• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Third party inspections

SCBO1

SCBO1

SILVER MEMBER
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
4,494
Location
MID WEST
I typically do the footing inspection here but was asked by a new home builder if he could use his third party engineer for inspecting the footings. The near by big city has a list of third party inspectors for footings and drain tile inspections, etc. The builder indicated that he has to pay the engineer to do the inspection. I'm almost sure the big city picks up some fee to have the engineer on the list.

Q1. Would the AHJ under the IRC be permitted to allow an engineer to perform some inspections on a residential project?

Q2. Would it matter if the engineer was on a list or not as long as he/she states the footings are in compliance with the adopted code?

Q3. If the third party engineer inspector provides an inspection report approving, stamping, signing and dating the report would that suffice for the required footing inspection?

On commercial projects I have to approve the SI's.

A plus is that the engineer will issue a recommendation if the soil is sub-par or rock is encountered, he/she could provide a solution for the footing install.

Your thoughts?
 
Let the engineer do one and then go behind him/her.

I recently had a structural observation by the engineer and the work was approved. The bottom steel was supported on dobies spaced 20’ apart. Anchor bolts were too close to pipes that will interrupt the sill. There was no UFER.

I have many stories about engineers and their inspections.
 
Last edited:
Q1-The IBC and the IRC allow it based on qualifications and your approval, see IBC 1704.2.1 and IRC 109.2. Like ICE said, you should make yourself comfortable with them as an approved agency. We also follow up from time to time.
Q2-for some things we do have a list of qualified inspection agencies but not for residential. We probably should, but I am not the boss.
Q3-Letters of inspection can be tricky. I had one yesterday that said an "audit team" from the contractor reported the conditions to the DP, then said all review is based on those observations and only valid if accurate, then said if the conditions are different the contractor should notify the DP. Our A&E board doesn't have a rule that the actual DP be the one making the observation, but whoever does do it must be under the responsible charge of the DP. IMHO if the "audit team" was under responsible charge, why all the disclaimers? In any case you have to be comfortable with the reports, and on this one I was not.
 
The inspections in Chapter 1 are intended to be by the building department. Do your job. If you really want to do this you might interpret IBC Section 110.4 to allow this. We are not talking about special inspectors, that is a different thing than the inspections listed in Section 110.

The list adopted by the neighboring city is irrelevant.

Structural observations were not intended to be inspections but many building officials illegally want to make them inspections. The California Professional Engineers Act states that the engineer does not have a legal duty to inspect the work, unless agreed to in the engineers contract, thus the building department cannot impose that duty on the engineer.

While a civil engineer performing footing inspections in section 110.3.1 might identify an extreme problem related to the supporting soil this is not part of this inspection and most civil engineers are not trained as geotechnical engineers. Inspections of the subgrade should be performed by a geotechnical engineer.

There is no requirement that a ufer ground be installed. There are other ways of providing a ground. A ufer ground would be inappropriate, and in violation of the electrical code, if there was a membrane under the foundation.

I know inspectors want to put down the engineers because they apparently missed something. Engineers could also identify a number of things missed by city inspectors but do not because it would do no good. Instead they deal with the problem. The problem is that the inspectors then believe that they are always right.
 
"There is no requirement that a ufer ground be installed. There are other ways of providing a ground. A ufer ground would be inappropriate, and in violation of the electrical code, if there was a membrane under the foundation".

You are as wrong as wrong can be. I have never seen a membrane under a foundation. A Ufer is always required if it is available. You are not familiar with electrical code or concept so please refrain from statements that make no sense.

In fairness, I wouldn't expect an engineer to find a UFER. But the UFER is reason enough to not have an engineer approving a footing inspection because as we all know, engineers don't know.
 
Last edited:
"I know inspectors want to put down the engineers because they apparently missed something. Engineers could also identify a number of things missed by city inspectors but do not because it would do no good. Instead they deal with the problem. The problem is that the inspectors then believe that they are always right."

That's just dumb. I have no interest in putting down engineers.....and they miss plenty......only because they aren't versed in actual construction practice. I received a structural observation report today where the work passed with flying colors. The shear walls had one anchor bolt in the middle. That's because the contractor removed all of the anchor bolts prior to placing concrete and screwed up when wet setting the anchors.

But the engineer is way familiar with his design. He knows that there is a shear wall there by the hardware staring him in the face. So I would expect him to call out the missing anchor bolts. There and at sill splices and the ends of the walls. But no, that didn't happen. He didn't notice that the top plates do not overlap and the corners aren't nailed together. Top plate breaks a foot apart didn't raise any flags. It's hard to miss an MST37 but both the contractor and the engineer managed to pull it off.

I really don't know why we started requiring a structural observation other than the realization that so many jurisdictions send neophytes as inspectors. In those cases nobody catches the missing anchor bolts and ground rods are installed.

