Access to Spec Books on Jobsite

[jar546]

For larger commercial jobs such as a hospital or any job that plan review included reviewing a spec book, it is always important that inspectors have enough time to review the spec book onsite as it is part of the "reviewed and approved" process that must be "per plans" regardless of whether or not it exceeds the code. Here is an example of where specs exceed code requirements. This is one page of a 1200 page spec book that addresses just a small part of electrical.

 

[jar546]

Here is another example of something that is not on the prints (See F) for NEC 517.14. This is a requirement that I often see missed in hospitals and other facilities with patient care areas and although required, I rarely see it on the plans. In this case, it is in the spec book. Access to and reading the spec book as an inspector is critical. The testing of the grounding system is another example of what is not on the plans. Plans alone cannot be good enough to perform an inspection.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Had this recently. The contractor was not aware of the requirement for the testing of the grounds in the spec book until I pointed out to them on a S-2 building.

 

[mtlogcabin]

We get the spec books electronically and that way they are available to the inspector in the field. Sprinkler and alarm contractors are always missing items that are in the spec books.

 

[tmurray]

Question from someone on the outside:

If a contractor is only obligated to meet minimum code, why would an ahj care if they exceed it?

I understand the "construction must be to approved plans and specifications" thing, but wouldn't you just note a deviation, the fact that it still meets code and move on?

 

[ICE]

Question from someone on the outside:

If a contractor is only obligated to meet minimum code, why would an ahj care if they exceed it?

I understand the "construction must be to approved plans and specifications" thing, but wouldn't you just note a deviation, the fact that it still meets code and move on?

Many plans have specifications that are boilerplates of code. When I scan specs I am not trying to decide whether an item is over and above code. If It’s there it is the same as code.

Years ago a new warehouse for a food processor had a spec that there will not be any unistrut......square tube only. They missed that. There were miles of overhead conduit. They missed that note and had to start over. It was a health dept. requirement.

 

[linnrg]

Here is another example of something that is not on the prints (See F) for NEC 517.14. This is a requirement that I often see missed in hospitals and other facilities with patient care areas and although required, I rarely see it on the plans. In this case, it is in the spec book. Access to and reading the spec book as an inspector is critical. The testing of the grounding system is another example of what is not on the plans. Plans alone cannot be good enough to perform an inspection.


View attachment 5632

do you as a AHJ observe or require submission of the 3 point fall of potential test? And is it still valid if done when installing the ground rods and months later the site is finished out and possibly the system could have been damaged.

 

[ADAguy]

Plans & specs are complimentry, if required by one then required by all.
Specs typically establish not only code minimums but also quality and warranty standards too.
Code compliance is only the beginning of the approval process related to the "contract" for construction.
Responsibility for jurisdictional compliance inspections may/or may not be different from contract requirements.

 

[jar546]

I was asked to provide expert witness for an inspector who I knew well and was being sued because he approved code compliant footers and did not require fail and require a revision because the plans called for 10" thick when 8" was code compliant. The owner and builder had a falling out and the inspector was dragged in. I declined to help because I thought that I knew him too well and he needed a more objectionable witness. The bottom line is that the approved plans are what you inspect by and the administrative part of the codes handles that and gives you a section to cite. You may not be able to fail someone under the electrical or building code but you must under the administrative as "not per approved plans"

 

[mtlogcabin]

We had a 2 story office building going up and the contractor was complaining about how large the fire sprinkler line was on the drawings. After I explained the building was designed to add 2 more stories and twice the square footage he quit complaining. Sometimes we have no idea why a building was over designed. Our jobs are to inspect that building as designed which includes the specs not to the minimum standard you can legally build to.

 

[jar546]

We had a 2 story office building going up and the contractor was complaining about how large the fire sprinkler line was on the drawings. After I explained the building was designed to add 2 more stories and twice the square footage he quit complaining. Sometimes we have no idea why a building was over designed. Our jobs are to inspect that building as designed which includes the specs not to the minimum standard you can legally build to.

I've had the same issue more than once. Short-sided thinking can cause future problems.

 

[tmurray]

Old case law here was that everything was to be to approved plans and specs, but our courts have deviated from this position as it moves inspectors into more of a role of quality assurance rather than confirming compliance with the code. Specs are ultimately a contract between the owner and the contractor. An agreement on how the work will be done. Where government officials are not party to the agreement, they have no legal standing to enforce the agreement.

I inspect to the building code and any acts and local by-laws that I am empowered to enforce. Nothing more, nothing less.

If the health department has a requirement, hopefully the contractor is aware. If they are not, I hope the RDP or health inspector catches it early in construction. Ultimately, it is the contractor's problem for not being aware of the requirements or reading the specs. Education is expensive.

Here, enforcement of construction above code is the responsibility of the owner, or owner's representative.

 

[jar546]

Old case law here was that everything was to be to approved plans and specs, but our courts have deviated from this position as it moves inspectors into more of a role of quality assurance rather than confirming compliance with the code. Specs are ultimately a contract between the owner and the contractor. An agreement on how the work will be done. Where government officials are not party to the agreement, they have no legal standing to enforce the agreement.

I inspect to the building code and any acts and local by-laws that I am empowered to enforce. Nothing more, nothing less.

If the health department has a requirement, hopefully the contractor is aware. If they are not, I hope the RDP or health inspector catches it early in construction. Ultimately, it is the contractor's problem for not reading being aware of the requirements or reading the specs. Education is expensive.

Here, enforcement of construction above code is the responsibility of the owner, or owner's representative.

Great information. Just to confirm, this is in the Canadian court system?

 

[tmurray]

Great information. Just to confirm, this is in the Canadian court system?

Yes.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

So in Canada they would need a special 3rd party inspector to inspect just to the spec book to make sure the building is the way the owner and the architect wants it?

 

[tmurray]

So in Canada they would need a special 3rd party inspector to inspect just to the spec book to make sure the building is the way the owner and the architect wants it?

The only time we get into a true third party inspection is for verification of fire alarm systems. Otherwise, the RPDs inspect their disciplines during construction.

 

[ADAguy]

This is/was the historic role of the AOR during construction admin., a role now supplanted by CM's in many cases.