Inspections, Special or otherwise

[theory2code2practice]

As the design engineer, whose responsibility is it to get the construction inspected according to building code?
I am coming across many many many contractors, all of which have been "doing this for 30 years" of course, that have no idea about special inspections.
Clearly they are not having the construction inspected. Is anyone else coming across this problem? How do you deal with contractors either not following the drawings or not following building code?

Any Ideas? Similar experiences?

 

[ANE91]

Sounds like they aren’t applying for permits to begin with, which isn’t uncommon in residential. (Permits drive up the contractors’ cost-to-perform, according to them.) The permit triggers the building department (if you even have one) to follow up with inspections, withholding the CO until inspections are passed. IBC 110 and 1704 are pretty clear about the owner making the construction available for inspection, etc. Permit-holder has the duty to get it done…

YMMV based on location and construction type/significance.

 

[phamENG]

The permit holder. The general contractor is in charge of construction and the construction schedule. It's not practical to put the onus on an engineer or architect, who might have 10 or more projects in construction at a time, to monitor the construction schedule and divine the necessary time to be there to look at something by magic. It's up to the contractor to notify the inspector when the project is ready for the next inspection, and then the contractor has to wait for that inspection to be completed before proceeding.

Chapter 1 of the IRC has been completely replaced by the Commonwealth of Virginia, so you may slightly different wording, but here's what our code indicates for houses:

2021 Virginia Residential Code (VRC):
113.1.1 Duty to notify.
When construction reaches a stage of completion that requires an inspection, the permit holder shall notify the building official.

 

[gte447f]

OP, what type of construction are we talking about? Residential or commercial? IRC or IBC? You mention Special Inspections in your thread title, so I assume IBC commercial construction. In that case, you should be specifying what Special Inspections are required on your construction documents, and it is the owners responsibility to retain a Special Inspector to perform the inspections. The contractor cannot perform the inspections or retain the Special Inspector. The EOR can serve as the Special Inspector, but this service is not automatically included in your contracted services or your responsibilities. You must be specifically contracted to perform this service by the owner. Make sure you aren't contracted by multiple parties on the same project without express disclosure and agreement.

In residential, the permit authority usually performs all inspections, and it is the permit holder's (usually the contractor) responsibility to notify the Authority at appropriate times to perform the inspections. If they do not, they may be fined and they may not be able to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy (CO).

 

[theory2code2practice]

I see,
I'm generally talking about commercial construction. I find many contractors that have flipped a home or two all of a sudden are somehow granted the big projects. And there is a really different standard. Inspections? submittals? Shop drawings? It would seem that its the contractors responsibility to follow up and follow through. But who's auditing that process?

OP, what type of construction are we talking about? Residential or commercial? IRC or IBC? You mention Special Inspections in your thread title, so I assume IBC commercial construction. In that case, you should be specifying what Special Inspections are required on your construction documents, and it is the owners responsibility to retain a Special Inspector to perform the inspections. The contractor cannot perform the inspections or retain the Special Inspector. The EOR can serve as the Special Inspector, but this service is not automatically included in your contracted services or your responsibilities. You must be specifically contracted to perform this service by the owner. Make sure you aren't contracted by multiple parties on the same project without express disclosure and agreement.

In residential, the permit authority usually performs all inspections, and it is the permit holder's (usually the contractor) responsibility to notify the Authority at appropriate times to perform the inspections. If they do not, they may be fined and they may not be able to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy (CO).

 

[phamENG]

In that case, you should be specifying what Special Inspections are required on your construction documents, and it is the owners responsibility to retain a Special Inspector to perform the inspections.

This is 100% true, but it remains the contractor's responsibility to call for inspections and wait for said inspection before covering the work.

And for what it's worth, commercial construction here requires the same (or at least very similar) inspections as residential permits. So there's building official permit inspections and Special Inspections. The wording of chapter 1 in the VRC I posted above is the same as the VCC (our edited version of the IBC).

And while it is the contractor's responsibility to ensure the submittals get to where they should be and inspections are called for, you'll be sharing the blame if you know construction started without a preconstruction conference and you didn't sound the alarm. Or if you drive by and see that they're putting up walls but you never inspected the reinforcing and you were never notified of concrete samples being taken and you don't say something, you'll have a hard time justifying your position that it's not your fault they can't get a CO when the building is finished. "But it's not my job" is never a good luck, no matter how true it may be.

