numbering different plan check response revisions

[JoeinNorCal]

What is the practice for numbering a set of plans with revision clouds and numbers?    Does one use a different system for numbering revisions triggered by the owner/designer, versus the plan check review?

How would you number this scenario?  I submitted a set of plans dated 7/16/20, with changes triggered by my engineer.  Those changes were identified in clouds with 8 in triangle.

Building department responds with "plan check comments #1" that includes 5 questions.  When you respond to those questions with clouded changes in your plans, what number is tied to those clouds?

 

Then the building department responds with "plan check comments #2," that includes 5 DIFFERENT QUESTIONS about the "original" 7/16/20 submittal (remember, v8).  When you respond to the second set of questions with clouded changes in your plans, what number is tied to THOSE clouds?

 

Note that the only changes I've added to the plans (since they were submitted 7/16/20) are clouds in response to plan check comments (different sets) on the "ORIGINAL" 7/16/20 submittal (called v8)?

 

I'm new enough at this, and working with a very dysfunctional building department, that we could BOTH be wrong.  My engineer and an experienced architect have given me different answers.

 

Thank you, Joe

[Kiwideziner]

I would make changes with consecutive numbers in the triangle. the highest number would be my drawing revision.

But if I am answering all of the building dept questions at the same time this would all be one number and my revision schedule would reflect this.

my revisions do not differentiate who initiated them. just r1 , r2 etc.

[Alchemyjim]

Here is how I do it.

Create a designated space in your title bar. Revisions from the client or engineer usually end up changing the revision number (1.6,1.7, etc.). I call any corrections from the building department an RFI (Request for information), most AHJ's do that anyway. Then add a revision cloud and triangular call-out where it occurs.

One thing to note, in the area I work after three revisions they make you re-submit. Probably a good policy so the plans don't end up a jumbled mess of revision clouds. And honestly if you get four major RFI's it might be time to rethink your process. 

I'd love to see how my other chief family accomplish this. Always open to better ways. This forum is great for that. All of us growing together.

[Alaskan_Son]

I really wish Chief would allow us to use Notes in Layout.  This is another example of many where notes and a note schedule would make a lot of sense.

[rgardner]

12 hours ago, Kiwideziner said:

I would make changes with consecutive numbers in the triangle. the highest number would be my drawing revision.

But if I am answering all of the building dept questions at the same time this would all be one number and my revision schedule would reflect this.

my revisions do not differentiate who initiated them. just r1 , r2 etc.

What I do as well, and I also color coordinate the revision clouds and put a revision cloud around the revision number in the schedule so it is easier to see.  I do not differentiate between engineer and ahj changes.

 

[rlackore]

I suggest you don't use the revision process as the primary method to respond to an RFI. If your response to an RFI requires a revision, then document the revision appropriately. Plan check comments are text questions (I've never received a clouded drawing from a plan reviewer), so I prefer to respond in kind, e.g. "Refer to detail 5/A6 for the location of the intumescent gasket, and Specification section 078100 for the product and manufacturer." If an explanation can't suffice, then perhaps the drawings weren't clear enough and a revision is appropriate.