Sorry I was unable to modify.I'm adding this comment. Contract Required Same Floor Height, Plans Showed 2×12 Joists, and Contractor Was Required to Verify Field Conditions.

The use of joist width is a structural span requirement. You'll need to look at what the joists are resting on and the dimension of the space they cover. Usually 17'7" to 18'1" on 16" centers for a 2 x 12. To replace it and cut out 2 inches you'll need a 9-1/2" I joist with a wider flange and higher grade lumber like TJ 230 or BCI 6000. This engineered 'I' joist could be used to match your floor height.

Architect will spec all lumber size and design to meet code. Start there.

Our addition was higher than the orignal home (orig is 100 yrs old) - contractor gradually raised the hardwood flooring over the length of the large dining room to meet the addition elevation with a flush transition, was done 15 years ago and still looks great/functions well

"Verify in the field" is a CYA for a design that wasn't based on a thorough investigation of existing conditions. That said, the contractor should have consulted with the designer/architect when the issue was first noted. There are a number of alternatives which could have been implemented, and likely still can, albeit with some "surgery" involved.

I don't think anyone noticed this.

GC should have caught the joist change if it wasn't discussed with an Architect beforehand.

Before you send this drawing to anyone, GC should go over everything with a fine-tooth comb, because some Architects copy and paste details that don't belong to a project (hopefully this is not the case).

I have caught many drawings with issues here, just a few examples, i.e., outdated references left on drawings from older projects, non applicable notations/standards, or wrong construction details pasted in to look complete, etc.

There is always that magic wording on the drawings.

The most common legal notation is a disclaimer that clarifies the responsibility of the contractor for verifying everything in the field, and I cannot blame them because there are some GC's (more and more nowadays) who kick the plans down the road without checking anything.

If a designer purposely used a 2x12 joist for whatever reason, and if this was discussed or not between him and a GC... GC should have picked this up regardless and told the change to his mason, so the depth and top of the footing can be adjusted (if CMU is being used) and the foundation stops at the right height so the sill plate, 2x12 joist, and top of the subfloor match the existing floor.

Most masons I know always ask where the top of the foundation should be, when it comes to additions, so they can make proper adjustments.

Good luck

The architect, builder, and home owner should act as a team to bring the project to the best fruition. There are some things regarding the existing conditions the architect can not verify before construction begins. Therefore it is the builder that is best suited to verify the architect's assumptions are correct or if alterations in the construction need to be made. Hopefully this occurs before construction progresses too far in the wrong direction.

I am working in a project now for a cottage that (rumor has it) sets on wood piers. The cottage will be lifted, rotated 22 degrees, a perimeter block foundation constructed, and a stair addition added. Those piers may be treated posts, but most likely they are rotting logs complete with the bark still intact. There is no easy way to verify where those piers are without starting construction.

The "verify in the field" note is just a request for the team member to support the team, at least in my projects.

"GC should have picked this up regardless and told the change to his mason, so the depth and top of the footing can be adjusted (if CMU is being used) and the foundation stops at the right height so the sill plate, 2x12 joist, and top of the subfloor match the existing floor."

I recommend contractors confer with the designer and homeowner before prescribing any "fix." In the case of altering the top height of the foundation wall for a sided addition, it wouldn't align with the top of the foudation wall on the main home. That is not permitted in the majority of communities in which we build--which have architectural covenants. They require the top of the foundation to be consistent (i.e., no step downs) around the entire perimeter of the home.

I am a GC on the job, and I am responsible for the outcome.

Therefore, if any issues come up before, during plan review, or during the course of the job, I will discuss them with the architect... or if there is an unforeseen situation, I will let the architect know how we going to handle that and have him to make a detail so it can be submited to the town to let them know that a certain change was made.

98% of the time, if there is an issue and I can't get a hold of the architect, I will tell the homeowner to ask the architect stop by and see what changes were made, and 98% of the time, the architect will tell the homeowner, " Have me to let him know what changes were made so he will submit the change to the building department if they ask for it".

Usually, if a structural change is made during the course of the job (not gonna stop the job and have a mason or framing crew sitting and waiting), in most situations, I will resolve it myself, and when the building inspector conducts his inspection, I will let him know of the change. He will let me know whether he wants the architect to submit the update or include a detailed update.

As stepping down foundations, or dropping the top of the entire foundation to accommodate framing if needed in certain situations, is never an issue, and it's a common practice.

If the top of the foundation needs to be adjusted i.e,. dropped a few inches, or the foundation needs to be stepped, for as long as it's done the right way, it's a common practice i.e., you drop for the garages, or sunken rooms, elevations, etc., and the same thing goes for step-footings.

I guess if some of the communities where you are don't allow that for whatever reason, you don't do it, simple as that.

I was mistaking the design call for 2 x 12 and contractor said he used 2 x10. He is now saying that my house is 2 x 8.

He went back in to shave 2" from the 2 x10 which is now a 2 x 8 that spans 12 feet. Only leaving wood under bottom plate. My walls are on 2" of wood.

I can see and feel the air coming in from the crawlspace. He claims all is code compliance. He called for an inspection but for codes requires all trades to complete work for an inspection.

For joists spaced 16" apart the allowed span for #2 grade 2 x 8 is 11'6" to 12'10" per IRC. Using glue and screws to anchor the subfloor will help stiffen it for the long term. If the subfloor isn't down I'd use AvanTech with the AdvanTech Subfloor Adhesive. Small added material cost for your size project. If you don't get to change the subfloor material use the AdvaTech adhesive along with screws. It holds a lot better. Just say you'll pay yourself for the upgrade. Better yet, buy the applicator and glue and have it onsite when you request the change. That gives you the best chance of getting the best job.

'

Yes, framing inspection is after all HVAC, electric, and plumbing (if a bathroom is involved) have been inspected, and framing is the last one. In some cases, with certain crawlspace heights, if there is limited visual access, they will do a sub-frame inspection and other inspections before the subfloor is installed.

Time to confer with the architect/designer to ensure the change doesn't create another problem.

Why would you let your subcontractor handle solutions with the architect/homeowner if any issues should come up?

You are the Builder/GC you sign the contract, and it's your job to iron out any issues that might come up during the project, make the project run smoothly, and avoid any delays.

Sure, there are builders/GC's who sit in the office and push paperwork, at the same time wearing out their pants, and they kick the problems down the road to their managers, who have limited knowledge and kick it down to contractors, and before you know you have a big mess on your hands, and everyone blames everyone.

I'm a doer, and I am always on the job, and I stay on top of everything. Period. 40 years give or take operating this way, never a problem, not to mention an outstanding reputation with every building department and a 110% homeowner satisfaction. :-)

As homeowners go, they have their own job to worry about and sign checks, and most importantly, select all the finish items on time so everything is on the job when it needs to be. This is why they hire professionals to be in charge, get the job done on time, and avoid any stress and worries so there is smooth sailing from start to end...

Bad enough they already have to deal with inconveniences, especially if they live in the house while remodeling is in progress.

Greg,

If there's a General Contractor involved, that's who should be conferring with both the homeowner and the designer/architect.

I don't know what requirements there are in your area, but in the municipalities in which we work, a contractor can't implement changes to approved plans without the change(s) being reviewed and approved beforehand. All my projects are based on architect-designed plans. Any change needs to be endorsed by the architect and revised plans (or a letter from the architect in the case of minor substitutions or changes) submitted to the building dept. for review and approval. That can stall a project, so we invest a lot of effort reviewing plans and existing conditions beforehand. My contract with the owner requires me to construct the project substantially as per the plans. I definitely want them in the loop regarding any changes even if it interrupts their day job or their golf game.

Charles, here is a bit different: if you run into something major during the course of the job, I would contact an architect and discuss it, unless it's a small structural issue where something needs to be changed to make it work. If I can't get in touch with him (100% of the time on additions) I will make changes and run this by him later or tell the building inspector that the change was made. If it's something minor, he will not ask for anything, or he will ask an architect to send him a letter or a detail.

I have been working for almost 40 years in a 12-mile radius and have always worked hand in hand with all building departments and inspectors. When they see your work, and they know you for 10-20-30 years in some cases, it's a breeze to deal with everyone.

A change to the floor joists specified on an approved plan would not be considered a "minor" change.

I never mentioned anything about the floor joist.

