steveray
SAWHORSE
Nothing makes me feel less comfortable than a note like this on an inspection report from a "professional".....This was for concrete reinforcing....
-
Welcome to The Building Code Forum
Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
Sketchy Special Inspections?
- Thread starter steveray
- Start date
jar546
CBO
Yeah, that is not gonna fly whatsoever.
Former SI here... sorry to break it to you, but almost every material testing and special inspection firm does this.
Maybe not written on every report, but I guarantee it is in their contract.
jar546
CBO
It is not legible, we don't know who did the inspection and the name of the company is scratched out.
I think @steveray did that to protect the privacy of the reporting party.
My take was that the focus was on this disclaimer...
That statement goes without saying but without saying goes to court. Unless there is proof of intentional dereliction or bribery the inspector is not responsible for the work done by a contractor. What can happen to the work after an inspector is gone from the site?
steveray
SAWHORSE
And?
How is the disclaimer any different than what you would presume for the AHJ's inspector?
Whether from an AHJ's building inspector or a SI, the inspection report defines the inspector's best judgement of the conformance of completed work in relation to the approved plans. This judgement is at a defined point in time; work can and does change before/after that inspection. Inspectors are not perfect, and they cannot guarantee that they observed every component and verified 100% conformance.
Whether it is the AHJ's building inspector or an SI, the inspection is to be completed as specified by the code (IBC Sec. 110 vs. IBC Ch. 17) and represents the best effort of those who performed the inspection. No guarantee of perfection is expressed or implied. If something is missed (which hopefully does not happen, but be real), it is not the mistake of the inspector (AHJ or SI), but is the mistake of whomever performed the work.
The only thing that could trip you up is the statement that the report shall not be relied upon by others (you) for acceptance of the work. And then, only if your acceptance is based solely on the SI report.
I don't know how you treat the SI but I always do an inspection of my own and rely on myself for the acceptance of the work. There are situations where the SI is an important facet such as reinforcing details, spray applied fireproofing and welding but even with that, I make a showing and either concur or disagree.
steveray
SAWHORSE
EXACTLY.....I need to accept their work...or not....my guy was out there too, so I don't have a huge issue with it, but not what I expect from a paid professional...
Well...we don't get to put disclaimers on our inspections for one....Don't get me wrong, we are not perfect just like anyone else, but people need to rely on our inspections and CO to have a minimum safety standard building...And an SI should be no different...
Your disclaimer is qualified immunity. We all make mistakes and if we could be sued for our mistakes we wouldn't do it at all.
steveray
SAWHORSE
There's many types of negligence... none of which apply to a California AHJ inspector unless there is malice aforethought. I have witnessed that and it always went unpunished. On occasion it was simply malice without the negligence. Qualified immunity is a shield for all manner of wrongdoing but I don't want to get too cloudy here.
jar546
CBO
Yankee Chronicler
REGISTERED
So the special inspector says that their report is not to be relied upon for acceptance of the work -- but the building code requires special inspections precisely for the purpose of informing the building official of whether or not the work is acceptable. The whole point of the special inspections program is that the building official relies on the special inspectors.
I wouldn't accept a special inspection report with that disclaimer. I don't expect the special inspector (or the "approved agency") to guarantee the work, so that part of the disclaimer isn't an issue. Telling me that I can't use your report for the purpose for which your report was commissioned IS a problem.
I wouldn't accept a special inspection report with that disclaimer. I don't expect the special inspector (or the "approved agency") to guarantee the work, so that part of the disclaimer isn't an issue. Telling me that I can't use your report for the purpose for which your report was commissioned IS a problem.
So who’s the Dick now?
Yes you do... its built right into the code. See IBC 110.1. It is not exactly the same, but in intent it is a disclaimer/indemnification all the same.
IBC (2021) [A] 110.1 General
Construction or work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the building official and such construction or work shall remain visible and able to be accessed for inspection purposes until approved. Approval as a result of an inspection shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Inspections presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. It shall be the duty of the owner or the owner's authorized agent to cause the work to remain visible and able to be accessed for inspection purposes. Neither the building official nor the jurisdiction shall be liable for expense entailed in the removal or replacement of any material required to allow inspection.
steveray
SAWHORSE
Sorta....again....not going to not get me sued and not going to protect my job, but anyway...Again, the dumber I am, the more I can be expected to miss....So the smarter I am,the more liable....
