©2020, Ontario Association of Architects (OAA). Lessons Learned may be reproduced and distributed, with appropriate credit included, for non-commercial use only. Commercial use requires prior written permission from the OAA. The OAA reserves all other rights.
Context
While working on a long term care facility, I became involved in a dispute with the senior building inspector over the height of an exit device on a door. The OBC required that glazing in a door in a barrier free path of travel extend to within 36 inches of the floor (Presumably so a person in a wheelchair could see someone approaching from the other side). The standard mounting height of the exit device was higher. If mounted at the standard height, the exit device spanned across the glazing.
This had two undesirable results. First, the gap of about ½” between the back of the exit device and the glazing could easily trap the fingers of one of the residents who would likely use the exit device to steady themselves as they walked through the doorway. If the resident stumbled or fell, broken fingers or worse would result. Second, the exit device would now be exposed to radiant heat from any fire on the opposite side of the door, a condition it wasn’t tested for.
My solution was to lower the exit device so it was mounted on the solid part of the door just below the glazing. The drawings were revised to show this before the permit was applied for. The building inspector rejected this solution on site after the hardware had been installed, because the mounting height differed from the standard mounting height used during fire tests.
In response, I obtained a letter from a senior engineer at ULC stating that in his professional opinion, my solution was acceptable and did not invalidate the fire test results. The standard mounting height is used for all doors up to 10 feet high. The test fails if the top corner of the door warps more than six inches out of plane. Since the doors in question were 6’-8” high, lowering the exit device by a few inches was the equivalent of using the standard mounting height on a door less than eight feet high and did not come close to approaching the 10 foot high limit of the test. The engineer also said to me that exposure to radiant heat through the glazing was not of concern as far as the proper functioning of the exit device was concerned.
The building inspector rejected the letter because it was only the engineer’s professional opinion, and not a guarantee. We determined that there was no way to win. The building inspector would not be satisfied no matter what evidence we provided to support our position. Because the building inspector had been around for years, his opinion was never overruled by the chief building official. In fact, the inspector was the defacto final authority in that municipality.
Further, we faced a deadline. The long term care facility had to pass all the government inspections and open on the date specified or the developer faced significant fines for each day of delay. In the end, we decided to have all the exit devices remounted at the standard height and the doors patched for which the owner paid extra.
The Lesson
Not everyone connected with a project is reasonable. Sometimes people have hidden agendas. Sometimes people will exercise their authority (rightly or wrongly) just to prove that they have it.
If we had appealed to the building code commission we would undoubtedly have prevailed and proved the building inspector wrong, but at the cost of significant delays to the project and financial penalties to the developer. Sometimes compromise or capitulation is the only practical way forward.
What was Learned
Sometimes, being right is not enough. In this case, simply being right would not have brought the project to a successful conclusion. Clients don’t hire us to be right, they hire us to realize their project. Being right is always better than being wrong, but unless wavering from being right is illegal, unprofessional, or compromises public safety, we need to be willing to sacrifice being right in order to do what is right for the project.
The lessons do not represent OAA policy or guidance but rather are actual experiences from construction contract administration that taught the author a valuable lesson from which others may benefit.
Updated: 2022/Nov/23