AISC Certification vs. Uncertified and Special Inspections

[rwpe]

Hello all,
I'm looking for some advice regarding using AISC certified fabricators vs. Uncertified. This is going to be kind of long, so please bear with me.

As I understand it from the IBC 2006, special inspection is required in the steel fabricator's shop unless the fabricator is certified (paraphrased from 1704.2.2). As we all know, technically, the owner is supposed to pay for all special inspection. Therefore, in our specs, we have been calling for an AISC certified fabricator for the steel. This is done primarily to reduce any additional cost to the owner.We have worked successfully, in the past, with uncertified fabricators. To address the question of "quality of work", we previously included in our specs, a provision that the fabricator "have a minimum of 5 years experience in similar construction and similar complexity."

The question now becomes, how do we allow the uncertifed, but qualified (in my opinion), fabricators to bid on a project without incurring additional cost requirements, to the owner, for the special inspector?

One obvious sugestion would be to include language in the spec that the contractor pay for this at no additional cost to the owner. But if the owner is hiring the special inspector and requiring that the contractor pay for this, wouldn't there be some type of legal issue to this process?

Another idea was to put language in the spec that "should the Contractor engage a Non-AISC certified fabricator, an additional amount of $### will be included in the Contractor's final bid to cover the costs of the additional special inspection." Again though, the legality of this idea is unknown.

Has anyone else dealt with this situation and what were your solution(s)?

Thanks,

RW

 

[msucog]

there is language that says something on the order of "or sufficiently qualified as assessed by the eor or building official" (that's paraphrased). so if the eor is recently familiar with the fabricator, then it's possible to go that route...just keep in mind what happens should it ever go to court. but nothing says that if you have 5 jobs with a fabricator simultaneously that you need 5 different special inspections (although it would be wise to have them spaced out). to avoid getting in to a litigous situation, simply tell the contractor to reimburse the owner for the special inspections. the contractor is going to save money anyways most likely. technically the special inspector should be paid for and hired by the owner/owner's rep so then just backcharge the contractor. it's just like the contractor requested a substitution of materials that are cheaper than what was spec'd...the owner receives a credit. spec it that that the fabricator should be aisc certified and let them submit the request to use an alternate. besides the special inspection is not that much in the big scheme of things (say $500-1000 at most...a day's worth of work more or less for the initial visit).

i've seen architect/engineers/owners say that the inspection is not necessary for whatever reason...just be aware that the team and testing firm should be notified of this and documented accordingly. if there is ever a problem and it goes to court, as you know lawyers will jump on any opportunity. which is why i also reitterate that litigation and special inspections are just now starting to marry up so proceed with caution and have folks in the firm up to speed on what is required...especially for those states that are not fully up to speed yet.

 

[structuresguy]

Well, the requirement for certified fabricator, has been, in my experience, less than useful when it comes to a court battle. I did a job that got all messed up by an unqualified (based on experience with similarly complex buildings) and uncertified (even though our spec required i) fabricator. They grossly unedrbid teh job, then tried claiming a very substantial change order to finish. The owner refused. They sued. When it went to arbitration, the fact that they were not certified, as required by our specs (a fact which we pointed out when we received their first submittals), held absoluitely no weight in the eyes of the arbitrator. Since we reviewed and approved the shop drawings, their argument was that we accepted that fabricator. We were arguing that they didn't meet the contractual requirements, so their claim should be nullified by default. In the end, everyone paid a very hefty price because of this fabricator. Fortunatly, the price was even too high for them, even though they were adwarded a large portion of their original claim, and they are no longer in business.

So, what's my point? Well, I guess don't hang your hat on the spec requiring certified fabricator. Usually, the engineer has no say in who is selected, and doesn't even know who it is until the submittals start arriving. So until we can educate owners to involve their design teams in the bidding phase, to evealute bidders, all we can do is reject non-complying submittals. We require certified fabricators for everything, and with few exceptions, reject any submittals that dont meeet that requirement. This has caused lots of conflict between us, the contractor, and the owner. We don't like doing this, but what else can you do once the submittals start arriving?

 

[msucog]

well i, for one, am glad to see that someone in the industry still has the testiculars to stand up for themselves these days.

i'd say that if you must do the special inspection for non certified fabricators, make sure to hire a very good testing firm/speicial inspector that will not simply "paper" the inspection...this may be a difficult task though. i still like structuresguy's strategy. i'm even a fan of doing the inspection in addition to being certified.

 

[gtaw]

Any project that doesn't include inspection during fabrication as well as during erection gets what they pay for. Certified or not, when the inspector is away, the fabricator will play and the owner will pay.



Best regards - Al

 

[Yohansen]

As a structural engineer you should be finding other ways to save the owner money than getting them out of having to pay for inspection.

The specification should represent the intent of the code:

IBC Section 1704.2.2 basically states that inspections are required unless the fabricator is certified.

In my opinion the owner should always be responsible for inspection. They should have inspection whether a fabricator is certified or not. Who says the fabricators dont do everything asked of them during audit time, get certification, and then go back to misbehaving. I would rather have someone there.

AISC certification is just a PR move by AISC and a way for them to extort money from fabricators. If this was really required it would be in the code.

What is next, specifying that all steel fabrication must be done by union shops.

Save yourself the headache, strike the AISC certification requirement from your specification and just follow the code.