Yankee Chronicler
REGISTERED
Same for the SI. As long as they are qualified and act as a professional doing their best, the risk is low. But, if they are not qualified, create a special relationship (i.e. bribes, quid-pro-quo, etc.), or act in a reckless manner (i.e. inspect from car), then they carry a huge risk.
Paul Sweet
SAWHORSE
The Special Inspector does NOT accept or guarantee the work.
The special inspector describes what he or she saw at the site. Many SIs will flag obvious non-compliance. It is up to the A/E to accept or reject the work. If the A/E still has questions about what the SI described he needs to visit the job site and see for himself.
The Contractor is the party who guarantees the work.
The special inspector describes what he or she saw at the site. Many SIs will flag obvious non-compliance. It is up to the A/E to accept or reject the work. If the A/E still has questions about what the SI described he needs to visit the job site and see for himself.
The Contractor is the party who guarantees the work.
Yankee Chronicler
REGISTERED
Correct.
It isn't up to a special inspector to "flag" non-compliance with the building code. A special inspector's job is to inspect or to test one small part of the work, typically in accordance with the requirements of a specific ASTM standard, and to report to the registered design professional and to the building official whether or not the specific portion of the work tested conforms to the specifications and to the respective ASTM standard. Their job does require them to flag non-conformance to the specifications, but that's actually a different animal than flagging non-compliance with the code.
With the SI's reports in hand, it's the RDP's job to determine whether or not the work is acceptable for payment, and it's the BO's job to determine whether or not the work is acceptable under the code.
Non-compliance (with the specs) may not be "obvious." On a state project where I was the Special Inspections Coordinator, there was a lot of steel framing that had to be protected with spray-on fire-proofing. The spray-on fireproofing was subject to special inspection. Initial test reports all indicated that every sample passed. However, there were problems with the reports. The ASTM standard required each sampled location to include eleven (11) probes - flange tips, upper and lower flange faces, and both faces of the web. The report was to include each individual probe reading. To pass, each set of samples had to have an average thickness not less than the specified thickness for that beam size (according to a table provided in the material submittal) AND also no individual reading at the sample location could be less than 25% under the specified thickness. The first reports I received only reported the average thickness, and said they all passed. I had a minor battle with the testing lab to get the actual field reports. Once I had them, I set up a spreadsheet that put the average thickness at each sample location and the minimum thickness at each sample location and compared those to the thickness table from the material submittal, which I used as a look-up table. The formula generated a "Pass" or "Fail" in a separate column for each sample location.
Wonder of wonders, about a third of the locations initially reported as "Pass" generated a "Fail" on the basis of individual readings not meeting the 25% less than specified criterion. Reading the fine print in the ASTM standard for that test, the laboratory should not have been labeling their results as "Pass" or "Fail" at all. Their reports should have just reported the thickness. If I hadn't been a PITA and read the ASTM, the lab would have gone along reporting potentially non-compliant work as "Pass," and the EOR and the State Building Official probably would have accepted the reports at face value because neither had the time to do what I did. That would have resulted in a non-compliant building getting a C of O. Had there been a catastrophe down the road, the testing lab could have incurred a huge liability for incorrectly reporting the non-compliant work as "Pass."
Correct.
FWIW, my special inspectors do not have any disclaimers like that on any of their reports. The reports are intended to be used to judge that the work was done to the engineer's specifications and drawings. It will also be used by the jurisdiction and potentially by attorneys in the rare chance it ended up in litigation.
The special inspector is the party that judges that the contractor is doing the work correctly. They test the concrete, they watch the contractor install the bolts in the anchor holes, etc etc. Thats their job!
However, I will agree that the special inspection has nothing to do with product warranty or guarantee. That is the contractor's responsibility.
Last edited:
My sense, based on these postings, is that building department personnel greatly exaggerate their potential liability and are totally ignorant about the liability of the design professionals. Get real.
If building departments were able to require the level of perfection that some of these postings imply nobody would be available to perform special inspections. The option would be for the building department inspectors to perform those inspections because the building department would have no liability.
If building departments were able to require the level of perfection that some of these postings imply nobody would be available to perform special inspections. The option would be for the building department inspectors to perform those inspections because the building department would have no liability.