Recommendations of the
American Council of Engineering Companies of New York/Metropolitan Region
Regarding the New York City Department of Buildings
Background
The American Council of Engineering Companies of New York (ACEC New York) is the
voice of the professional engineering community, representing 280 member firms throughout New
York State that collectively employ close to 24,000 people statewide, with a concentrated presence
of firms located within the five boroughs of New York City.
Our members are involved in all aspects of engineering for both public and private clients.
We design the structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection systems for the
buildings in which New Yorkers live, work and play, as well as the infrastructure of the city,
including transportation, energy, marine and wastewater treatment facilities. We also are involved
with construction-related designs and special inspections. As an organization, ACEC New York
advocates on behalf of its members for public safety, design excellence, a robust capital budget
and development policy, sustainability and efficiency in government.
Many of ACEC New York’s members interact with the New York City Department of
Buildings (NYCDOB) on a daily basis. Hundreds of our members have donated thousands of hours
chairing and/or serving on technical committees, working through issues associated with the
implementation of the 2014 NYC Construction Codes (including the integration of storm
resiliency bills for flood protection), the 2014 NYC Energy Conservation Code and the National
Electrical Code for use in New York City.
Through the Commissioner’s “Building One City Plan,” the City seeks to increase
efficiency, reduce costs and improve transparency at the NYCDOB – including an expansion to
100 percent electronic submission of applications, payments and scheduling. Our leadership and
our members applaud this initiative and welcome the opportunity to continue to work with the de
Blasio administration and Commissioner Rick Chandler as they implement their reform plan.
In furtherance of this, we have prepared a list of additional suggestions, which our members
believe would further assist NYCDOB in meeting the challenges of building in New York City.
In preparing these recommendations, we have been guided by certain values: accountability,
certainty, consistency, efficiency, integrity, safety, transparency, and timeliness in the processing
of applications and responses to objections and violations, which we know the Commissioner and
the Mayor share. Our membership is committed to helping them transform the Department for the
21st Century.
We submit recommendations for consideration in three categories:
A. Organization
C. Technical
B. Documentation
1
A. Organization
1. Improve coordination of form formats and requirements among the NYCDOB, NYCDEP,
FDNY and other city agencies. All construction-related forms should be initially filed with,
and coordinated through, the NYCDOB.
2. Develop a simplified filing process, in scope and procedure, for interior alterations, limited
scope projects and single trade projects, particularly when there has been a service
interruption to: 1) eliminate duplication; 2) differentiate between small jobs and more
complex jobs (this can be determined by construction cost or square footage); and 3) have
forms filed at the appropriate point in the construction process (e.g. TR-1 special inspection
applicant forms).
a.
Establish or review threshold for all Code progress inspection requirements on
small projects with minimal scope, especially lighting.
b. Limit DOB plan review to elements that have a material impact on performance of
the plumbing, fire protection, mechanical, or electrical device (e.g., eliminate
requirements to show fire department connections that are on the building exterior
if submitted plans are only for interior renovations).
3. Establish an automatic internal review process at NYCDOB, whereby borough
commissioner or first deputy commissioner determinations (e.g. CCD-1 and ZRD-1) that
are deemed to have broad application can be shared with the industry through bulletins.
4. Create standing agency/industry working committees for each discipline (e.g., energy,
mechanical, structural, plumbing, fire protection, etc.). Include industry and agency agenda
items in order to collaboratively resolve interpretation and variance requests, similar to the
NYCDOB’s Electrical Code Revision and Interpretation Committee (ECRIC), Fire Alarm
Interpretation Committee (FAIC) and the Electrical Advisory Board. Recommend that the
FAIC post its conclusions, as ECRIC and the Advisory Board do currently.
5. Continue to offer industry-wide orientation seminars and training regarding new
procedural and technical issues, which ACEC New York will continue to support.
6. Have plan reviews conducted by examiners with specific training and experience in the
discipline reviewed by the examiner (e.g., structural, mechanical, plumbing, fire
protection, etc.). Establish standardized plan review process, which currently varies by
examiner and by borough, particularly for plumbing, sprinkler, and fire standpipe, and
establish reasonable timeframes for the reviews.
7. Categorize comments separate from objections. Comments would be limited to plan
format, labeling issues and similar minor issues. Where only comments are noted and not
true objections, issue conditional approvals subject to certifying corrected filing within 10
days; track these electronically.
