Chapter 17 vs. Your Boss

[boffintech]

Chapter 17 of the IBC requires, among other things, a final report to the building official stating the outcome of the special inspection process. Over the last several years of performing special inspections no one has ever asked me to sign any such final report. I believe what's happening is some project manager who has never performed a single inspection at the job is signing off on these. I suspect that he has no real clue if the all the required inspections were performed and if all discrepancies were actually corrected. If I keep a log of discrepancies and list the various resolutions it's fairly clear that all was completed. But if no log of discrepancies is kept (like on a job that is not full-time to a single inspector) how is project manager to know for sure. I have seen many a so-called "resolution" that was an RFI which didn't have an answer written on it yet.

So my question is: Would a testing lab really not sign off on one of these reports thereby possibly denying the owner a CO? There seems to a huge risk of a testing lab getting a serious bad name in town if that were to happen.

1704.1.2 Report requirement. Special inspectors shall keep records of inspections. The special inspector shall furnish inspection reports to the building official, and to the registered design professional in responsible charge. Reports shall indicate that work inspected was done in conformance to approved construction documents. Discrepancies shall be brought to the immediate attention of the contractor for correction. If the discrepancies are not corrected, the discrepancies shall be brought to the attention of the building official and to the registered design professional in responsible charge prior to the completion of that phase of the work. A final report documenting required special inspections and correction of any discrepancies noted in the inspections shall be submitted at a point in time agreed upon by the permit applicant and the building official prior to the start of work.

 

[MikeHalloran]

The passive language ( ... discrepancies shall be brought ... etc. ) in the standard is unfortunate.

You keep your own personal log of inspections, right?




Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[boffintech]

When assigned to a job full-time, yes, I keep my own log.

 

[MikeHalloran]

I'm suggesting that since 1704.1.2, doesn't say "when assigned to a job full-time", you shouldn't make such a distinction, either.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[Jordonlaw]

MikeHalloran

The use of the word "shall" in this context means a mandatory action. As I read the statement and it's clear to me that you must keep records of inspections, discrepencies must be corrected by the contractor immediately etc. Nothing passive about this.

 

[boffintech]

When not assigned to a job full-time, I assume that the project manager is keeping track of the various discrepancies from the report being generated by the various techs being sent to the job.

When assigned to a job full-time I take on the responsibility by just doing it.

The hangup seems to be the "Final Report". If you don't keep a running log of discrepancies and the end of the job arrives how will you know what has and has not been corrected? It would be even more difficult if numerous techs had been to the job and you had to figure it out based on daily reports.

 

[MikeHalloran]

I understand the 'shall' part. I meant it's unfortunate that it's written in the passive voice, e.g. "discrepancies shall be brought to the attention of", instead of active voice, e.g. "The Special Inspector shall bring any discrepanicies to the attention of". If the action is important, the actor should be named, not implied.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[Ron]

boffintech...since you work for a testing laboratory, it is doubtful that your internal policies (due to liability) would allow for you to sign such a document without the review and concurrence of a licensed engineer. You're in Georgia and they are a bit lax in their signature requirements, whereas in Florida and many other states, what I described must be done to comply with state law and the building code.

The policing of this type of requirement is up to the local building official. They don't always enforce the letter of the code (though I feel they should, at least for consistency). I have worked in jurisdictions where they require such reporting on a periodic basis and in others where they didn't seem to care if you ever submitted a report.

In some cases, your reports go to the structural engineer of record who might be responsible to produce a final compliance report. In that case, he is relying on your reports for the evidence of compliance.