Special inspection performed by others 3

[RacingAZ]

Question to other business owners and self-employed guys.

With the economy being so bad, it's becoming a trend that other firms are more aggressively soliciting inspection work on projects designed by others. I have a number of projects that ended up being inspected by others instead of my firm. I suspect they are monitoring the building department submittals and approach the owners even before the construction permit gets release.

It's irritating that we're losing revenue to someone that doesn't know a thing about the project. The worst is that we lose control and not really sure if the plans are being followed and we only get a call (if we're lucky) when something is wrong with the project. That means that we have to respond to that, which is extra time beyond our scope of work. I try to avoid as much as possible to charging extra so as not to get the reputation of being a nickel and dimer.

For the SER, there are obvious benefits aside from monetary if you or your firm performs the inspection. My insurance co. even discourages my firm to perform inspections on projects where we are not the SER or we'll get hit with a hefty premium come renewal time. Wondering how others get around this or desperate times means desperate measures? Anyone dealt with this before and how do you protect your firm and avoid losing that revenue stream?

I have a couple of ideas from the customer service stand point but don't want to piss off my clients and give them the impression that my firm is not a team player.

Does it sound like sour graping or do I have a valid beef?

 

[mauricestoker]

I've had, and more recently been growing worse, the same experience for mechanical and commissioning.

I've definitely had the same problem, or worst problems, in dealing with body shop (lowest cost avalable with minimal required accreditation) businesses that are "experts" in VE.

I've worked as an owner's rep, and really don't like that lowball, save a fast buck now approach. The designers spend a lot of time, money, their reputation, and many times more, on the design. Real hard to protect the integrity of the design when complete newbies of uncertain qualifications want to start making changes based on their 15 minutes of knowledge. It makes about as much sense as commissioning without the involvement of the designer, but that happens.

 

[desnov74]

At the last firm I worked with they loooooooooved commissioning, and sold they were an independant agent working on behalf of the client. They kept touting it as the wave of the fututre. I really hated working with them.

They had the youngest and most inexperienced members on the team in the whole company. With all their talk about LEEDS and saving engergy, it seems to me all they did was waste a lot of paper on reports no one read! I don't know how they commissioned projects when they never troubleshooted, designed anything in their entire lives.

 

[hokie66]

This whole concept of "special inspection" seems to be an American invention of recent times. Inspection should be by the designing firm. Period.

 

[msquared48]

Hokie, you of all people should know that Americans are special.

You just have to look at the situation in the right way.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[strguy11]

The CASE guide to special inspection actually indicates that the SER should provide the special inspections whenever possible.

The only issue I see, is whether the SER would have the qualifications with regard to the inspection techniques and equipent required to do the inspections, say for the welds. Normally, these have been separate testing firms that usually only do this sort of work, at least this is my experience.

Just make sure your insurance carrier allows it, or that you are covered.

 

[JAE]

strguy11 - not to hijack the thread - just wanting to understand your post. In my view, special inspection is not the same thing as MATERIAL testing (i.e. weld tests).

Per my reading of the IBC code, special inspection is VISUAL inspection of both the construction work AND the inspection testing. It is not the actual testing itself.

For example, under concrete Sp. Inspections, it requires special inspection "during" the taking of concrete specimens. So one of the special inspectors duties is to watch that the testing samples are taken properly by the testing agency.

 

[Ron]

As with many things, there are two sides to this argument.

As a design engineer, your liability is increased if you also do the inspection...no excuse for a screw-up, and it one happens they hang you. My professional liability carrier is the opposite of the one noted above...they prefer that we not inspect our own design.

There are good inspectors and bad inspectors, just as there are good designers and bad. I've seen design engineers who looked at work in the field and didn't even know that their design was not being implemented. I've seen inspectors make design modifications without authority (Big, Big No-No).

My point is that if allowed to work as a team, the inspector can protect both the design engineer and the construction process. There is a greater likelihood that the inspector will be out on the job a lot more than the design engineer. He or his firm might have multiple tasks on the job, so that they are more accessible to the needs of the job.

