# Egress Lighting Plan



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

the gc just wants it for free. 

the contract is what determines what portion of the work you do. generally the contract incorporates the contract itself, the plans, and the specs. If something isn't shown on the plans, and not clearly indicated in the specs, and there is no specific inclusion or exclusion on the contract, then it generally is not going to be done unless it is "extra". However, this is a complex legal matter and there are other issues, so I am generalizing.

If you are a worker, and something isn't shown on the plans, you ask your chain of command (in your company), and do accordingly. Never take the word of others, even if they are the customer, without written authorization. (and sometimes not even then)


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

When you say you mentioned this on several occasions, can you prove that?


----------



## RunningSparky (Feb 9, 2013)

mcclary's electrical said:


> When you say you mentioned this on several occasions, can you prove that?


That's a good question. I would think/hope that my foreman has an email chain to CYA, but not sure. As "wildleg" stated and as you are implying, written authorization and/or emails can save a lot of the he said, she said.


----------



## NacBooster29 (Oct 25, 2010)

If its not on the print, its an extra. Unless it was a design/ build job.


----------



## cabletie (Feb 12, 2011)

You are correct. NFPA 101 and the IBC determine where they are needed, and The NEC determine how they are wired. 

The same for fire alarm. NFPA 101 tells you when and where it is required, and NFPA 72 tells you how to wire them. No where in NFPA 72 will it tell you when you need fire alarms. 

Usually when they do a plan review they can't see all the obstructions. So later the inspectors will do there inspections and require more exit lights. When you add them they will be extras. 

Your case is different. It seems like the A&E dropped the ball, and it did not get picked up under plan review. Or there was another plan for plan review and it did not make it into the contract document set.


----------



## ElectricalDesignerIA (Mar 17, 2015)

The Engineer should be held responsible. Unless he spec'd the EM ballast in the schedule and the fixture supplier overlooked it, which happens.


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

Is it a state approved plan? Shouldn't they have sent the approved plan back stating that they needed a emergency lighting plan? I'd say it's a change order for the GC and he's just trying to save himself the hassle.


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

wendon said:


> Is it a state approved plan? Shouldn't they have sent the approved plan back stating that they needed a emergency lighting plan? I'd say it's a change order for the GC and he's just trying to save himself the hassle.



I don't think the state gets involved in most of your run of the mill commercial builds

If they were speced it should've been caught during submittals. If they weren't speced I'd say he's covered. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## RunningSparky (Feb 9, 2013)

Thanks for all of the great replies. It has been determined that EC not responsible, was never in the original scope, therefore, will be a change order. Works for me...more work


----------