2
8. Create a system whereby appointments with an examiner – currently only 20 minutes in
duration – can be scheduled for longer times where issues are complex and/or to respond
to a large number of objections (e.g. 40-60 minutes).
B. Documentation
1. Continue the development of detailed form completion instructions and include checklists
for specific tasks. This manual should be similar to the zoning handbook, which is clear,
navigable, illustrated and well-designed.
2. Provide for the owner or contractor to sign the PW-3 Cost Affidavit, rather than the
Registered Design Professional, as the design professional is not involved with, nor do they
have control over, contract work values.
3. Modify the Schedule B form in order to eliminate inconsistences between filing drawings
and filing forms. The current PW-1B form does not provide an adequate description of the
construction work being performed, requiring a description to accurately document the
demolition work. The goal of the proposed modifications is to add check boxes to minimize
or eliminate an inconsistent description from the applicant, which can be subject to
interpretation by the plan examiner. The schedule B form should be amended to contain
check boxes for the number of removed and relocated sprinkler heads, as well as a check
box for the installation of core sprinkler protection required during the construction of a
tenant space. (See Appendix A)
a. Reinstate the PW-1B definitions and instructions list to provide clarity when filling
out the forms for filing.
4. Revise Buildings Bulletin 2012-009 to not require NFPA compliant coverage within areas
of construction hindering the installation of MEPFP services during the construction phase.
Coordinate a fire protection and life safety solution to encourage efficient and realistic
construction methods without sacrificing the life safety of the construction workers and
building occupants during renovations.
5. All plan and inspection objections should reference relevant code section so the specific
nature of objections is known, (e.g. Notice of Objection Forms PER-12(6/05).
6. Codify or issue a bulletin listing the requirements that a building or space within a building
must meet in order to obtain a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, which corresponds to
the 2014 NYC Construction Codes, similar to the bulletin which existed under the 1968
NYC Building Code.
7. Identify in the Preliminary Budget the resources needed to further implement fully
electronic submission (inclusive of non-Hub filings) of forms and drawings for all filing
projects so that the industry can rally support for this initiative.
8. Remove the requirement for a CCD-1 request to prove that the subject issue is a “hardship”.
This change would be more consistent with the intent of IBC section 104.11.
3
C. Technical
1. Continue to update the NYC Construction Codes and the NYC Electrical Code consistently
with the current NYS and International Building Code, so the code references are up to
date. The update process should include input from the industry committees discussed
above.
2. Develop a stand-alone Existing Building Code to address compliance issues for work done
in buildings designed and constructed under the 2008 and prior building codes, (e.g., the
1968 and 1938 NYC Building Codes). The Existing Building Code should be updated
regularly.
3. As part of implementing the NYC Energy Code, based on the NYS Code, simplify the
current, overwhelming number of compliance path options that are available to an applicant
for a commercial project. Currently, an applicant can choose from six (6) different
compliance paths, selected from two stand-alone and comprehensive commercial energy
codes (International Energy Code, and ASHRAE Standard 90.1). This complexity is
unmanageable for agency and practitioner alike, who must attempt to maintain competency
with this set of redundant regulations. No other code managed by NYCDOB contains
anywhere near this high level of complexity. We recommend a simplification of the current
code structure.
4. Currently, the NYCDOB has the discretion to interpret the Building Codes, accept alternate
approaches when appropriate, and grant relief as necessary. However, the Commissioner
does not have the same discretion when reviewing and granting variance requests related
to the Energy Code. We recommend that the Mayor pursue legislation giving the same
authority over the New York City Energy Code as it has for all other New York City
Building Codes.
5. Develop a program to require existing buildings to periodically recertify their critical life
safety systems to be compliant with the current code. This recertification cycle could be on
a medium or long term basis, perhaps every 10 or 20 years, thus allowing building owners
to plan for and budget for the inevitable upgrades that will be needed.
4
We look forward to working with the Mayor, the City Council and the Commissioner of Buildings
on the implementation of these recommendations. Please let us know if we can provide any further
information, and thank you for your consideration.
Date Approved:
November 12, 2015
Contact Person:
Hannah O’Grady
Vice President
ACEC New York
8 West 38th Street, Ste. 1101
New York, NY 10018
212-682-6336
hannah@acecny.org
5
Appendix A
New York City Department of Buildings PW1-B: Schedule B Plumbing, Sprinkler, Standpipe
Form
6
demolition is indicated here
Core Sprinkler protection
__ # of heads removed
__ # of heads relocated
This page is for new
work only