Building Dept. Refusing to Do Inspections 7

[bigmig]

I have run into this issue several times over the past 17 years and have been able to
professionally talk it through. This time, it is not working.

What happens is that the local building department for this rural mid size City sees my stamp on the job and
immediately puts all inspection responsbilities for structural items onto my plate without asking me.

I called them to remind them that the client paid them the typical permit fees, which include inspections, and they
replied that jobs that are deemed 'to complicated' are not inspected by them, but rather by the stamping engineer.
I pointed out that 'to complicated' is a bit nebulous, and through a bit of squirming realized that every
job with an engineering stampe is deemed 'to complicated'.

So my contractor is frustrated when I tell them that I have not budgeted in an extra 4 to 5 site visits, and that my insurance
is not about to take on the role of 'responsible for the entire project because I am inspecting', especially when the building department,
who is indemnifiable against lawsuits, should be doing it.

So what happens is that I either take on the extra insurance risk, add 4 to 5 site visits to my scope (no one at the building
dept is offering to pay me for that) or.....?

I feel like this will just keep going on until someone confronts the building dept (litigate them) into doing their job and
to stop taking people's money while shirking their responsibility onto me (without so much as a phone call).

Thoughts? Am I whining to much? Is this something other engineers face?

 

[SWComposites]

Give your client, owner or contractor, a cost for extra site visits and extra insurance (after getting a quote from your insurance company), and let the client argue/sue the building dept.

 

[dik]

reviewing... not, inspecting...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[LittleInch]

Bit of a rat hole there.

So what passes between you as whatever and the building permit office to say it is all good?

They should be hiring you as their inspector surely to make everything legal?

Can't even start to believe this is in line with the legislation behind the building permit.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[dauwerda]

Does the building department require the contractor to submit something showing that you inspected/signed off on the work, or do they basically just wave all inspection requirements?

 

[bigmig]

@dauwerda The contractor asks for the inspection approvals (hey, is everything good to pour?) in writing. I'm assuming he is doing this
so he can submit the responses to the building dept.

 

[CWB1]

I would go up the food chain of govt regulators. Local-->county-->state-->media. Regulators are generally indemnified against mistakes but not willful neglect of their duties. If SHTF and they didnt review your design or skipped inspections then they can (and should) be held personally liable.

 

[dik]

You might put them on notice that this will likely happen.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[Aesur]

I'm confused, are we talking SSI (Special Structural Inspections) or Plan Review? I ask because I have never seen a jurisdiction perform any inspections above looking at soil and wood inspections. Everything else has almost always been a 3rd party special inspection company (typically a geotechnical company) or the structural engineer. In my area and other areas my company has worked, the owner hires the special inspector outside of the contractor as the inspector should have the owner or architects best interest in mind and being hired by the contractor is a conflict of interest because if they are paying for it then there is an extra pressure to pass something that shouldn't be passed.

 

[BR0]

I'm confused, are we talking SSI (Special Structural Inspections) or Plan Review?

I always wonder what has been codified and adopted as law that allows building departments to force a scope of work on an engineer. This does happen where I work as well.
The adopted code that is in my jurisdiction is the IBC, and it does not specifically say the EOR has to do construction phase services, inspections, or write letters that say everything is correct. Section 1704 and specifically 1704.6 discuss required inspections, but never states that it has to be the EOR, just a "registered design professional". What happens if it is an out of town EOR, which is common for any larger project.

What if you don't have trained people that can do an appropriate level of inspection or been trained in them? Our company does construction observations, but their are a lot of aspects of inspections and even the level of care that is required that I'm unfamiliar with.

I've looked for local adoption of this requirement and have never found it. I think the jurisdictions do it because they can and they know it is too hard to argue with them. Since we are supposed to operate only in areas of our expertise, isn't that enough of a reason to refuse this?

My position (2 cents) is the jurisdictions can require 3rd party inspections, but can't require it to be the EOR.

 

[TigerGuy]

I love when a jurisdiction claims they have "adopted IBC 20XX" but does not enforce any of the included special inspections. My experience has been that the municipality is responsible to spot check certain items, but the testing and inspection firm's reports are the official record.