I work on both sides of this argument. I do design work that I inspect and I'm a licensed special inspector in Florida, where I provide special inspection on projects designed by others. It is important to note that inspectors have no authority to make design modifications. They are there to inspect to the documents provided and the building code. If the documents are not adequate to inspect by, the inspector must ask for clarification and interpretation by the SEOR. He is not to interpret and decide.

Another issue I've noted over the years is that when times are good and the design firms are busy, inspection is an annoyance and interruption. When they have no work, they want to do the inspections. Don't try to have it both ways and get a "Holier than thou" attitude when it's convenient.

 

[strguy11]

JAE -

The way I read the code, is that the "inspection" (not testing) of the welds must be performed by a "certified weld inspector" per AWS D1.1. Perhaps the code actually means testing here, but that is not what is written, and I have dealt with local building officials that can be very literate when reading the code.

Without having this document in front of me, I dont know if a PE would meet the requirements by default.

However, getting back to the original post, as CASE describes it, the SER should be what is called the "special inspections coordinator, who is basically responsbile for making sure the program is carried out. They SIC can perform the work, however, when there is testing required, that should be done by a qualified testing firm.

 

[Ron]

strguy11...you are correct. Visual inspection of welds by code, is to be done by a CWI. Nondestructive testing, if required, is to be done by an ASNT Level II technician or above, appropriately certified in the nondestructive method required (Liquid Penetrant, Magnetic Particle, Ultrasonic, Radiography or other). A CWI may also be ASNT certified, and likewise.

 

[hokie66]

Possibly I don't understand what a "special inspector" does. Certainly the design engineer should have appropriate independent testing/inspection done of the welding, bolting, concrete, foundation bearing capacity, etc. What I would object to is the removal of the site function from the engineer's duties. For instance, I want the engineer to inspect and attend at all major concrete placements to ensure that the reinforcement is correctly placed and remains there. And in the course of site visits by the engineer, he needs to have the ability and authority to issue site instructions to resolve problems, whatever the cause.

 

[Ron]

hokie66...what you describe as the "duties" of a design engineer are not so often carried through. I rarely see a design engineer at an initial concrete placement unless it is a placement greatly out of the ordinary (large mat, complicated reinforcement/geometry, etc.). I have held pre-placement conferences that were not attended by the design engineer.

A "Special Inspector" generally means two different things. Under the International Building Code in the US, a Special Inspector is one who is certified to inspect in one of several specialty areas such as reinforced concrete, structural steel, etc. They are not required to be engineers. In Florida, a "Special Inspector" is a licensed engineer or architect with specific experience who is allowed to inspect a special category of buildings in Florida known as "threshold buildings". These are buildings that are greater than 3 stories high, have an assembly occupancy greater than 500 people, have an assembly occupancy area greater than 5000 sf, or any other structure deemed necessary of such inspection by the local building official. The special inspector or his delegate must be present during the placement of all structural components of the building. He must follow a "Threshold Inspection Plan" developed and filed with the building department by the Structural Engineer of Record.

 

[hokie66]

Ron,

It is obviously different from location to location. What I described was normal practic in Virginia in the 1970's, and is normal practice in Brisbane, Queensland today. Not universal, but normal, and what I believe should be the norm.

 

[Ron]

hokie66...I agree completely it should be the norm. Unfortunately, it seems to be getting farther from that rather than closer, in the SE US at least.

 

[zelgar]

I know a lot of different engineers do Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) work for construction. The engineers doing the QA/QC work may be the same as those who developed the design of the project, but they're typically not involved with the actual construction of the project.

For example in landfill design, I've seen the same engeineering firm do the design for the landfill, but not involved with the construction. The engineering firm may be involved in the QA/QC to verify that the landfill is being constructed in accordance with the permit.

