Scope gaps between trades
When the electrical contractor’s scope and the fire alarm contractor’s scope aren’t clearly defined, someone absorbs work they didn’t price. We identify every ambiguity before you’re locked in.
Plans & Specs Review
The Plans and Specifications Are a Legal Document. Are They Accurate?
Titan’s NICET Level IV review catches code conflicts, specification violations, and scope gaps between trades — before they become field problems or change orders.
Order a Drawing Review — $375Specification violations
We have received plans and specifications where the requirements called for smoke detectors to be located at least 36 inches from HVAC registers — yet when we overlaid the plan sets, more than half the devices were within 12 to 24 inches of those same registers. When you catch it in the field, it is a change order. When we catch it at the desk, it is an RFI.
Wrong code editions and inaccurate legends
Connecticut adopted NFPA 72‑2022. We have reviewed sets still referencing the 2019 edition. We have found legends illustrating voice evacuation on projects where standard notification is required. The AHJ will catch it. Better we do first.
Every sheet reviewed against:
- NFPA 72 (current CT‑adopted edition)
- NFPA 101 — Life Safety Code
- IBC / IFC — International Building and Fire Code
- Connecticut State Building and Fire Code amendments
- Project specifications — Division 28 (current CSI MasterFormat) or Division 16 on legacy project formats
Flat Fee — $375
What’s Included
- Complete sheet‑by‑sheet review
- NFPA 72 compliance cross‑reference
- IBC / IFC and CT code amendment review
- Specification review (Div. 28 or Div. 16)
- Scope gap identification (FA contractor vs. electrical contractor)
- Deficiency log with sheet references and code citations
- Draft RFI language ready to send to the engineer or architect
- Turnaround: 3–5 business days
Sample Deliverable
What You Receive
Below is a representative sample of a completed drawing review. Project details are illustrative.
Titan Fire Protection, LLC — Plans and Specifications Analysis
Elm Street Professional Plaza — Fire Alarm Drawing Review
New Haven, CT 06511 · 3‑story commercial office, mixed occupancy
4 deficiencies identifiedSheets Reviewed
| Sheet | Description | Status |
|---|---|---|
| FA‑001 | Fire alarm floor plan — Level 1 | deficiency noted |
| FA‑002 | Fire alarm floor plan — Levels 2 & 3 | deficiency noted |
| FA‑003 | Riser diagram, device schedule, legend | deficiency noted |
| FA‑004 | Panel schedule, battery calcs, voltage drop | review comment |
| E‑101 | Electrical power plan — Level 1 (referenced) | no deficiency |
| A‑201 | Reflected ceiling plan — Level 2 (overlay) | deficiency noted |
4 Deficiencies
1 Review comment
4 RFIs drafted
3 Code citations
01
Smoke detector placement — HVAC register conflict
High Sheets: FA‑001, FA‑002, A‑201 overlay NFPA 72 2022 §17.7.3.3
Project specification and NFPA 72 §17.7.3.3 require smoke detectors to be located not less than 36 inches from air supply diffusers and return air openings. Overlay of FA‑001/FA‑002 against reflected ceiling plan A‑201 identifies 17 of 31 smoke detector locations within 12–28 inches of HVAC supply registers — none of which carry documented justification or listed exception.
RFI #1 — To engineer of record:
RFI #1 | Project: Elm Street Professional Plaza | Date: May 17, 2026 To: [Engineer of Record / EOR] Re: Smoke detector placement — HVAC proximity conflict, Sheets FA-001 & FA-002 Per NFPA 72 2022 §17.7.3.3 and project specification Division 28, smoke detectors shall be located not less than 36 inches from air supply diffusers. Overlay review of FA-001/FA-002 against A-201 identifies 17 detector locations within 12–28 inches of supply registers. Please revise detection layout or provide listed exception with justification prior to AHJ submittal.