So did I tell you all of this to put down engineers.....oh Hell no.....I did it because an inspector asked about engineers doing inspections. I am also curious about engineers that are willing to work for inspector wages.....what's up with that. The inadequate structural observations are hugely expensive.....what must an owner think when he pays an engineer $800 for a few hours work and then I tear them up.....I have written a correction for the engineer to redo his observation because he missed so much. That's like an ostrich egg on his face hey.
 
Last edited:
I have seen a project where they placed a membrane under the entire foundation. Also there is a provision in the electrical code that addresses this issue. Reference the information note below Section 250.52(A)(3)(2) of the 2013 California Electrical Code.

ICE admit it you are compelled to dis engineers even when they are right. You also do not understand why the structural observations were placed in the building code.

Building inspectors and building officials have tried to turn structural observations into inspections even though that was not the original intention. Is this because the inspectors do not want to do their job or do you believe it is your job to shift responsibility to somebody else. This is rich since the California immunity laws are so strong that unless an inspector really screws up he has no liability.
 
Mark K said:
I have seen a project where they placed a membrane under the entire foundation. Also there is a provision in the electrical code that addresses this issue. Reference the information note below Section 250.52(A)(3)(2) of the 2013 California Electrical Code.

ICE admit it you are compelled to dis engineers even when they are right. You also do not understand why the structural observations were placed in the building code.

Building inspectors and building officials have tried to turn structural observations into inspections even though that was not the original intention. Is this because the inspectors do not want to do their job or do you believe it is your job to shift responsibility to somebody else. This is rich since the California immunity laws are so strong that unless an inspector really screws up he has no liability.
Click to expand...

Although I can understand the overall message you are trying to convey, I think you are getting a bit personal here by telling someone what they think or what you assume they do. Your tone makes it appear as though you have an "axe to grind" with inspectors. Am I wrong?

I have a plethora of past situations where engineers were completely wrong, whether through calculation with the wrong dimensions or signing off on the wrong part of a structure or simply undersizing a beam and had to call them out on it. Just about 100% of them were happy that the issue was caught. We all make mistakes and I have had to eat my share of humble pie in the past.

Yes, there are some inspectors out there that are over the top because they know they are for the most part untouchable. I can't argue that. Your opinions are like my opinions, they are welcome as long as we are not making them personal. It might be better to question someone rather than tell them what you perceive is in their head.

Thanks for being here and participating over the years by the way.
 
I am willing to admit that there have been problems with engineers but I would appreciate it if there was a recognition that engineers have had equal problems with inspectors. This forum seems to echo the same group think because it sees only one side of the picture.

If I am perceived of having an ax to grind with inspectors maybe it is in reaction to a perception that others have an ax to grind with engineers. Are engineers expected to be passive when others present a one sided negative view of engineers? Civility goes both ways.

I believe that it is unreasonable if not impossible to expect that a single inspector can have in depth knowledge of multiple codes. Even if the inspector has read every code in depth the lack of academic training makes it difficult to understand the intent of the code. I also believe that the typical time allocated for the inspectors to perform inspections is inadequate to do a thorough job. Being placed in this impossible situation does not excuse some of the defensive behavior I have seen.

I suspect that some of the problems that inspectors may have with engineers about structural observations may be because they have a different understanding than engineers about the intent of the code. Engineers are clear that structural observations are not intended to be detailed inspections. This is the reason that the term observation was used instead of inspection. .

Then we have some departments, including some in Southern California, that try to impose requirements related to structural observation that are not in the code. These "extra" requirements would require the engineer to spend many more hours and expose the engineer to greater liability than required by the engineer's contract. It seems that these extra requirements require more detailed inspections than required by the special inspection requirements. It is not the building department's right to impose additional liability on the designers. It is the building departments responsibility to fulfill their obligations in the code. The building department's focus should be on whether the building as constructed complies with the building code.

The engineer is then blackmailed by the department into writing unnecessary reports because if they refuse the inspector will hold up the job which will get the Owner excited and the contractor claiming delays.. Would it surprise you if some of these engineers acted defensively. We need win win solutions not attempts to dump everything on somebody else. This is how an engineer sees it.
 
Mark K said:
I am willing to admit that there have been problems with engineers but I would appreciate it if there was a recognition that engineers have had equal problems with inspectors. This forum seems to echo the same group think because it sees only one side of the picture.

If I am perceived of having an ax to grind with inspectors maybe it is in reaction to a perception that others have an ax to grind with engineers. Are engineers expected to be passive when others present a one sided negative view of engineers? Civility goes both ways.

I believe that it is unreasonable if not impossible to expect that a single inspector can have in depth knowledge of multiple codes. Even if the inspector has read every code in depth the lack of academic training makes it difficult to understand the intent of the code. ..................Would it surprise you if some of these engineers acted defensively. We need win win solutions not attempts to dump everything on somebody else. This is how an engineer sees it.
Click to expand...

