Special Inspection with Design/Build

[JAE]

The IBC states that Special Inspections be performed by someone directly hired by the Owner (as opposed to hired by the contractor).

In the case of Design/Build, the Contractor and the Engineer are one legal entity. Does this arrangement preclude the Engineer (of the D/B team) to serve as the Special Inspector? Or does the Owner have a legal obligation to hire someone else from outside the D/B team?

 

[twich]

JAE, I've got the same problem with a major multi-million dollor project starting construction in a couple of months.

I trust the D/B's engineers but am leery of ANY contractor allowing them to do the inspections properly and as required. As the owners rep. I am telling my owner it is our obligation to perform these inspections. The code may not be clear in this case but I can't see allowing any temptation to occur.

This doesn't answer you question, but I think your judgement should govern. Just by bringing up the question indicates you may have like concerns.

 

[miecz]

In 1999 the Special Inspections Committee of the Structural Engineers Coalition, Connecticut Engineers in Private Practice issued a "Guide to Special Inspections and Structural Testing. (Note: I believe the Special Inspections program originated with the SEC in Connecticut)

In the Appendix to this document, "National Practice Guidelines for Special Inspections", Design/Build is never specifically addressed. The introduction reads "The purpose of this section is to identify or describe the range and nature of Special Inspection services required in a typical construction project."

In the "Guide", under "Purpose", the following paragraph appears:

In some instances, the inspector or testing laboratory has been engaged by the Contractor. This can often lead to a conflict of interest. The Building Code now requires that the inspector and testing laboratory be engaged by the owner rather than by the Contractor. Any conflict of interest which could compromise the objectivity of any inspector or testing agent should be disclosed to the building official.

Sounds to me like its the Building Officials call. If I were a building official, it would look like a conflict of interest to me.

 

[henri2]

JAE, I feel it will depend, on amongst other things, the enforcing jurisdiction; the rules and regulations they adopt (particularly as they relate to conflict of interest), and whether or not, they implement them.

Some jurisdictions have specific rules regarding potential conflict of interest. A good example is Clark County, NV.

http://dsnet.co.clark.nv.us/dsweb/guides_tech/tg100.pdf

It may be prudent to discuss this matter with the BO/AHJ ahead of time.

 

[archeng59]

it appears to be a conflict of interest for you to be the on the Contractor's team and do special inspections on behalf of the owner. however, if the owner hires you directly to be the SI, whatever you do will be on his behalf and not the contractor's.

 

[JAE]

Thanks for the replies.

I just called our local (city) building department and they told me that their policy is that for design/build, if I as a licensed engineer perform the special inspections its OK with them as long as I write a letter to them stating that I did the inspections per code and the results of those inspections.

Basically then, they are trusting in the ethics and integrity of licensed engineers to do the right thing. In a sense, the Owner is hiring me - only through the contractor.

jmeic - early in my career we would always require the Owner to hire the testing labs. Recently, the Owners have generally preferred to have the contractor hire them direct. They figure that either way they are paying for the testing (the contractor just puts the testing cost in their bid). I suppose there could be some sense of pressure to sway tests, etc. (primarily with dirt work).

 

[Loui1]

"Basically then, they are trusting in the ethics and integrity of licensed engineers to do the right thing. In a sense, the Owner is hiring me - only through the contractor."


Unfortunately, the ethics and integrity of the entire structural engineering community crumbles under the pressures of money. If we were paid like doctors, then it would stand a chance. No matter how ethical you are, there's the unethical engineer willing to do it poorly for 1/2" the price.

In the best interest of the owner and EOR, an outside source not influenced by any contract should be hired.

 

[TDAA]

“ I suppose there could be some sense of pressure to sway tests, etc. (primarily with dirt work).” – If you mean that the way I read it, I find that to be offensive. I am not sure why you imply that Geotechnical Engineers would believe they should “sway tests” more than any other engineer.

Do you mean that there would be any less pressure to let the thickness of fire proofing slide, or not to re-weld a series of connections that did not meet spec, adjust rebar clearances, etc? It seems that there would be many more structural items, compared to a few passes with a soil compactor, which could impact the bottom line, and your share of the design/build profits.

This is why the engineers are often put in charge (by law) of the D/B team, because they (should) have a higher ethical standard. The way I see it though, if the engineer is the lead entity, the owner has hired them to provide a complete project. The engineer has hired the contractor (putting aside contract specifics, as the engineer is the lead). Therefore, the engineer is technically working for the owner, and should be able to do the work, as the building official has pointed out. After all, you are putting your career on the line by signing off on it. I do feel that there is more pressure on all aspects of the inspections to be sure the contractor (sharing profits with the D/B team) is making money. This does create some conflict of interest, and should be watched.

My previous company had provided SI overview on a fairly large project (not D/B). The owner knew we would be too expensive to do the entire project, and also felt the could be conflict with us providing the SI and designs (another topic). Since the forgot to hire someone to do the SI, we did the initial soils work, then hired another firm (based on bids and quals) to do the remaining. We also provided review, compilation, and submission of testing results. I think as an owner, I would like that situation for a DB. Let the D/B team provide the inspections, and have a third party review on my behalf.