It looks like they already cut the top off the joists. If the 2x8 joists meet the span and meet the floor design criteria, and the architect is ok with it. All he has to do is send an update letter to the building department specifying the change, and everyone is good to go.

If he is not OK, they would have to find a remedy to make it ok.

That said, @OP, your drawings call for 2x12 your contractor frames everything with 2X10, and he just realized the existing floor is 2x8?

You can't make this up lol... where did you find this "contractor" in a Home Depot parking lot?

"All he has to do is send an update letter to the building department specifying the change, and everyone is good to go." That may be necessary, but it's not sufficient.The plans reviewer and/or building official will need to approve it before it can be inspected. Consider, too, that the GC's contract is with the homeowner--not the architect. Any departure from the contract plans should be documented as a change order and approved by the homeowner. You may be able to skip the administrative steps if you operate in a lax environment or you're building for an unsophisticated client. I wouldn't.

I once had to produce a set of construction documents for a newly completed building so the newly completed building could get a building permit to build the newly completed building. The building department was happy, the buildeer was happy, the owner was happy, and I scratched my head.

Things around here, Charles has done faster and simpler, and less of bureaucratic BS and nonsense... Building departments don't want to hold up jobs in progress.

If something was picked up during plan review, before they approve anything, they will wait for changes to be submitted.

Jobs that are in progress; they do everything to work with you without holding anything up, especially when changes or substitutions are common practices.

As change orders go, certain changes in layout, or material, or upgrades, etc., involving a substantial amount will go on paper with signatures; certain changes are enough with verbal approval.

I'm sure some paper-pushers sit in the office and look for a reason to nickel and dime their clients and nail them for every extra screw and bury them in change orders...

Not me, I'm a straightforward guy, if I like you, I will take on your project, if I don't like you or see red flags... I tell them to find someone else. Furthermore, if I take on the job, I do what I do best, use the best subcontractors that I never change, and make sure my customers get the best experience during remodeling... get the project done on time as promised, and leave them with the best of service, workmanship, and complete satisfaction...

Not to mention, I don't rate my clients, sophisticated or not. I do work for people from all walks of life, some have more money than you can imagine, and some try to get things done on what they can afford, both get treated the same and get the best service...

Like Sinatra once said, " I do it my way" :-)

" I'm sure some paper-pushers sit in the office and look for a reason to nickel and dime their clients and nail them for every extra screw and bury them in change orders... " Changes to the size of floor joists are structural changes. There is a protocol for reviewing and approving such changes which may vary from one municipality to another However, the need to document such changes from what is shown in the approved (contract) plans and obtain the necessary approvals shouldn't vary depending on location. You can short cut it at your peril, but you shouldn't do so at the homeowner's. In this case, the owner should be made aware of the change in writing, informed why the change is necessary, that it doesn't compromise the structure, and informed of the amount of the credit they'll receive for the difference in cost of the joists.

Charles, you sound like a broken record.

Nobody said the change of floor joists, beam size, or whatever else that is considered structural, or the change is done without an architect's approval or inspection; It's just the process is not as complicated or prolonged as you lay this out.

If this is how things are done where you are, and you have to stop the job for a week or two to wait for approval, this is what you have to do.

Around here, this has been done this way for as long as I can remember, if a "structural " change needs to be made during the course of the job, the issue is discussed with an architect and applied without stopping the job, and a letter is submitted to the town of the change...

There is no need to stop the job and wait for approval before proceeding. It doesn't get simpler than that.

Maybe in your state, it's the same practice, you just never did it that way, or your state is full of bureaucrats and red tape that you cannot change a nail without the government's approval (wait, you in Virginia figures, I should have known better :-))

For the sake of argument, let's say you have a situation, the drawing is showing a 12" beam, but this beam will not work in your situation in the field; obviously, a change must be made.

You do a load calculation, and you see this beam is way oversized, and a 10" beam is more than enough to carry the load and then some. So you call your architect, and you tell him I need to make this change (if you never worked with this architect, you sent him your calculations), he checks, and you're good to go.

During inspection, you tell the inspector that the beam had to be changed in order to work in this case, and the architect will send an update, and that's all; the job keeps going, and everyone is happy.

Sure, I can call the homeowner and tell him we cannot move forward and need an approval for this change, type up a change order, charge him for the delays, and whatnot.

Now the job is standing still, while the architect gets to it and submits the change.

