Door Hardware Conflict Caught Before Frame Release
A 14,000 sq ft medical office renovation is in the shop-drawing phase. Door 118 is a 3-foot by 7-foot corridor door on the egress path; the life-safety sheet labels it a 20-minute rated assembly. The door schedule shows hardware set 03 (lockset, surface closer, stops), but Specification Section 08 71 00 assigns set 04 to corridor doors, adding a coordinator and electromechanical hold-open. The contractor submits hardware shop drawings showing set 03 with a wall-mounted closer and no coordinator. The submittal stamp reads 'Reviewed-No Exceptions Taken.' Nine days before frames ship, the architect's QA reviewer catches the mismatch. The RFI log has no prior question on Door 118, and the contractor's hardware subcontractor says set 03 is 'what the plan shows.' The owner's security consultant separately requires access control at this door, but that scope is not yet coordinated.
1. Identify the conflict and state what governs before the frames ship.
Read the worked answer
The conflict is between the door schedule, which shows set 03, and Specification Section 08 71 00, which assigns set 04 to corridor doors. The specification governs because drawings and specifications are complementary, and the more specific life-safety requirement controls. Door 118 is on the egress path and is rated for 20 minutes; a coordinator and electromechanical hold-open are not cosmetic. Before frames ship, the architect should issue a written RFI response or supplemental instruction directing hardware set 04, require a revised hardware submittal, and confirm that the hold-open releases on alarm. The 'no exceptions taken' stamp does not make set 03 compliant. The architect should also coordinate the owner's access-control requirement in the same directive so the door is not framed for the wrong hardware.
2. Should the contractor be allowed to rely on the review stamp? Explain the risk to the architect.
Read the worked answer
No. Under standard submittal review provisions, the architect's review is for conformance with the design concept and does not relieve the contractor of responsibility for complying with the contract documents. A stamp of 'No Exceptions Taken' is not a waiver or a contract modification. However, the architect should not treat the miss as purely the contractor's problem: the QA reviewer caught it before fabrication, and the architect's own review failed to catch a patent conflict. The practical response is to correct the record promptly and openly, not to defend the stamp. If the contractor can show detrimental reliance and added cost caused solely by the architect's review, the owner may need to consider a change order, but that is a commercial decision, not a reason to accept a noncompliant rated door.
3. What project-record entries and follow-up should the architect make?
Read the worked answer
Record the discrepancy in the RFI log, even though no RFI was issued, and issue a dated supplemental instruction with a clear scope: furnish set 04, coordinate access control, revise the submittal, and do not release frames until the revised submittal is reviewed. Distribute it to the contractor, hardware subcontractor, owner, and security consultant. Update the door schedule and hardware schedule so the record set is consistent after award. Note the cost and schedule impact as 'to be determined' and require the contractor to price the change within a stated period. In the next OAC meeting minutes, record the resolution and the fact that the review stamp was not a waiver. This protects the owner's life-safety compliance and gives a clean audit trail.