missed inspections and final construction affidavits 1

[structured]

Anybody do structural engineering in Massachusetts?

I have been asked to sign the Final Construction Control document for a project where I know that some Special Inspections were never performed. For those who don't know about this affidavit, see here:

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/05/final construction control document.pdf

I am already uncomfortable with these type of affidavits. They only show up in some states and put an additional layer of responsibility on the SEOR. But in this project in particular I am not signing the form because I know that the work was not completed in accordance with the Code due to missed inspections. This is obviously a point of contention with an otherwise good client.

The missed inspections were for a few items but the main concern is the handful of helical piles. The contractor did keep their daily installation logs but no Special Inspections were performed despite being clearly noted in the Statement of Special Inspections and required per 1705.9 of 2015 IBC which is the governing Code. No sample load test was performed either despite being required by the CDs.

What would you all do? Are you aware of any solution other than installing new piles? Unfortunately much of the work is already installed and there is no feasible way to do a load test on the in-situ piles. We could have them install a new test pile nearby, but we can't even be sure what helix configuration they installed because nobody was there to document it?

For background, I did some searching and found that this type of affidavit was discussed previously here:

https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=405552

 

[phamENG]

I just had a related thread going in the Structural Engineering Forum: thread507-491184

It's a little different, but I think the ethical crux of it is the same. Were you there? Did you see it? Was it witnessed by somebody you have contracted/hired to observe it? If those are all No's...then you can't certify it. I'd bring it to the AHJ. Tell them what is going on, what was and wasn't done so far as you are aware, what you will and will not sign for, and then they can decide what they'll accept. If they'll give a CO without that certification or with an asterisk after your signature that says you're excluding XYC, then that's their call. If they won't, then the contractor needs to solve their own problem. No good reason for you to put your neck on the block for them.

 

[structured]

I did not see it but someone "under my charge" was on site regularly to observe the work. We are a full service "integrated delivery" type of firm so we have big teams and end up having to rely on our colleagues for construction oversight.

In our being on site and generally tracking the progress and quality of the work, we noted that the inspections had not been performed. Keep in mind that we are not the Special Inspection Agency. My sticking point is item 3 in the affidavit which requires me to state that I or someone under my charge "Have been present at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the work and to determine if the work was performed in a manner consistent with the construction documents and this code." (emphasis added). I know based on what I said above that this statement is not true. Unless the inspection requirement is waived by the AHJ, I cannot make the statment.

A funny wrinkle to this story is that under the prior Mass Code they had an ammendment to Chapter 17 of IBC which was even more stringent. They required that the EOR "assume all responsibilities of the building official contained in sections 1703.1, 1703.2, 1703.4, 1703.4.1, 1703.4.2, 1703.6, 1704.1, 1704.4.1, 1708.4, 1711.1, 1712.1." It also required the EOR to "submit to the building official, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a final tests and inspections report stating that to his knowledge...have been satisfactorily completed and that any deficiencies have been reported and rectified." EEK!! The full amendment is at the link below if anybody is interested. It no longer exists apparently and thankfully. I don't know the history but I assume engineers in Mass pushed back and got it removed.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/chapter-17-structural-tests-and-special-inspections/download

 

[dig1]

I do Structural Engineering in MA and understand the situation (I don't like these affidavit's either); especially Item 3. I don't see how you can sign the affidavit unless it is waived. In your second post you state that your company already noted that the inspections were not performed (I'm assuming on the Construction Control Progress Checklist) so signing it appears to be a contradiction, at least on the surface and w/o knowing the details. pharmENG is correct when he says you need to discuss with the AHJ.

 

[EnergyProfessional]

I know nothing about structural issues..... but "knowing things are missing/wrong" and "feeling uncomfortable" are two indicators that would tell me to stay away from that and make it the problem of whoever designed it or was in charge otherwise.

I would wonder who they originally wanted to sign off (the designer?) and why that person isn't taking that responsibility.

 

[structured]

dig1,
I have already reached out to the state building inspector for the area and am waiting to hear back. We'll see what they say...

EnergyProf,
I am the SEOR and designed the project along with some people under me. The piles themselves were a delegated item and were designed by a third party. We had a construction admin (like a CM but in the design team) from my firm on site regularly and they were the one who observed the work. MA requires the SEOR to sign the aforementioned affidavit at the close out of projects. It's a PITA, especially for people like me who typically work out of state. And, yes, even if this affidavit were not a sticking point we have other fish to fry regarding the work. We have already been discussing the deficiency with the client and made them aware of the risks if these piles do not perform as intended. If the AHJ is willing to waive or accept some alternative testing method then I will still be requiring some sort of waiver from the client and contractor before I can sign off. Otherwise they will be installing new piles or hiring another engineer...

 

[MintJulep]

If you or someone under your charge were not present 24-7 for the duration of construction you can't know with certainty that the special inspections were not performed. The best you can know is that were weren't performed while you or someone under your charge were present.

It is entirely possible that the inspection fairy came in the middle of a night to do the inspections.

You can't sign without "objective documented evidence that the following inspections required by the construction documents and code..."

 

[structured]

MintJulep,
We are certain that the inspection was not performed.

 

[EnergyProfessional]

I assume the inspections would have been performed by a certified company and they would provide some sort of certified documentation.

We hire a company to do the concrete sampling and testing and other soil/structural inspections. They provide a stamped report of their findings. I don't know if it is legally required, but they happen to have a PE stamp the reports. So whatever inspection report is used, it should ensure the inspecting company has skin in the game.

So I would doubt inspections happened properly if there is no documentation.

 

[Aesur]

I remember those forms from my former employer, we had to deal with them quite a bit, I too disliked them. Do you have an update after talking with the building official? There were many times when inspections were ignored/forgotten on projects over and over to the point where we had to create a testing program for the contractors for piles. It consisted of something like, test 10% randomly (we pick which ones) and if any fail then test all. The percent's varied depending project size and location - many times they consisted of thousands of piles per site.

 

[Settingsun]

Are special inspections meant to be performed by some other party? If so, it's a bit of a pain that you have to check this rather than the authority but, if that's the way it is, that's the way it is. This seems like a situation where a standard fact sheet could be provided to your clients at completion of design (or earlier) along the lines "you still need me for X, Y and Z per the building code, and Z won't happen if you don't do W".

On the other hand, clients should know this if they're developers, or have someone on board to advise them. But evidently not.

Regarding item 3 of the form, doesn't seem too onerous: "intervals", "generally familiar". They've even got the "doesn't relieve the contractor" part built in. We often have to add this and argue about it.