 

[XR250]

Sounds like they aren’t applying for permits to begin with, which isn’t uncommon in residential. (Permits drive up the contractors’ cost-to-perform, according to them.) The permit triggers the building department (if you even have one) to follow up with inspections, withholding the CO until inspections are passed. IBC 110 and 1704 are pretty clear about the owner making the construction available for inspection, etc. Permit-holder has the duty to get it done…

YMMV based on location and construction type/significance.

It is unusual around for a GC not to pull a permit as they will lose their license if caught. Plenty of non-licensed/homeowners do, however. Many get caught though from neighbor complaints. It also can come back and bite them when they go to sell the house as most real estate agents check for those things when the house has obviously been modified. AFAIK, the AHJ is the one who requests that certain special inspection be performed during plan review if needed. (at least around here).

 

[ANE91]

It is unusual around for a GC not to pull a permit as they will lose their license if caught.

How difficult/possible is it for such a GC to get a new license? I’ve never understood the willingness to take such a risk, but I’m not a builder.

 

[phamENG]

AFAIK, the AHJ is the one who requests that certain special inspection be performed during plan review if needed.

Same here, at least with houses. But lately I've been questioning the ethical implications of this approach.

If something is designed per the prescriptive code, then sure - no special inspections needed. But say I have a steel moment frame in the house. The house still falls under the IRC (or local equivalent), but the steel isn't covered by that code, except by saying that things not covered should be designed per accepted engineering practice, namely the IBC (or, again, the local equivalent). And the IBC says that the steel should have special inspections.

The prevailing interpretation seems to be, if I submit the drawings without requiring special inspections and the permit is issued, the building official has agreed to waive them. But that seems pretty thin to me. It seems the more appropriate thing to do would be to ensure a positive opting out by the BO. Whether that's by reaching out ahead of time or putting something in the drawings indicating the code requirement, but then also providing the engineer's justification for waiving it. The former is best, but the latter at least feels better than ignoring it and hoping the BO doesn't say anything.

Seems like a pretty sticky situation if the engineer ignores it, the Plan Reviewer I who just finished their supervised training that morning misses it, and a senior inspection puts a stop work order on the job when they notice steel is being erected without an SI requirement.

 

[XR250]

I occasionally get a request from the inspector to check the welds on steel. The best I can do is check for size and perceived quality. I tell them to get a certified weld inspector if they want more. I don't really lose sleep over the inspection process (at least for the light frame stuff I do). Usually enough redundancy to mitigate a safety issue. Insurance will cover the rest. I have not had an issue in 34 years so for what that is worth.

 

[GaStruct]

If something is designed per the prescriptive code, then sure - no special inspections needed. But say I have a steel moment frame in the house. The house still falls under the IRC (or local equivalent), but the steel isn't covered by that code, except by saying that things not covered should be designed per accepted engineering practice, namely the IBC (or, again, the local equivalent). And the IBC says that the steel should have special inspections.

You are correct that the IRC says if something falls outside its scope, it needs to be designed in accordance with engineering practice or per the IBC. However, designed per the IBC doesn't equal inspected per the IBC in my very literal interpretation of the code (does it say otherwise somewhere?).

I don't think specifying steel on a house should trigger IBC special inspection procedures - if the EOR is inspecting it. The IBC has an exception clause for simple construction as well.

 

[theory2code2practice]

You are correct that the IRC says if something falls outside its scope, it needs to be designed in accordance with engineering practice or per the IBC. However, designed per the IBC doesn't equal inspected per the IBC in my very literal interpretation of the code (does it say otherwise somewhere?).

I don't think specifying steel on a house should trigger IBC special inspection procedures - if the EOR is inspecting it. The IBC has an exception clause for simple construction as well.

That's a really interesting point! Should IBC design require IBC inspections in a residential construction?. In chapter 17 some sections have exceptions. Was there a specific exception you were talking about?

 

[GaStruct]

 

[XR250]

How difficult/possible is it for such a GC to get a new license? I’ve never understood the willingness to take such a risk, but I’m not a builder.

I imagine it is not easy once it has been revoked. The only ones I have seen do work for others without permits are the truly bottom of the barrel ones whose life is a mess on all fronts.
I have seen a fair bit of my GC customers do work on their own house without permits, though.

 

[phamENG]

if the EOR is inspecting it.

