• 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.

Why Consistent Building Code Inspections Protect Contractors and Build Trust

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
13,320
Location
Not where I really want to be
Contractors who play by the rules deserve a fair shot at every job. When building departments and their inspectors consistently enforce the adopted building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, energy, and accessibility codes, everyone benefits. The public is protected, and reputable contractors can compete on skill and efficiency, not on who cuts corners.

A Real World Example​

Years ago, at an International Association of Electrical Inspectors meeting in Pennsylvania, I sat at dinner with a father and son electrical team. They looked frustrated. The father explained why.

A close friend of his owned a large restaurant and was starting a complete renovation. The electrician gave his friend a bid that was already cut to the bone. Weeks went by with no word. Driving past the restaurant one day, he saw work underway and another electrician on site. He stopped in and found the new electrician wiring the building with NM cable, also known as Romex. That wiring is flat-out prohibited by code in a commercial assembly with that level of occupancy.

He called his friend, who admitted he had chosen the other contractor because the bid was six thousand dollars less. Those so-called savings came from using wiring that was never allowed in that type of occupancy. The first electrician assumed the job would never pass inspection. He later learned it did. An inspector had approved illegal wiring.

Why It Matters​

That inspector failed everyone. The restaurant owner thought he got a bargain, but was left with a building that did not meet the life safety standards of the code. The honest electrician lost the job even though his bid was fair and code-compliant. Contractors who follow the rules were put at a financial disadvantage by a competitor who gambled on weak oversight and won.

When building code inspections are inconsistent, it sends a message that the code is negotiable. That message rewards the least professional contractors and drives good contractors away from the market, or forces them to lower their standards to compete. Over time, the entire industry suffers.

The Takeaway for Contractors​

Consistent application of the building codes is not about making life harder for builders or slowing projects. It protects contractors who invest in proper training, quality materials, and safe installations. When every inspector applies the minimum code without exception, bids reflect real costs, not who is willing to break the law.

Good contractors should be the loudest advocates for consistent professional building code inspections. It protects the public and ensures that honest work prevails.
 
The problem is real and the results are predictable. In the example provided there appears to be more than a simple mistake or even a willful disregard. It assumes that both the contractor and inspector did not know better. I can believe that the contractor might have been unaware and I can believe that the inspector could be not qualified however, I suspect that there is suspicious activity afoot.

I have found plenty of contractors that are willing to ignore the code for a dollar. More than once a contractor has made a repeat violation that was costly to rectify. When I point out that I have written the correction for them in the past I have been told, "I didn't know that you were the inspector." That says plenty about contractors and inspectors.
 
he saw work underway and another electrician on site. He stopped in and found the new electrician wiring the building with NM cable, also known as Romex. That wiring is flat-out prohibited by code in a commercial assembly with that level of occupancy.
Hang on there Skippy...In non-fire rated construction it could be allowed....

518.4 Wiring Methods.

(A) General.

The fixed wiring methods shall be metal raceways, flexible metal raceways, nonmetallic raceways encased in not less than 50 mm (2 in.) of concrete, Type MI, MC, or AC cable. The wiring method shall itself qualify as an equipment grounding conductor according to 250.118 or shall contain an equipment grounding conductor sized in accordance with Table 250.122.

(B) Nonrated Construction.
In addition to the wiring methods of 518.4(A), nonmetallic-sheathed cable, electrical nonmetallic tubing, and rigid nonmetallic conduit shall be permitted to be installed in those buildings or portions thereof that are not required to be of fire-rated construction by the applicable building code.
 
Does the fact that, in addition to it being a Type III construction, it had a basement and a dropped ceiling and all of the electrical panels were in the basement and there was a ton of NM exposed in the basement?
 
Does the fact that, in addition to it being a Type III construction, it had a basement and a dropped ceiling and all of the electrical panels were in the basement and there was a ton of NM exposed in the basement?
Correct....I keyed up on assembly and occupancy and that is not typically the "no go" for NM in my world....
 
It is interesting that the NEC does not have a "conflict" section...probably because those people think they are perfect...

[A]102.1​

Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable. Where, in any specific case, different sections of this code specify different materials, methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern.
 
Contractors who play by the rules deserve a fair shot at every job. When building departments and their inspectors consistently enforce the adopted building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, energy, and accessibility codes, everyone benefits. The public is protected, and reputable contractors can compete on skill and efficiency, not on who cuts corners.

A Real World Example​

Years ago, at an International Association of Electrical Inspectors meeting in Pennsylvania, I sat at dinner with a father and son electrical team. They looked frustrated. The father explained why.

A close friend of his owned a large restaurant and was starting a complete renovation. The electrician gave his friend a bid that was already cut to the bone. Weeks went by with no word. Driving past the restaurant one day, he saw work underway and another electrician on site. He stopped in and found the new electrician wiring the building with NM cable, also known as Romex. That wiring is flat-out prohibited by code in a commercial assembly with that level of occupancy.

He called his friend, who admitted he had chosen the other contractor because the bid was six thousand dollars less. Those so-called savings came from using wiring that was never allowed in that type of occupancy. The first electrician assumed the job would never pass inspection. He later learned it did. An inspector had approved illegal wiring.

Why It Matters​

That inspector failed everyone. The restaurant owner thought he got a bargain, but was left with a building that did not meet the life safety standards of the code. The honest electrician lost the job even though his bid was fair and code-compliant. Contractors who follow the rules were put at a financial disadvantage by a competitor who gambled on weak oversight and won.

When building code inspections are inconsistent, it sends a message that the code is negotiable. That message rewards the least professional contractors and drives good contractors away from the market, or forces them to lower their standards to compete. Over time, the entire industry suffers.

The Takeaway for Contractors​

Consistent application of the building codes is not about making life harder for builders or slowing projects. It protects contractors who invest in proper training, quality materials, and safe installations. When every inspector applies the minimum code without exception, bids reflect real costs, not who is willing to break the law.

Good contractors should be the loudest advocates for consistent professional building code inspections. It protects the public and ensures that honest work prevails.
Well said. Contractors who take training seriously and invest in quality work should absolutely be pushing for consistent inspections. It’s the only way to keep the industry fair and safe.
 
Back
Top