refers to the Mech/Elec Room (labeled 104), while plumbing, electrical clauses reference 'Mech/Elec Room 105' - a room numbering discrepancy between architectural and other disciplines' documents that should be reconciled to ensure all trades are coordinating on the same room.
Architectural clause 40 confirms the door swings into Corridor 106. Electrical clause c0db094c notes Panel EP-1's required clear working space lands in that same stretch of Corridor 106 where the restroom door (104) swings in, per A-101. A door swinging into the corridor over the panel's required clearance zone is a physical incompatibility that needs resolution (e.g., reversing door swing or relocating panel).
Structural clause 1 identifies a 6-inch discrepancy between the structural grid location of the column at Grid C/3 (48'-0" from Grid 1) and the architectural floor plan dimension (47'-6" from Grid 1) based on field verification. Architectural clause 2's general instruction to verify all dimensions in the field prior to fabrication does not resolve this specific documented conflict between the architectural and structural drawings; the discrepancy must be explicitly reconciled between the architect and structural engineer before partitions or casework are set, as noted in the structural clause.
Architectural clause 4 directs reliance on S-101 for column/grid locations, but structural clause 947c21fa notes a 6" discrepancy between the structural grid location of the column at Grid C/3 (48'-0" from Grid 1) and the architectural dimension on A-101 (47'-6" from Grid 1). This is a direct conflict in the same physical element (column location) that must be reconciled before partitions/casework are set.
Electrical clause 8 generically references coordinating duct bank routing with civil site utilities on C-101, which overlaps with the same crossing issue flagged in civil clause 9, but does not add new conflicting information beyond the specific clash already noted with electrical clause 5.
Electrical clause 8 generically references coordinating duct bank routing with civil utilities on C-101, which relates to the same crossing issue raised in civil clause 6, though it does not itself specify the conflict details.
Panel EP-1's required clearance zone lands in the same stretch of Corridor 106 that forms part of the egress path described in this clause, and is shown conflicting with the Restroom 104 door swing. While the primary conflict is between the panel clearance and door swing, this also touches the egress corridor's usable width along the path described here, warranting coordination review to ensure the egress path itself remains unobstructed.
Electrical clause 7 is a general instruction to coordinate emergency/egress lighting fixture locations with the life safety plan A-102, which is consistent with and reinforces the same coordination need raised in architectural clause 5, though it does not itself identify a specific incompatibility.
Fire protection clause 7 reiterates the same SP-14/D-6 ceiling location conflict and requires coordination with the mechanical engineer, reinforcing the same unresolved physical overlap referenced in mechanical clause 3.
Mechanical clause 6 generically directs coordination of duct routing with structural bottom-of-steel elevations, referencing the same RA-1/BM-4 conflict. It doesn't add new incompatibility beyond clause 2, but reinforces that the coordination called for in structural clause 9 has not yet been resolved.
Architectural clause 4 directs reliance on S-101 for column and grid locations, which is the same structural document containing the 48'-0" dimension that conflicts with the field-verified 47'-6" dimension shown elsewhere on architectural drawings; this reinforces the need for coordination but is not itself a new conflict.
Plumbing clause 8 directs verification of WH-1 clearance from the east wall against the electrical panel clearance requirements on E-101, which is directly related to the EP-2 clearance deficiency identified in this electrical clause, though it is a coordination action rather than an independent conflicting requirement.
Electrical clause ff22915b addresses emergency lighting coverage along the same Corridor 106 egress path referenced in this clause's width verification. Both clauses concern the adequacy of Corridor 106 as an egress path (width vs. lighting coverage), and unresolved occupant load/egress calc issues from A-102 (also implicated in clause 5) could affect both the required corridor width and the extent of emergency lighting needed to serve the full occupant load.