02
Legend inaccuracy — voice evacuation shown, standard notification required
High Sheets: FA‑003 NFPA 72 2022 §18.4, Div. 28 spec §28 31 00
Sheet FA‑003 legend illustrates speaker‑strobe devices designated for voice evacuation. Project specification Division 28 §28 31 00 and the sequence of operations narrative both call for standard audible‑visible notification — no mass notification or voice evacuation system is specified or required under the applicable occupancy classification per NFPA 101. The legend as drawn is inconsistent with the specification and would create scope ambiguity for the fire alarm contractor and the AHJ at plan review.
RFI #2 — To engineer of record:
RFI #2 | Project: Elm Street Professional Plaza | Date: May 17, 2026 To: [Engineer of Record / EOR] Re: Legend conflict — voice evacuation vs. standard notification, Sheet FA-003 FA-003 legend designates devices for voice evacuation. Division 28 spec and sequence of operations reference standard audible-visible notification only. Please confirm intended notification type and revise legend accordingly to avoid scope disputes and plan review comments from the AHJ.
03
Wrong NFPA 72 edition referenced — 2019 vs. CT‑adopted 2022
Medium Sheets: FA‑003, FA‑004 CT State Building Code — effective Jan 1, 2024
Drawing sheets FA‑003 and FA‑004 reference NFPA 72‑2019 throughout notes, device schedule, and battery standby calculations. Connecticut adopted NFPA 72‑2022 effective January 1, 2024 per the Connecticut State Building Code. Submission of documents referencing a superseded code edition may result in AHJ plan review rejection and resubmittal delay.
RFI #3 — To engineer of record:
RFI #3 | Project: Elm Street Professional Plaza | Date: May 17, 2026 To: [Engineer of Record / EOR] Re: Code edition — NFPA 72-2019 referenced, CT has adopted 2022 edition Sheets FA-003 and FA-004 reference NFPA 72-2019. Connecticut adopted NFPA 72-2022 effective January 1, 2024. Please update all code references, notes, and calculations to the 2022 edition prior to AHJ submittal to avoid rejection at plan review.
04
Scope gap — electrical contractor vs. fire alarm contractor conduit responsibility undefined
Medium Sheets: FA‑004, Div. 28 spec §28 31 00 Scope / contract document
Division 28 specification §28 31 00 does not clearly delineate conduit installation responsibility between the electrical contractor (EC) and the fire alarm contractor (FAC). FA‑004 panel schedule references conduit home‑runs to the FACP without specifying which trade provides and installs. This ambiguity is a known source of field disputes and unpriced change orders. Clarification in the spec or a coordinating addendum is recommended prior to bid issuance.
RFI #4 — To architect / specification writer:
RFI #4 | Project: Elm Street Professional Plaza | Date: May 17, 2026 To: [Architect / Specification Writer] Re: Conduit scope — EC vs. FAC responsibility not defined, Div. 28 §28 31 00 Division 28 spec does not assign conduit installation responsibility between the EC and FAC. FA-004 references conduit home-runs without trade designation. To prevent field disputes and unpriced change orders, please issue a clarifying addendum defining which trade provides and installs conduit for the fire alarm system prior to bid date.
This analysis is based on the plans and specifications received as of the date noted above. It identifies deficiencies visible from the submitted documents. It does not constitute a comprehensive code compliance review, a professional opinion, or an AHJ determination. Deficiencies identified herein should be directed to the engineer of record or specification writer for resolution prior to permit submittal.
Submit Your Plans and Specifications
Submit Your Plans and Specifications for Review
Flat fee — $375. Turnaround 3–5 business days. We will contact you to confirm receipt and arrange secure file transfer.
Prefer to talk? Call us at 860-322-9028.
FA‑004 battery standby calculations reflect a 24‑hour primary and 5‑minute alarm load — compliant with NFPA 72 §10.6.7 for the stated occupancy. Recommend confirming with the FACP manufacturer’s listing that the specified battery size matches the panel’s listed capacity for the device count shown on the schedule before final submittal.