Missed Special Inspection 2

[akastud]

Hypothetical question for you here guys:

Lets say an architect and contractor Value Engineer special inspections out of a project. Upon the engineer learning of this liberty, the concrete walls to be inspected are halfway complete. How do you handle this situation?

akastud

David S. Merrell, P.E.
TOR Engineering

http://www.TOREngineering.com

 

[msucog]

as a special inspector, i suggest you kick it back to the building official and that you document that THEY (everyone else) are the ones that removed special inspections from the project. if the EOR allows this to happen, then it could eventually fall back on the EOR since they allowed the work to occur/continue without special inspection. if the building official allows this to happen, then the EOR should advise all parties involved that they are violating the building code and possibly state law (many states have laws requiring special inspections--however, many states do not actively enforce their own laws). if everything still goes forward, document the heck out of everything because i feel the EOR still has liability for allowing it to occur. above all else, the EOR should not provide paperwork stating that the special inspections occurred (for example, final report of special inspections). the EOR might lose a client but the offset of liability would likely be well worth it. also, by not requiring special inspections, everyone involved increases their exposure to future problems due to deficient workmanship.

you notice i reference "EOR" quite a bit...they are the only ones with complete liability should something go wrong in this scenario. i hate to use the word "complete" but the EOR is on the hook for the design, oversight/approval of the construction and inspection of the work. the EOR is the one that has the biggest target painted on their back. that's my advise for what it's worth. good luck.

you might go to the icc board and discuss the issue among building officials/inspectors. you'll probably get good feedback to your question.

http://www.iccsafe.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=10

 

[Atomic25]

First double check if special inspections are really required for your application.

Second, assess what sort of problems could arise from the lack of inspection. Are your walls are pushed to the limit, or do they have double the capacity required? Are they shear walls or gravity?

Third, if you feel there could be a serious problem, if for example they put #5's instead of #6's, then I would formalize the problem by writing to the BO, contractor, and Architect.

It gets too project specific to tell you what to do from there.

Im not so sure the responsibility falls squarely on the EOR to babysit the contractor. There is a large liability the contractor assumes if he/she deviates from the design. Special inspections is intended as a third party control, but if you look at a lot of the requirements, they dont need to be out on site 24/7 to check every piece of reinforcement, every footing dimension, etc. What if the SI misses something...where does the liability lie then? Does your project require structural observations or just special inspections??

 

[msquared48]

IF, to take an example here, you designed the structure predicated on special inspections, as CMU, using higher allowable stresses as a result, I would call the BO and stop order the project if the Architect and Contractor changed the rules in the middle of the game. Sit back, put in your earplugs and watch the sparks fly!

Personally, I would not do business with either of them ever again if they left you out of the loop, particularly when the structural design parameters are YOUR call, not theirs.

Mike McCann
McCann Engineering

 

[msucog]

my point is that the EOR will ultimately end up taking the biggest hit of anyone involved in the project. i'm a geotech with a testing firm and if i was/am involved in a project where special inspections were specified but the architect said they weren't going to be done, i'd first call the EOR to get it from them (it is their design and their call, so i'm calling them...not the architect and dang sure not the contractor). then i'd put out a letter stating that we had been directed by the EOR to disregard the plans/specs & code requirements. (i'm not going to be the one crucified in court over someone else's decision)

here's a phrase out of my state ammended code (now if the BO says SI's aren't required, then you're off the hook to a certain degree if someone decided to take it to litigation--i'd suggest you get that in writing since it doesn't exist if it's not on paper):
1704.1 General. Where application is made for construction as described in this section, the owner or the registered design professional in responsible charge acting as the owner’s agent shall employ one or more special inspectors to provide inspections during construction on the types of work listed under Section 1704. The special inspector shall be qualified in accordance with Table 1704.1. These inspections are in addition to the inspections specified in Section 109.

and as i previously noted, it may be code and it may be the law, but it might not be enforced (yet). all i can do is follow the appropriate standard and hope everyone else is doing their jobs. that's the best way for me to stay out of or protect myself from litigation.

 

[lana02]

I am aware of a cell site on school property where the first 4 courses of block were laid without the special inspector on site. I this case core sampling and testing were prescribed by DSA as remediation. The EOR will need to work out with the permitting agency what sort of plan B processes they both find acceptable.
The Architect is the lead on the job. It is not the responsibility of the EOR to watch him. If the Architect and the Contractor (both licensed individuals) conspired to circumvent the directives of the EOR (and any building code requirements) they alone should be held accountable for their actions.

 

[csd72]

Do not take responsibility for things you didnt inspect.

I have issued inspection reports which finished by saying:

"We were unable to inspect the following areas..."

Cover your arse by notifying the client of the consequences of their actions. They can claim they didnt know better, you cant.

csd

 

[miecz]

Let me guess. The Contractor showed the BO your Special Inspection Form to get a building permit, and then tossed it.

As the EOR, your responsibilty is to provide the Special Inspection Form and specify the Special Inspections. At that point, your job is done, unless you are the Special Inspector.

Apparently, the Owner or Contractor never hired a Special Inspector.

The building official should require the Special Inspection Form be presented by a Special Inspector, before issuing a certificate of occupancy.

As msquared48 says, I'd just stay out of it (the fray, and the building).

 

[DarthSoilsGuy]

The architect is the Primary Design Professional(PDP). The PDP is responsible for code compliance. Many times our industry thinks special inspections are all about the EOR or SER. The truth is that the PDP is a major player that gets overlooked by engineers (i believe it is because of the old engineer/architect rivalry, you know, who are the REAL designers that are in responsible charge)

Your title is wrong. in your hypothetical, there are no Special Inspections of the concrete walls. This is because the PDP reduced the scope of SI. therefore, no missed inspections.

The contractor has no role in your hypothetical. Sure the contractor can suggest that SI be eliminated to reduce costs to the owner, but they can't justify charging less for it. Even if the contractor gave a rebate for inspectionless work, it doesn't matter from a code compliance standpoint as it isn't their role to decide.

The big problem in the hypothetical is that the PDP didn't discuss this with the EOR before construction started. i'm assuming the EOR is a consultant to the PDP and the EOR specified the SI works required.

The EOR should request documentation from the PDP that the original Statement of Special Inspections was never presented to the Building Department or that the PDP amended the Statement of Special Inspections with the building department. Also, it would be a good time to remind them that the EOR cannot state that all SI work has been completed if it is to include the original scope that has been omitted.

 

[akastud]

Thank you for your input, I have thought of many of the same things. The jurisdiction where this occured does not require SI Certificates, other local jurisdictions require them but do not require any final sign off. Many a project has been built with my seal on a SI certificate and me not knowing the project was completely built and inhabited until years later. No one is paying me to drive by the hundreds of unbuilt project sites each week to look and see if there is any activity. My understanding is that the certificate indicates to the jurisdiction that the owner or agent understand that Special Inspections are required. I do not completely understand affixing my seal to the document other than to say to the owner these are the pieces that require it.

As to my hypothetical (aren't they always hypothetical), there are now two sides to the story. 1. The Architect says they omitted testing on the project, not SSI (although I do not think they can omit testing by code) 2. The contractor says the Architect did approve the change. Either way, it hasn't been done. A local testing agency has been called to perform the rest of the inspections and the contractor is going to meet with the building official (supposedly) to determine how to proceed. I am planning on writing a letter with the facts and some sort of disclaimer, and the extent of that letter will be based on what the contractor comes back with.

David S. Merrell, P.E.
TOR Engineering

http://www.TOREngineering.com

 

[miecz]

Oh, somehow, I missed the fact that SI are not required by law. In that case, there's no point in filling out a special inspection form and sealing it. Filling out such a form that may not be followed may be giving a false sense of security, to yourself, if no one else. Prior to Special Inspections in these parts, we used to spell out the required testing and inspections in our specifications.