Now you have to wait for the building department depends how busy they are. In the meantime, you cannot reschedule your framer because you don't know when you will get the green light, etc.

This whole process can take a week or two, give or take, and the job is standing still for weeks, during which time the framing could be done, put the sheeting on and get it inspected, and put the roof on the addition and install windows, and most likely rough out HVAC and rough electric.

2-3 weeks of stopping the job and doing nothing is a very long time, sorry my friend, I don't work that way; it takes 2-3 months to complete the entire project, depending on the size.

In the municipalities in which we build, you're welcome to do whatever you want pending inspection, but you won't get an inspection approved without the paperwork being submitted and approved by the plans examiner or code officialprior to the inspection. Trying to do so triggers a more costly re-inspection, as it should in my opinion. Folks who swing a hammer for a living may not like paperwork, but it has the potential to hold up the construction process.

The OP is a homeowner who raised a question about what appears to be a design error which has carried through to construction. Let's hope that other mistakes aren't made in the process of correcting the current one. To that end, the GC conferring with the design professional and the homeowner is an appropriate course of action.

The process is similar, and you don't request a specific inspection for the change that was made.

The project has already been approved by the town to move forward with all required inspections. You got footing, next slab... After that, you have sheeting, and after that, you have inspections for all your rough work, and only then do you get a framing inspection.

Framing comes after your foundation is up, so during framing, usually when the issues come, if any, most of the time is when you're tying new to the existing structure or drawings indicate something specific that might not work.

If that's the case, according to you, the job has to stop, and paperwork must be submitted before the inspection is approved again...?

But that doesn't make any sense because you already have all the inspections approved for the project, and the only difference is you made a change to something to make it work... and when the building inspector comes, you let him know of the change, and he tells you to have your architect send an update, which will be attached to your existing plans.

There is no need to prolong the project.

Not to mention, who are we kidding here? Do you really think the guy who does reviews sits there and calculates every structural member? You're crazy if you think that, yes, they will pick out the obvious (if you're lucky) that something is overspanned and doesn't match the code span chart, etc. The basic stuff, not to mention everyone in the building industry knows if you build it to the code requirements, that is a minimal standard you have to meet, you will have a basic, mediocre house.

We don't build custom homes on slabs, Greg.

The municipalities in which we build require a "box" inspection after the framing of the 1st floor platform and before floorsheathingis installed. That makes it easier for the inspector to inspect the floor framing than if they had to crawl around in a crawl space, and it makes it easier for the builder to remedy any issues raised at the time of inspection. If the box isn't constructed according to the approved plans, it indeed halts construction. Any change from the approved plans needs to go through re-review and approval. Inspectors aren't authorized to approve changes in the field. That's a powerful incentive to get the plans right prior to original submission and to construct the home according to the approved plans. It's a reason to maintain a good working relationship with the code official so re-reviews get expedited, too.

Plan reviewers in our area are pretty thorough. They are well trained and have the benefit of specialized software for plan reviews. Our engineered floor systems and beams are all designed by a third party, but the plans reviewer will often spot check a beam or two. Ditto for other structural members despite the plans being designed and sealed by a licensed architect. I don't mind the additional checking because if there is a problem, it can be remedied before construction begins. It might avoid a potential warranty issue or other liability.

I agree with you on some practices; our building departments also do thorough reviews. We also don't build custom homes on slabs. The slab inspection is required regardless, for a basement, garage, or any other structure built on the slab.

The building inspector is not approving the change during his inspection; he just doesn't stop the project for further approval and tells you to send the change details to the building department so it can be reviewed and attached. Nobody will make a

I don't mind any checking because if someone missed something, someone will pick it up and correct the issue.

That said, nobody will do any structural modification to lessen the structural integrity of the structure; if anything, it will be modified to bear the load or better.

I'm not talking about taking a 12" header and replacing it with a 6" header because it will work better in some cases, or the BS the OP is dealing with his fly-by-night contractor he found in a parking lot somewhere.

.

After all this - NO PROFESSIONAL BUILDER would build an addition and end up with a floor 2" higher that the finished floor height of the existing structure. Your contract is an added benefit, but, frankly, it should not have even been necesary.

Offer to pay only the party that comes up with the appropriate solution.