Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't certain of your experience and didn't want you to have unreasonable expectations. In the states that I work in (MN, ND, SD, WI, CO, UT) most AHJ don't have 'permit sets' They require singed CD's for building permits. I'm glad this project will have a different permit process.

Not sure you fully understood the meaning of the 'permit set'. It is a legit construction documents set with AOR and DOB stamps, it's just for a smaller project, like SFR or tenant buildout. Since it's small, it doesn't have specs (or all the specs are shown in form of notes on of the sheets), and it's typically for GC, so unless you made some significant mistake, you won't ever hear from GC/owner after you hand them the permit. That's at least my understanding. Back to thread - from my experience, it's always a struggle to find MEP consultant for small projects like this, I know about 3-4 architects who are or were trying to find someone like that - good luck

przemula - Are you responding to the OP or myself?

Both, first part was to you, after 'back to thread...' was to OP.

I do fully understand what a permit set is though. I don't do much single family residential work though.  With what the OP was proposing it seemed like commercial work.  

In my experience, most commercial work requires a signed CD set for permits to be issued for the associated work. Some projects will phase the work so individual permits can be issued before all the design is complete. IE, site plan review, demo permit, footing and foundation permit, ect.  

This may just be in the area's I've practiced in though.  (MN, ND, SD, WI, CO, UT)

The way I see it is, the project that OP described can be done in two ways: a traditional DBB project delivery (to what I assume you're probably used to), or through so call 'permit set', where you have the savvy owner working with knowledgeable GC, and architect role is limited to just providing a plans good enough for permit. Since the project is fairly simple, architect doesn't need to provide an input during construction. The CA phase and other project components are non-existent for an architect too. The permitting process however will be the same for both, at least where I live (IL). AHJ review, inspections, etc. would be done in the same way for both

przemula - A couple of things: 

In my experience, the delivery method has no impact on the permitting process.  It may be different in IL.  

If you use AIA contracts the CA phase is automatically included in the contract unless specifically removed. 

There seems to be communication error.  Maybe you need to define what a permit set is in IL and what types of projects you work on?  

Like I previously stated, I've never encountered an AHJ that didn't require signed CD's for the work associated with the permit. If you use AIA contracts the CA phase is always included in the contract unless specifically removed.

There is a wide spectrum of scope complexity that might make up a "permit set". Whether non-regulated items are indicated in the set or not, ANY set sent in for building permit review is a "permit set" & will/should have all the fundamental reviewable elements for a finished building. Not sure what scope complexity chad is calling "signed CDs"...

In the area's that I've practiced the AHJ required stamped and signed Construction Documents to get a building permit. 

You may not need the entire set (ie, specs, casework details, finish plans, signage, ect) however pretty much everything else was required from all the disciplines.  Depending on the scope of your project this could mean a few sheets or 100's.  

Again, this was all for commercial projects.  Residential project needed basically nothing beyond a site plan, floor plans, and elevations.  

 That's what I mean by 'signed CD's.  

I guess it sounded like you were referring to contract docs as defined by the owner architect contract. The jurisdiction doesn't care about all sorts of things that might otherwise go into a finished construction document set. They only look at the reviewable code items. So, a minimalist permit set (w/ MEP or whatever is "required") tho signed/stamped may not be the same as a complete contract document set required by the owner's contract. Altho it could.

And, yes, there's a conversation to be had about how much effort it is to do multiple set releases. I like single design efforts leading to a single package for both permit & bidding. It allows the most complete coordination possible.

It still requires stamped and signed documents that are to be used for construction . . . .

That's not being argued...what's at issue is "in most areas there is no such thing a 'permit set'." Which is just untrue. Any jurisdiction HAS to review any submitted set that contains the info that addresses the code reviewable items. Yes, that set needs to be stamped/signed. Yes, it has to then be on site for inspections as the jurisdiction's accepted set. But it doesn't have to have all the info in it to complete the building to the owner's satisfaction. It is utterly common in commercial construction around the US.

I can see that reasoning. 

 My point is that any drawings that go into a permit set must also be the construction documents. If you change the CD's you need to amend the permit set. 

 A lot of 'clients' will say they 'just need a permit set' as a means to reduce fee. That's asinine. 

 In my experience a permit set includes the following architectural sheets: 

•  Codes / special inspections 
•  Life safety 
• Energy code compliance
• Site Plan 
• Floor plans, Roof Plan
• Exterior Elevations
• Building sections 
• Exterior details (relevant to energy code) 
• Enlarged plans.

All of which need to labeled for construction and stamped / signed.  You're not going to get through all of the above work without having designed nearly the entire building. 

I agree. Sorry for the confusion - I was speaking about the architectural work required.