 

[akastud]

jmiec,

In my opinion SI are required by law (they are required by the code which the jurisdiction has adopted), and it is in our specifications. The jurisdiction in my opinion just does a poor job of making sure it happens, and it is my opinion that it is not my job to make sure it happens. In this case I was given knowledge that it wasn't happening and therefore I feel it is my professional responsibility to do something about it.

akastud

 

[DarthSoilsGuy]

"1. The Architect says they omitted testing on the project, not SSI (although I do not think they can omit testing by code)"

A standard role of the Special Inspector is to verify that specified testing has been performed. It's hard to reduce the testing scope and claim you haven't reduced Special Inspection scope. (I presume the reduction in testing scope is also news to the EOR.)

Also, if the Architect didn't omit the Special Inspections. Why did they not coordinate the hiring of a Special Inspector for the owner? Special Inspections don't just do themselves, and it's not like it is hard to find someone to bill the crap out of you while they hang around on-site. Especially, if they don't have to do any testing, HAH!. Testing, ooh... that sounds like work.

It sounds to me like not requiring a final sealed certificate is not necessary the law but the standard of practice. Standard of practice always change on somebody's project first.

 

[DonPhillips]

I agree most jurisdications do not enforce the special inspections portion of the building code. I guess the person sealing the drawings accepts some responsibility to ensure inspections are conducted, but I have gotten grief from the design community when I issue a correction letter seeking a statement of special inspections.

The question I am asked the most is "what do I want to see." I throw this back to the designer, telling them to think about the design and what is required in Chapter 17, and list what special inspections will be required. If none, so state. Code says I need a statement.

For example, concrete quality, CMU mortar quality, rebar placement, etc. My building inspector could verify rebar placement, but not concrete and mortar quality. If the plan is to have a third party test and submit reports on concrete/mortar breaks, and the building inspector verify rebar, that is the statement of special inspections.

I have even met with EOR's who want to know if I am requiring welding inspectors for a couple of minor connections. I would reply, if he is concerned about those connections, then yes, otherwise, his statement that those welds are minor and do not require inspection are good enough for me.

The concern I have, if jurisdictions start enforincing this in the future, is a lack of uniformity in the inforcement. As you can see, I like to allow the EOR to determine what is important in his design to reduce the needless bureacricy that the code can create. And there are some pretty conservative building officials out there that will require each "i" to be dotted. There is nothing more frustrating to a designer than running into a building official who is unreasonable.

Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[msucog]

the biggest part of the problem is that some owners do not care about getting the SI's done so they try to avoid it. then, once the building official says that they need to see all the reports, the owner tries to pinch everyone else to give over the paper. i've been fired off several jobs because i wouldn't "go along" with my client (more like customer). i say that getting fired did me a favor. they then turned around and hired "jack leg engineering" to write the reports. the funny part is that i can look up in the county records online who signed off on the permit. this guy signed off on things that were completed way before he was even involved and for things that i know no one looked at. oh well, i hope he realized several of those buildings he signed off on had been recommended for undercutting due to poorly compacted fill.

i think the best way to ensure uniformity in enforcement is for the design community to go through the process of generating the report of special inspections for every job whether it's enforced or not. it is required in most places so that can be your "excuse" to the client. "yes sir i understand this costs you more money for inspections but it is required by the building code and is the law." the EOR can help drive the requirements the way they see fit instead of having the building official hounding them about irrelevant issues. besides, this CAN ONLY HELP TO REDUCE THE LIABILITY OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL by helping to make sure the field work matches the design.

folks, i've seen some scary stuff in the field from when i was a contractor and now as an inspector. the scariest things i see would not be seen without the special inspections (or unless the structural engineer is onsite each day--this is not feasible except on very, very rare projects...i only know of two very large, expensive projects that this occurred). and everyone falls back on "well the contractor is responsible"...they absolutely are but how the heck are you going to prove it if something goes to court? sure, everyone can spend weeks reviewing job reports and plans, doing forensic field work, etc...but wouldn't it be easier to have the owner pay for the testing firm to be on site and end up keeping everyone out of court? at worst, at least you'd have an independent set of eyes on the job.