 

[JAE]

TDAA - no intention of being offensive. And why do you suppose that "geotechnical engineers" are the ones I was referring to? I don't know very many good geotechnical engineers that are out there performing compaction tests, only the technical people working for them.

Compaction is a much more nebulous thing to control in the field. I know as I've done hundreds of compaction tests on highway projects and have seen first hand the difficulty in managing tests around 20 earth movers, sheepsfoot rollers, etc. in a way where controlling machinery, identifying the lifts, etc. can be tough....seeing an inspector with a density meter running around trying to jockey in a test between lifts can actually be amusing.

But that really wasn't the main issue being discussed - I was just letting my own reflection of testing creep in so sorry you got the burr under your saddle.

 

[miecz]

JAE-

We are not a design/build firm. While our specs require the owner to hire the testing lab, they don't. Our Construction Management team selects the testing lab based on qualifications, etc. Then the GC enters into a contract with the lab, and pays the lab directly. The owner pays for lab work under an allowance.

As for design build, the owner should hire the testing lab. Any owner who is so stupid/lazy as to hire a firm to police itself deserves what he gets.

 

[dik]

archeng... if you were working for the design build contractor, then accepting a commission from the owner will likely place you in a conflict position...

Dik

 

[mitchelon]

JAE,

This is not your typical code or book answer. I have worked in many Design/Build contracts and the owner typically hires a second party to do the inspections. The key phrase from the IBC is “directly hired by the Owner.” If the owner chooses not to hire an inspector, he is running a huge risk as we all know that there are some unethical engineers/contractors out there. If you haven't met any yet, let me know where you work, because that's where I want to be.

 

[archeng59]

dik, I agree to a point. for a design-bid-build, we work for the owner thru the architect typically. the owner could then hire us to perform the SI after the design phase is complete. In this case, the design build team was hired by the owner thru the contractor. would working directly for the owner as the SI be a conflict since you are already essentially working for the owner thru the contractor? In both cases, we should be working in the best interest of the owner I believe.

 

[Lutfi]

In Florida it is very clear not matter that the designer is, the owner MUST hire and pay for special inspection for threshold type structures. It is in the statues.

It is my interpretations that this does not preclude the owner from hiring the EOR, if he/she has special inspector credentials, from performing the inspection. However, I am of the opinion that third party is a better option.


Regards,
Lutfi

 

[gtaw]

Building Officials are a key link in the "safety net" that has been developed to protect the interests and safety of the general public. In most locations the Building Official reviews the reports issued by the Special Inspector to verify the inspections are being performed, key aspects of the construction meet code requirements, etc.

That brings up the next element of the safety net that has been developed, the Special Inspector. The Special Inspector should have specialized training, education, and experience to fully understand the "how and what" is being inspected. Building Official may even have the authority of accepting or rejecting the credentials of the Special Inspector.

The Design Engineer is also a key player in the safety net. The design professional has to be licensed or registered to practice in the state where the structure is built. Peer reviews are utilized on Threshold Structures to verify the design assumptions and calculations are valid. The Engineer of Record (Design Professional, etc.) receives copies of the Special Inspector's reports. Any unresolved issues reported by the Special Inspector should be addressed by the EOR.

No one involved in construction works in a vacuum. We depend on each other's support to make sure the structure is built correctly. There is always the chance that someone in the chain of responsibility will not act in the best interest of the general public. Therefore, the system has several layers of checks and balances. If the system is working properly, the interests of the general public are protected. We all recognize that there is no such thing as the “perfect system” where nothing is left to chance.

In the event the owner is the same entity as the design/build team, the Building Official should take on the added responsibility of verifying the Special Inspections and reports are being performed and are reliable (you can read that as being "believable"). The testing laboratory may also be owned by the same entity (owner) or maybe it’s the concrete supplier that owns the testing lab. The last link in the chain is the Building Officials. If they perform their job diligently, they can prevent conflicts of interest (conflicts of interest will never be completely eliminated) from compromising the safety of the people that will use the structure. When a conflict of interest is suspected, closer monitoring by Building Officials is warranted.

The system will not function if everyone doesn’t perform their roll in the system. When the system fails, we resort to the lawyers and the court for resolution. Unfortunately, someone is usually injured or killed before that happens. Then there is a cycle of hand wringing, high level inquiries of what caused the system to break down in the first place, finger pointing, and everything goes back to being the same.

With all that being said, I like to remember what once was said to me when I asked our State Building Official for some advice on how to handle a bad situation; “After all Al, how many buildings actually collapse?”

Let me count them; the Hartford Civic Center, La Ambiance, Kemper Arena, ……………

The world is an imperfect place.


Best regards - Al

 

[dik]

archeng... if your client is the contractor, then working directly for the owner would likely place you in a conflict... unless acceptable by your client.

With design build, working for the owner may have a different focus than working for the builder... one of the problems with design build.

Dik