You mean the EOR takes a special trip out to the site to inspect it?

The IBC has an exception clause for simple construction as well.

That's my point. That exception, as you quoted, says "as approved by the building official." Should that approval be given positively or passively? In other words, should they have to say "this counts as minor, no special inspections required" or is it sufficient to just get a building permit issued without a statement and/or schedule of special inspections included in the application? The more I think about it, the more I lean toward the former.

does it say otherwise somewhere?

Not sure about the vanilla IRC, but our version here in Virginia (the Virginia Residential Code) indicates in the Admin Chapter that indicates special inspection requirements in the IBC are to be considered valid provisions of the the code. So at least here I think it does say that special inspections, where triggered by the IBC on elements outside the scope of the prescriptive elements of the IRC, are required on an IRC structure. Georgia and other states may be different.

 

[GaStruct]

You mean the EOR takes a special trip out to the site to inspect it?

Huge difference between just saying it's a special trip to inspect it and actually following the IBC SI pomp and circumstance.

That's my point. That exception, as you quoted, says "as approved by the building official." Should that approval be given positively or passively? In other words, should they have to say "this counts as minor, no special inspections required" or is it sufficient to just get a building permit issued without a statement and/or schedule of special inspections included in the application? The more I think about it, the more I lean toward the former.

"..... OR as warranted by conditions in the jurisdiction as approved by the building official." To me this leaves it up to the EOR and the latter is acceptable.

Not sure about the vanilla IRC, but our version here in Virginia (the Virginia Residential Code) indicates in the Admin Chapter that indicates special inspection requirements in the IBC are to be considered valid provisions of the the code. So at least here I think it does say that special inspections, where triggered by the IBC on elements outside the scope of the prescriptive elements of the IRC, are required on an IRC structure. Georgia and other states may be different.

Curious to see the exact verbiage of this. IBC SI can be considered? Or must be considered? Georgia does not have this provision.

 

[theory2code2practice]

View attachment 7454

Thanks for this. And now the obligatory..... define "construction of a minor nature" hahahahaha.

 

[wayne_dwops]

Sleep well knowing that the contractors are responsible for building to spec. You can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink. Besides, if I catch wind of improper construction (meaning I've been contacted to fix something) and it is not due to an underlying design flaw, it is additional services at an hourly rate.

To reduce the instances of contractors not reaching out regarding special inspections, I've begun rolling out "special inspection required" notes in my standard details for the typically missed items like epoxy anchorage. If it doesn't help, at least it gives me more ammo when the contractor comes screaming that I'm holding up their final because I won't issue an SI cert with missing inspections.

 

[phamENG]

SI pomp and circumstance.

I think we have very different ideas of pomp and circumstance. Only difference is whether or not I put the inspection requirement in a schedule during design and whether or not I send the report to the building official after substantial completion of the structural elements of the building. The inspection itself is materially the same - I even use the same form, just check "routine observation" or "special inspection" at the top.

To me this leaves it up to the EOR and the latter is acceptable.

It still says as approved by the building official. Meaning the final decision is not with the engineer, but with the building official. Maybe you have some rock star plan review staff that doesn't miss anything, but I routinely get calls from contractors asking for help because "our plans got approved but now the inspector is saying something is wrong, and when we asked plan review they said 'oh yea, sorry, we missed that - you have to do it the way the inspector is telling you'". So I'm not on board with letting the plan reviewers waive special inspections by negation (or lack thereof).

EDIT: okay...not "routinely"....but often enough that it gives me pause.

I get it, though, and have used that method many times in the past. It's only very recently that I'm starting to question whether or not it's a good model to perpetuate.

Curious to see the exact verbiage of this

From the 2021 Virginia Residential Code (2018 IRC, edited) as available on iccsafe.org:

 

[RWW0002]

I think we have very different ideas of pomp and circumstance. Only difference is whether or not I put the inspection requirement in a schedule during design and whether or not I send the report to the building official after substantial completion of the structural elements of the building. The inspection itself is materially the same - I even use the same form, just check "routine observation" or "special inspection" at the top.

Interesting. I was under the impression that most structural engineers shy away from performing Special Inspections and tests I(especially of items such as steel and concrete) and generally only perform "Structural Observations" due to issues over inspector qualifications for various types of work, concerns over independence of inspector, scope of services and "who pays for what", etc. Not that all this cannot be navigated, but I would not think it would be the norm.