here is my last comment about the issue: contractor workmanship is terrible these days...not just sorta kinda bad...absolutely terrible. i can count the number of jobs on one hand where the contractor actually knew what they were doing and looked at all the plans/specs. most field guys these days don't even speak/read english so how the hell are they going to pick up a note on the drawings for a particular detail? even worse, the guys that do speak english "have been doing this for 25 years" but then argue because you tell them their laps aren't long enough. i recently had one guy tell me, "well hell, we always use 2' foot laps". i showed him the nice little table the engineer provided in the drawings and tried to explain what a class B splice was. i ended up saying, "just look up the bar size in this table and use that". he actually ended up saying, "so i just need to use 36" for #5's". i could tell the man had no idea what he was doing yet he's building a retaining wall. then throw in things like foundation support, quality of concrete, missed details, missed dowels, misplaced rebar that is cut off and maybe replaced (ever seen a hole drilled and rebar banged in to the hole with no epoxy?), etc etc. hell, i've seen guys cut off 8 #6 bars in columns that were supposed to hook just under the top of the column to hold in the anchor bolts that had 4"x4" plates as washers (apparently some wicked uplift since the roof looked somewhat like a wing). the rebar was looked at by the engineer (he then left) and then after the forms were closed up, the cutting torches came out and cut the bars off 1-2' below the bottom of the anchor bolts. now, the engineer's report says something like "he saw everything ok". if the roof collapses due to this, i'm pretty sure someone will say he signed off on the way it was. now, this could realistically happen to anyone but if the testing firm is one the jobsite for masonry and concrete, they're probably going to notice the cutting torches going to work just before a pour and call someone. it's not absolute that it would get caught but it's a heck of a lot more likely to be done better than if no one was there at all. and most of deal with contractors so we know their mentality when it comes to litigation.

i'm an absolute supporter of special inspections and even i must deal with those pesky building officials on occassion. i'd much rather deal with those guys than a contractor (whose looking to cut corners and screw me over) any day. and if there's SI tables in the plans and the report of special inspections showing the special inspection requirements, then that pretty much takes care of what is required. the codes expand upon the details for most everything (even though some areas are intentionally somewhat vague and left up to the design professional). find a good testing firm and work closely with them. actually include them in preconstruction/project meetings. if they are part of the project team, i would expect that you will see much better responsiveness to situations. however, that statement does not apply for the "jack leg engineering" firm. if the SI is not included in all aspects of the project, then how can anyone expect them to possibly do their job when someone asks about a particular aspect? if i haven't been included from the beginning, i don't intend to stick my neck out when i have no idea what has occurred on the project simply because someone didn't get me out there at the start.

sorry for the long post but this issue (and contractors in general) sort of push my buttons and get me on a soap box.

 

[msquared48]

Several years ago I was called on by an insurance company to inspect a residence on a local lake that an owner was in the process of building himself. Talk about scary situations and an unsafe structure, this amorphous mess takes the cake for the worst structure in my professional career.

The owner had taken out several construction draws to the level of over $750,000 during the course of construction, and it had been roofed, but not sided yet. The building footprint had been enlarged by the owner from the original planset without any OK from any jurisdiction or the EOR. The quality of craftsmanship could not be registered on the lower end of the scale.

The only reason the bank had called me into this mess was that it seemed odd to them that so much money had been called for so quickly. No one from the bank or the county had bothered to check on this project. The EOR had not been contracted to do any inspections. To me, this was ridiculous - and, there were so many things done wrong, I had to end up condemning the structure. Made a lot of friends with this one though. The EOR removed his stamp from the project once I informed him. The local jurisdiction had not informed him.

Point being here, you cannot rely on others to protect your interests. You have to do your due dilligence whether you are paid or not in some circumstances.