Well said. There are a lot of problems with all of the trades and all get called out every now and then. One of the issues that I see with inspectors is that most have no one to answer to and can be unreasonable. Ultimately, we all need to be more understanding of each other.
 
Well gentlemen being described in such unflattering terms is eyeopening. You guys should have said something earlier.....years ago even.
 
Speaking from experiance, knowledge breeds arrogance. Arrogance breeds anger and pushback.

Image projected is image reflected.
 
Well now that I know......... I will accommodate. To those that agree with Jeff and the Marks I say, you are easily offended.
 
ICE said:
Well now that I know......... I will accommodate. To those that agree with Jeff and the Marks I say, you are easily offended.
Click to expand...
Ice, I am not offended by your posts. I love them.
I am conveying personal experiance, The arrogance is what I had.
I also did mot realize the way I was coming across.
I, in conveying the code, came across in an arrogant manor.
I have tried to tamper my arrogance.
I now realize that many, that think they know the code, know some, not all.
just conveying this to give a little insight.
 
Pcinspector1 said:
I typically do the footing inspection here but was asked by a new home builder if he could use his third party engineer for inspecting the footings.
Click to expand...

If at all possible, I say no to third party inspectors, Architects and engineers.
Third party inspectors, like may design professionals (I is one) do not want to upset the client so they say no deficiencies observed. that means less than nothing.
 
It is best for the owner to pay a third party inspector.

A registered architect or professional engineer can lose his license for writing false reports, and can be sued for negligence for not looking closely enough to see deficiencies that aren't hidden. However, we are human and occasionally miss something.

Prescriptive designs are very conservative, and often an engineered solution will require fewer bolts, ties, etc., but usually not enough to offset the engineering cost.
 
Under the IRC an AHJ can accept reports of inspections from agencies and individuals they approve. As an AHJ I have even paid an individual or firm to perform specific inspections that we did not have the time or expertise to do. Since it is the building departments responsibility to perform certain inspections I prefer to do it this way and not require the DP to do something that is not within their scope of work.

R104.4 Inspections.
The building official is authorized to make all of the required inspections, or the building official shall have the authority to accept reports of inspection by approved agencies or individuals. Reports of such inspections shall be in writing and be certified by a responsible officer of such approved agency or by the responsible individual. The building official is authorized to engage such expert opinion as deemed necessary to report upon unusual technical issues that arise, subject to the approval of the appointing authority.

Under the code the term third-party is used during the manufacturing process and usually refers to an accredited organization.

THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION AGENCY. An approved agency operating a product or material certification system that incorporates initial product testing, assessment and surveillance of a manufacturer’s quality control system.

THIRD-PARTY CERTIFIED. Certification obtained by the manufacturer indicating that the function and performance characteristics of a product or material have been determined by testing and ongoing surveillance by an approved third-party certification agency. Assertion of certification is in the form of identification in accordance with the requirements of the third-party certification agency.

THIRD-PARTY TESTED. Procedure by which an approved testing laboratory provides documentation that a product, material or system conforms to specified requirements.

SPECIAL INSPECTION. Inspection of construction requiring the expertise of an approved special inspector in order to ensure compliance with this code and the approved construction documents.

Continuous special inspection. Special inspection by the special inspector who is present when and where the work to be inspected is being performed.

Periodic special inspection. Special inspection by the special inspector who is intermittently present where the work to be inspected has been or is being performed.

SPECIAL INSPECTOR. A qualified person employed or retained by an approved agency and approved by the building official as having the competence necessary to inspect a particular type of construction requiring special inspection.

STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION. The visual observation of the structural system by a registered design professional for general conformance to the approved construction documents. Structural observation does not include or waive the responsibility for the inspection required by Section 110, 1705 or other sections of this code.
 
We legally need a CT licensed inspector to do "code required inspections". You can approve whomever you want under the code, but your state law may differ. And as I believe ICE was getting at, I would be VERY careful about anyone's report I accepted.....Special inspection is a whole different animal, and again, have gone behind plenty of them (engineers included) and found serious problems....
 
Paul Sweet said:
It is best for the owner to pay a third party inspector.

A registered architect or professional engineer can lose his license for writing false reports, and can be sued for negligence for not looking closely enough to see deficiencies that aren't hidden. However, we are human and occasionally miss something.

Prescriptive designs are very conservative, and often an engineered solution will require fewer bolts, ties, etc., but usually not enough to offset the engineering cost.
Click to expand...

I agree, all inspection should be private, for one thing public employees cost too much with benefits, as I've said before a friend just built a new home in Nevada and private inspection cost was negligable, permit for a $2.7 million house was only $3,000, a fraction of what it would cost here in California.

With people sleeping in the streets something has to be done about out-of-control codes and inspections, even cities are complaining, some going to modulars and 'Tough Sheds" to avoid code compliant buildings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top