Project: Pinole City Hall Peer Review
Client: City of Pinole
Location: Pinole, California

The city of Pinole wanted to ensure that its new city hall could be built on time, on budget, and without defects that would require costly repairs in the future.

IMA performed a series of peer reviews on the project’s schematic design, design development, and permit issue sets. After each review, IMA sent comments (in the form of red-lined plan sets and review log reports) to the city and the architect of record. IMA then reviewed the architect’s corrections and new information, and sent additional comments when needed. This process was repeated until all potential defects were addressed.

IMA’s log reports noted design deficiencies and coordination issues related to each of the building’s systems. Findings included errors and omissions related to building codes, life safety, weatherproofing, and constructability; incorrect use of materials and/or systems; and incomplete coordination of design and documentation among building systems—all problems that IMA often finds during peer reviews. Even the best architects may produce documents containing errors, simply because creators often know their work too well to analyze it objectively.

In this case, IMA also identified a significant code violation in the layout of the building’s fire exit system, major problems in the detailing of the EIFS (exterior insulation and finish system), and mechanical noise and acoustic problems in the council chamber’s heating/ventilation/air conditioning ducting and equipment locations. All were corrected.

Correcting these problems prior to the contract award saved Pinole at least $300,000 in construction change orders. Potential damage from water intrusion through the building’s EIFS due to inadequate detailing was among the major problems avoided.

The final result was a set of construction and bid documents that was relatively free of errors and omissions and led to a smooth construction process with minimal error-related delays and costs. The savings more than paid for the cost of the peer review.