Mike McCann
McCann Engineering

 

[jike]

I wholeheartedly agree that there are significant problems when it comes to adequate inspection for structural items. Either someone else (architect, construction manager, etc.) feels that they are qualified to do the structural inspection work or feel that they are qualified to say the work doesn't need to be done.

I have been on projects where the architect has limited us to only one or two site visits to inspect the structure which often is totally inadequate compared to the scope of the work. I could go out to the job site immediately after the full time construction administrator just walked the job (and found several insignificant items) and I would find a dozen or more structural and architectural problems. Of course, the architect, construction manager, contractor and even sometimes the owner didn't like it when I wrote these items up but I would simply let the issues speak for themselves. I am often surprised when the owner becomes upset at me for finding something instead of at the contractor who didn't install something per the drawings. I thought I was there to protect the owner's interest rather than to just put my blessing on whatever has been done.

The best thing that can happen is for the building code to mandate structural inspections by the EOR, not the architect, not the contractor, not construction manager/ administrator, etc. and for the building departments to enforce it.

 

[Atomic25]

SI throughout most of the US doesn't meet the code's intent. Out west things are different because it's painfully evident to the politicians that they need quality structures. Elsewhere nobody really cares.

Nothing is going to change until the jurisdictions become educated and take responsibility.

The design community cannot make the change alone because there's always going to be a "jack leg engineer" there to scoop up your work. Simple as that.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Work through your state's Structural Engineers Association to pressure the jurisdiction to start enforcing the code. Put it in writing. Put the liability on them, they will change I garuntee it.

 

[msucog]

i like to see jobs where the structural engineer or their rep visit regularly. however, i doubt most projects have a budget to get the engineer onsite daily for several hours a day. this is where the testing firm plays an important role. i think another aspect of the special inspection conversation is missed. an independent inspector can provide just that...an independent inspection. at the same time that the engineer/architect/owner can feel good about the observations from the field, the independent inspector protects the contractor (even though they never see it that way). we have no interest invested in the project other than noting our observations or performing tests correctly. while we do want to have a good job, we are there only to check the field work versus the plans. should anything go to litigation, then all parties involved have confidence that the reports are not biased to any particular party. again, this helps to lower everyone's exposure if an independent person is "taking notes". there will be certain tests needed during construction anyway, so why not invest in the rest of the project?...maybe i'm biased toward myself since i'm one of those testing people but i just don't see how special inspection can be viewed a negative thing other than from the contractor (because they'll actually have to do the work more in line with what should be done). as i said before, i once worked for one of the biggest contractors in the world and quality goes no further than the man in the field doing the work. i pride myself on working with one of the best superintendents in the business but he too cannot be in the field 24 hours a day. so who's the weak link in the chain then? how about the carpenter foreman or assistant superintendent? would you believe these two men were committing the acts of cutting rebar below the anchor bolts described above....would you believe that this is the primary reason i took a 20% pay cut to leave contracting to work for a geotechnical/construction material testing firm? when i confronted the two men about what was happening, they said "well field modification happen...you're just too young to understand". after i left that position, the superintendent ended up getting rid of those two guys because of what i describe above. (but a little too late to correct the problem now).

if anything, hopefully the special inspections will bring back the "team" mentality and get everyone in the mindset of performing a quality job. the old timer construction workers have noticed the change in quality. volunteer quality is non-existent these days now that schedule and money are the only driving forces. unfortunately, that mentality spills over in to the engineering side today too. sad but true...

 

[akastud]

Mike,

How does an engineer "remove his stamp"? It seems to me that once the contractor does not build it per the plan set that I put out, he removes my stamp for me. I put out dozens of jobs a year, some close some hundreds of miles away. I do not know when some of them begin construction. Owners around here do not provide for any engineer visits to the site. How can I provide due diligence without knowledge of what is happening. The reason for this post is that I became aware of what was happening and I now beleive that I have a responsibility to do something.

akastud