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?

 

[WHEngineer]

Another note on the IBC Special Inspections. The SER usually issues the Statement of Special Inspections (occasionally the Architect, but that is another issue). The Statement of Special Inspections details what inspections are to be performed and who the authorized agents are to perform those inspections. Our typical problem is that we end up on sites where Special Inspections are required by the local governments, but the SER only gives a cursory fill-in-the-blank form and then we have to inspect to it. We just went through a significant change order sequence on a project because the SER specified pre-tensioned concrete tensioning inspections on a project that used post-tensioning. In our project bid phase, the SER and Architect were specifically asked about the post-tensioning inspections and we were instructed that that was not needed - that is until the contractor started the tensioning procedures. The point of my rant is that in the IBC Special Inspections process, it is the SER that generally controls the requirements of the inspection process, not some geotech trying to "creep" into the inspection process.

 

[msucog]

I will apologize in advance as I rant for a few moments over my morning cup-o-java:

I agree with WHEgnineer and many other comments. I am a geotechnical engineer, construction materials testing engineer and special inspector here in the US (so my comments are aimed toward IBC). In my opinion, the SI program is invaluable to everyone involved with the project. It keeps more eyes on the construction activities, adds layers of oversight, more thoroughly documents what is/isn't being done, and reduces the overall liability to the project team. The SI does NOT approve any changes to the project documents...as with quality assurance testing, we are only there to document that the observed field conditions are in general accordance with the intent of the project documents. This may include observations, evaluations, sampling, testing, etc etc. These inspections should also not be viewed to "substitute" for structural observations by the EOR. Even if the designer is performing period site visits, I suggest continuing to utilize the services of a testing firm/SI. If the EOR sees that some particular inspection is not necessary, then it is up to them to identify that...but it will need to be appropriately documented. I highly suggest that caution be used when removing inspections/testing...otherwise the lawyers will have a field day in the event the project ends up in court. Speaking of which, it is my belief/experience that special inspections and lawyers are just now starting to collide...once they get their brain around the code requirements, it will become commonplace for them to use special inspections as the backbone of their cases. I have seen it start to happen to other engineers within the past year. IBC, while having some gray areas of interpretation, has a laundry list of very specific "things" that must be done for each part of construction and this will be the "GOTCHA" I suspect many of you will experience in the coming years. However, it will likely be this way due to a general lack of understanding for special inspections, lax attitude toward satisfying the requirements, inconsistent implementation/enforcement of the codes, inexperience with performing the inspections, pressure from the client to cut testing costs, etc etc. When properly specified and performed, I absolutely see special inspections as an asset to everyone involved (and actually saves the client money in the long run). As a matter of fact, most US states have adopted the codes in to law meaning that they are required for most types of construction. The problem I saw a few years back was that although IBC had been adopted by the state (in to state law) and was required, implementation/enforcement was sketchy, at best, from county to county, city to city. This was, in part, a direct result of the EOR being wishy washy...they were required by law to include all the special inspection statements in the project documents but didn't want to irritate the owner by saying "yes mr. owner, the inspections must be performed and you must pay for them"...they used the "yes they're supposed to be required but the building official likely won't require the documentation" (that started to change when projects neared completion and the building official asked for a stamp on the statement of special inspections confirming that all had been performed which caused the CO to be held up...suddenly panic set in). This created huge headaches because of the inconsistencies from job to job. This also made it difficult to deal with contractors since they were still using the "I've been doing it this way for 20 years" mentality much less for what they did for the same client just a year ago in an adjacent county. But after a year or two of the special inspection program becoming more common place, it is generally very similar from project to project now (especially since the EORs and testing firms simply acknowledge "hey mr. owner, it is required by state law so you have no choice but to have these things done in order to receive your CO")...although the contractors are still far, FAR behind the learning curve. My suggestion to all of you would be to have at least one person within your firm become very familiar with the special inspection program and CMT requirements as per IBC so that you can better manage your own responsibilities, provide better oversight for the project, and minimize conflicts that will arise from trying to short circuit the special inspection requirements. There are many other positive aspects to special inspections I have not mentioned. I have been on the contracting side and will say that it is absolutely amazing what happens as soon as the inspector walks off. But if the testing firm is performing the special inspections along with the materials testing (which the two typically go hand in hand) then the onsite personnel will have a better chance of catching the contractor "fudging". As I mentioned, these inspections should not replace the visits from the designer.

I hope that perhaps my comments have been beneficial to some of you.

Good luck and best regards
Ryan Coggins, P.E., S.I.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/ryancoggins

 

[GregLocock]

I'd always wondered if punctuation was worth worrying about.

Thanks for clearing that up.





Cheers

Greg Locock

I rarely exceed 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight