tech needds help with daily report

[boffintech]

I work as a CMT tech and construction inspector in the Atlanta, GA area. If I signed a daily report that read it part, “To the best of my knowledge the observed work conforms to the workmanship standards of the Uniform Building Code.”

Solely in regard to the code cited and not the other verbiage: accurate or inaccurate? Why?

 

[aamoroso]

"To the best of my knowledge"

That is a disclaimer, now I am having to rely on your knowledge and the code is almost meaningless. This statement becomes pointless in my opinion.

If you drop the first part, the sentance has more meaning.

"The observed work conforms to the workmanship standards of the Uniform Building Code.”

Those are two very different statements.

Fill what's empty. Empty what's full. And scratch where it itches.

 

[rholder98]

Are you inspecting on behalf of the government entity having jurisdiction, or on behalf of the owner, or the contractor? If on behalf of the owner, perhaps it should be "... in conformance with the contract drawings." Then, it's up to the engineer/architect to conform with the Code (as they are required anyway), and you're not taking responsibility for code compliance. If you are representing the authority having jurisdiction, I agree with aamoroso--I shouldn't wonder how familiar you are with the code you are enforcing.

"Solely in regard to the code cited. . ."--Then again, I may have completely misunderstood what you are asking.

 

[boffintech]

I agree with aamoroso's point. The actual statement at the bottom of our reports reads "to the best of our knowledge" as if the tech is somehow privy to the knowledge of everyone in the company.

That point notwithstanding I am concerned specifically about the code cited: the Uniform Building Code. I am in GA.

BTW, am inspecting for the owner per IBC chapter 17 special inspections.

 

[rholder98]

Well, there you go. If you are inspecting per IBC, then UBC doesn't apply. That blurb should be edited for each job according to the applicable code. I don't know off the top of my head if there is a statewide building code in Georgia, or if it depends on the local jurisdiction, but whichever code governs the particular job should be inserted.

 

[henri2]

If the IBC is the code used then the final qualified statement at the end of special inspection progress reports should read:

"To the best of my knowledge, work inspected was in accordance with the building department approved plans, specifications and applicable workmanship provisions of the IBC except as noted above."

Some additional points:

1. If the words "To the best of my knowledge" are deleted, then what remains is no longer a qualified statement but reads like an absolute statement...essentially certifying the work inspected..guaranteeing that it meets the code. This can open the inspector/inspection agency up to lawsuits after the structure starts showing signs of distress (and nearly all do). Therefore, the qualififing language is used for protection against legal ramifications. Building departments know this which is why they recommend the qualifying word "To the best of my knowledge.." be used by special inspectors in concluding their inspection reports. See Appendix A of the Model Program for Special Inspection for samples of progress(daily and weekly) special inspection reports.

2. It is appropriate for progress reports written by special inspectors to utilize the adjective "my" because it is written by an individual approved by the building department. Final special inspection reports are typically signed by the inspection agency's responsible engineer on behalf of the agency....for this situation, the adjective "our" should be used. See Appendix A of the Model Program for Special Inspection for sample of final special inspection reports.

 

[boffintech]

All of the plans and specs I see cite the IBC. I've never even seen a copy of the UBC. I thought the UBC was for CA and that GA was an IBC state. Quizzically our standard daily report has this blurb at the bottom that cites the UBC. To top it off I'm the only tech at the office with a copy of the IBC.

So why have techs sign this report attesting to workmanship standards of a code they have never even seen let alone studied and it's a code not applicable to work in this state? It's a conundrum.

henri2, I have the publication Model Program for Special Inspection so I'll look up the sample of final special inspection reports in Appendix A.

 

[henri2]

The first few editions of the Model Program for Special Inspection (MPSI) were issued by the now defunct ICBO (publishers of the UBC). The original authors were Bay Area code officials and members of the Association of Northern California Testing and Inspection Agencies (ANCTIA). ANCTIA has now metamorphosed into CCTIA

http://www.cctia.org/about.html

Currently there are two versions of the MPSI, the older UBC version and the newer IBC version. The 2006 edition of the MPSI-IBC version should be out later on this year. It will have a lot of major addenda.

Your office probably got the sample special inspection reports from the MPSI-UBC version. You should let them know about this discrepancy.

That you are the only tech who owns a copy of the IBC is not surprising. IMO, techs will not buy codes and standards they are not required to have and neither will most employers buy it for them unless some requirement forces them to. In western states the typical special inspector owns a copy of one or more of the following: IBC, UBC or applicable jurisdictional building code for two reasons---

1. They have to be certified by ICC and that forces them to purchase a copy of either the IBC or UBC, and

2. Building departments require that they have a copy of the code handy when they are on the jobsite.

 

[boffintech]

OK, the exact phase is:

“Unless otherwise noted, to the best our knowledge, the observed work conforms to the approved plans and specifications, and the applicable workmanship provisions of the Uniform Building Code.”

This verbiage is wrong on so many levels I don’t know where to begin:
1)our?
2)missing the word “of”
3)names a code not used here
4)names a code not ever read or studied by those signing
5)even if named correct code those signing have not read or studied it so how can they attest to conformance to it

 

[DRC1]

I woud certianly clear up any confusion over the IBC UBC issue. It is probably due to the situation heneri2 described. Remember, times change, but forms never do.
The owner, the ultimate client, can reasonably expect three things from the statement, One that the building has been inspected for the proper code. Two, that you have reasonable knowledge of the code and inspection practices (otherwise the limited endorsement would do him no good) and Three that the work reasonably complies with the code. If the wrong code has been referenced on the form, I would simply send who ever recives the reports a letter that the work was inspected to meet IBC code as is required, not UBC and change it when you sign the form.