 

[WHEngineer]

We perform Special Inspections (IBC 1704) as part of our materials testing business. On these inspections, we only inspect and verify compliance with project plans and specifications and deliver a deficiency report which is then reviewed by the EOR. We do not make recommendations or approve changes. That is the responsibility of the EOR. Generally, on a complicated project, the EOR will also perform an inspection and make recommendations for field changes based upon our deficiency report and his observations. The Special Inspections are typically specified by the Engineer or Architect of Record and the Statement of Special Inspections normally lists the agents and qualifications required for each. To be perfectly honest, we normally would like the EOR to perform these inspections, but end up performing them as they are linked to the materials testing work. It seems to be an additional method to spread liablilty on a project.

 

[RacingAZ]

Ron, good points with your first post but I do have an issue with your last statement regarding the "holier than thou" comment.

I don't go out there and solicit inspection work on projects designed by other engineers and have no desire in the future to do so. My insurance coverage actually discourages me from doing so.

I agree with your observation that during the good times, some SER's looked at inspection requests as an annoyance and distraction from their main work. I've seen this when I was employed by another firm 4-5 years ago where contractors are literally begging for someone to come out to the job site to do inspections. Maybe because the typical billing rate is lower than design work.

In my 12+ years working as an SE, I have not encountered another SE trying to get inspection work designed by others unless the SER is out of State. What I have encountered are mostly geotech guys creeping into structural inspection. Some don't even have any association with the project (like being the GER). They just think that because they provide material testing, they can expand their service to include structural inspection. Makes you wonder if the guy sent out by the firm is qualified or not. I just have one last week where the inspector cannot distinguish between expansion
and epoxy bolts.

As the design engineer doing the inspection or with direct supervision of the inspection, I believe that you're actually managing and minimizing your risk instead of increasing your liability. I agree there are no excuses but if you're confident that your design is solid, then the only thing that can screw it up is a sloppy inspection. When screw up happens with a third party inspector, expect the finger pointing.

 

[hokie66]

Just a bit of an addition to RAZ's last paragraph...the site visits by the SER is actually his last chance to catch any design errors by himself or his office. Something that got through the design review and/or shop drawing review sometimes can result in a flash of dismay on site. Better to fix it then than later.

 

[Ron]

RacingAZ...I agree with everything you said. Didn't mean to ruffle feathers with the "holier than thou" comment, but I've heard that discourse so many times it just hit me wrong.

You are exactly right about the materials testing firms and structural inspections. I know, because I was a structural engineer in a materials engineering capacity for about 20 years and have gone through all the gyrations....field technician, lab technician, Certified Welding Inspector, Certified ASNT Level III in nondestructive testing, Special Inspector, Structural Analysis, Stress Analysis, Design, etc. Best experience I could have ever gotten.

You get all kinds in that approach to inspection. Sometimes you get a level of inspection that the design engineer can't provide, because he doesn't have the knowledge of the materials. Sometimes you get inspectors who don't understand structural design and either neglect to inspect properly or cause so many issues of non-issues it makes the job miserable.

Early on, the testing labs got into inspection because of what I mentioned...design engineers didn't want to go out in the field. It only took a decade or so before that became the norm. Then you started to get the variation in inspection....insufficiently trained technicians substituting for engineers who substituted for the design engineers. The result of that is not a better constructed product, just a more expensive one.

One thing that Design Engineers forget. The way they do things is the way they were taught in their firm and unless they have been exposed to several firms, that's the only thing they know. A good, qualified inspector sees a variety of construction, by a variety of engineers, and gets to see from 10 to 100 projects a year, while the design engineer might see 2 or 3 a year. If the two of them learn to communicate and work together, there is a real benefit there.

 

[Gumpmaster]

Note that Special Inspection and Structural Observation are two separate activities in the 2006 IBC.

The Special Inspector has special knowledge about installation techniques and materials. This isn't necessarily the design engineer.

The Structural Observer is intended to be the registered design professional in responsible charge (2006 IBC Commentary).

Typical practice in the west is that the special inspector is an independent firm that specializes in inspections. The inspector is likely not a PE, but is supervised by a PE. They recieve loads of certifications to prove they're a qualified inspector.