 

[JedClampett]

It's all a CYA scheme. Building Departments didn't have the budget to do building inspections anymore. So they wrote into code that "anything important" (concrete reinforcing, bolts, welds, etc.) had to be inspected by the company designing the building, or at least an engineer. But not them. It's perfect:
[ul]
[li]Engineer, do you want money to do this? That's not in the code.[/li]
[li]Liability; what's that? [/li]
[li]If it's not done, it's in the code. It has to be done. It's your fault if it's not done. [/li]
[li]If the building falls down, well, the building department didn't have anything to do with it after the permit was paid for.[/li]
[/ul]
In Las Vegas, a while back, there were some issues, mostly construction accidents. They went after the Special Inspector, most of which were just sealing the form that their underlings were performing special inspections. Took away their licenses. Strictly scape goating. A guy I worked with, a real good engineer, got caught up in it.

 

[JStructsteel]

I would say its a conflict of interest for you to inspect items that you designed for the client. Too easy to pass something that could come back and cost you money.

Its literally in their name, building inspectors.

 

[XR250]

I would say its a conflict of interest for you to inspect items that you designed for the client. Too easy to pass something that could come back and cost you money.

Why is it too easy to pass something? Even though I do not like doing it, I am the best person to inspect my designs. I believe I saw a webinar from my insurance company that tended to agree.

 

[phamENG]

Chapter 1 of the IBC is heavily edited in Virginia, so the language is likely different for others, but we have a statewide third-party inspection program. It's authorized at the state level and left up to individual building officials to write a polity and enforce. In essence, it says that the building official has 2 working days to complete an inspection when called. If they don't, the permit holder can engage an approved third party inspector to do the inspection and provide a written report which the BO is then obligated to accept unless there is "cause to reject it." Then they have 2 days to approve it. If they don't, it's approved by default.

One municipality near me clearly states: "Third party inspectors may not have a direct relationship with the project."

In other words, you can't act as the official inspector of your own designs.

This is looking at minimum BO inspections, NOT special inspections. That's a different animal and I agree that we are the best to inspect our own work in that regard. But I do agree that there should be a level of oversight looking at it from the outside.

 

[JStructsteel]

XR250, when it comes to something you inspect and do find issues, and the contractor is someone you work with all the time, and you have to tell them to redo it. Could that cost you business? Maybe you are fine with it, but the best is those enforcing the code to inspect a design.

 

[gte447f]

JStructsteel, it depends whether you are working for the contractor or the owner. If design-build and you are working for the contractor, then yes, it is a sticky situation to check the contractor's work for conformance to your design. This is just one of many reasons why I don't like design-build as a project delivery method. If traditional design-bid-build and you are working for the owner (or owner's architect/agent) then there is no conflict of interest in checking the contractor's work for conformance with the design.

 

[XR250]

In other words, you can't act as the official inspector of your own designs.

Interesting. In my market (NC), they encourage the EOR to do the inspections.

 

[CWB1]

I suspect some are confusing a company self-certifying with an engineer self-certifying. The later is never ethical nor legal stateside bc regardless of relationship to the customer or builder you’re working as an agent of govt, legally bound by the same ethics laws as the regulator, and self-regulating your own work is a conflict of interest. Companies OTOH can and often are encouraged to self-certify with permission of the regulator but have to prove an arms-length separation between design and test personnel/budgets/etc, use standard/approved test methods, and submit a written report clearly showing the pass/fail. Small companies generally dont, even when able otherwise bc its a huge liability.

 

[phamENG]

To JStructsteel's point: what if there's an error/omission on your drawings? Say, for instance, you miss a footing and foundation wall. Either you didn't put it on, or maybe you accidentally put in on a not-plotting layer and didn't notice it on the final PDF. Whatever the reason. Now you're inspecting it and notice that it's not there and it isn't on your drawings. It's true you probably wouldn't be responsible for paying for the footing as it needed to be there, but you may be held liable for wasted concrete (truck is waiting to pour as soon as you give the thumbs up) or potentially damages for delays. The slab on grade could probably handle the load. Now you're in a position to either admit your fault and be held liable for the consequences, or let it go and take a chance that it might be okay, maybe have them thicken the slab a bit in that area. That is a conflict of interest.

The flip side to this argument is that your knowledge of the design is the only reason that was noticed, and a third party inspector or city inspector probably wouldn't have picked up on it at all. That's true. It's also one of the reasons we have special inspections in commercial construction. No chance of that in residential - even if it found its way into the IRC, the NHBA would spend millions in lobbying funds to quash it.

So I think the best case scenario is an inspector who 1) is not in a position to be negatively impacted by pointing out an error and 2) is well informed and knowledgeable about the project, structural system, etc. Pretty tough to get both of those, though, I'm afraid.