City Asked for Title 24? Plan-Check Documents and Revision Triage

02Read the request before ordering another report

A short energy comment can describe several different problems. The reviewer may not have received any design compliance certificate, may be comparing the certificate with a different drawing revision, or may need evidence for a feature already claimed in the model. A general “Title 24” note should be narrowed to Part 6 energy compliance rather than assumed to include every part of the Building Standards Code.

Start by saving the complete correction letter, its date, the referenced drawing sheets and any earlier response. Preserve the reviewer’s wording. If the comment does not name the missing document or permit stage, ask the AHJ for clarification while assembling the packet. Do not remove uncomfortable comments or rewrite them into a narrower request; the surrounding items can explain the coordination issue.

• +Missing design documentation: determine the building classification and correct CF1R, LMCC or NRCC pathway.
• +Inconsistent documents: compare the actual submitted energy record with the submitted drawing revision.
• +Wrong project boundary: identify whether the report covers the addition, existing building or tenant scope requested.
• +Missing registration or verification reference: establish the code cycle, claimed measures and responsible party.
• +Construction-stage request: check whether installer or field/acceptance documents—not another design report—are needed.

Which Title 24 forms do I need?Design, installation and verification stages

03Four steps from comment letter to a scoped request

1. Read and classify the comment. Separate missing documents from contradictions, design changes and later field responsibilities. Record the AHJ and building-permit application date. For applications on or after January 1, 2026, current statewide guidance is the 2025 California Energy Code; confirm older or refiled applications with the AHJ rather than switching cycles because the correction arrived in a new year.

2. Gather a matched document set. Pair the complete comment letter with the plan revision actually reviewed, the current proposed set, prior energy documents and a concise change list. Label which files were submitted and which are proposed replacements. If only a screenshot is available, include it in a PDF; the current plan-upload route accepts PDF, DWG and ZIP, not an unsupported image-file promise.

3. Upload the packet through Get a Quote. Sign in to associate plans with your private account, describe the correction and select the new-report or revision purpose that fits. For revisions, select the reason and explain uncertain responsibility in notes. The form is a request for scope review, not a payment or automatic production acceptance.

4. Confirm scope and ownership before production. We distinguish report-side changes from drawing changes, identify missing inputs and confirm the revision bucket. The designer or installing/verification party may need to provide separate work. Agree which sheets, schedules and documents will form the coordinated resubmittal; the AHJ—not this website—determines whether the response satisfies its review.

Private plan upload / Get a QuoteComplete intake checklistApplication-date decision guide

04Which revision bucket actually applies?

A comment caused by our modeling/report error is Free. If the client or architect changes the design after the report, the published architectural/design revision is $75 flat. A full remodeled energy model or major rebuild is custom after intake. A missing initial report is a new-documentation request, not automatically a free correction or a $75 revision.

Responsibility cannot be inferred from a mismatch alone. The energy report may contain an incorrect input, the drawings may have changed, or the submitted files may belong to different revisions. Send the evidence and identify who prepared the earlier report. A comment on another preparer’s work does not create a promise of free correction by Title 24 Lab; scope is reviewed before a price is confirmed.

Published revision policyReport-cost examples and scope boundaries

05Illustrative recovery: window, HVAC and registration comments

ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY. A residential addition receives three comments: the CF1R fenestration assumptions differ from the window schedule, HVAC efficiencies are absent from the mechanical sheets, and the submitted certificate needs its applicable registration status confirmed. This example is not an assertion that every addition needs the same measures or local review procedure.

For the window item, compare the reviewed schedule, product-supported U-factor/SHGC values and original report inputs before assigning responsibility. Correct the energy record if the input was wrong; the designer coordinates drawing changes when selections changed. For HVAC, identify the supported equipment assumptions and have the responsible designer show consistent information on the relevant sheets. A report preparer does not become the mechanical designer.

For registration, establish the applicable cycle and whether the design includes required ECC measures. Where registration is required, coordinate the correct registered design document for submittal through the applicable process; a loose blank PDF is not a substitute. Finish with a comment-by-comment response identifying the updated records and sheet references. Do not claim that replacing the CF1R alone resolves every part of the correction letter.

Plan-check correction service and detailed exampleCF1R documentation preparationCurrent ECC versus legacy HERS terminology

06The upload packet: show the reviewer’s question and the design change

A useful packet makes document history understandable without a phone call or guessed assumptions. Keep the reviewer’s comment numbering intact and match your notes to those numbers. Mark unknown facts explicitly. When a contractor, architect or owner uploads on someone else’s behalf, confirm permission to share the plans and identify the lead contact and intended billing party in notes.

• +Complete energy comment letter or screenshot incorporated into a PDF, including referenced items.
• +The reviewed drawing set and current proposed drawings, clearly named by revision/date.
• +Prior CF1R/NRCC or other applicable design documents, including registered copies if available.
• +Marked plan differences, product/equipment substitutions and a brief explanation of who changed what.
• +Project address, AHJ, recorded application date, building type, scoped area and units.

Who can order and upload?What to sendUpload the letter and plans

07What a recovery package does—and does not—promise

Depending on the confirmed scope, design-document work can include corrected inputs, revised compliance records and coordinated notes identifying what changed. A rebuilt model needs its own intake agreement. The responsible design team still owns drawing revisions, and installers, qualified ECC verification providers or acceptance-testing parties retain their applicable construction-stage responsibilities.

Rush remains the published optional +$99 residential or +$149 commercial for next-business-day production after complete inputs. It is not an unconditional 24-hour promise and does not shorten city staffing or review queues. Field testing, acceptance testing, registry/document-registration fees, CALGreen and AHJ plan-check/permit fees are separate from report preparation. CEC sources explain code concepts, not our prices.

Full pricing and exclusionsStart a scoped request with plans

08Six questions when the city asks for Title 24