Contractor Complacency & Laziness Pure and Simple

[jar546]

I've been thinking about how contractors deal with building codes, and honestly, it seems like there's room for improvement. You know, when there are training sessions on the latest building codes, it's like a ghost town – hardly any contractors show up. And how many have a code book on site? Not many, from what I see.

Now, compare that to inspectors and plans examiners. These guys are always in class, getting the lowdown on the newest changes and brushing up on the basics. They’re putting in the work to stay sharp.

But here's the kicker – while inspectors are studying up, some contractor groups are busy trying to get the rules eased up. Seems like they spend more energy trying to change the laws rather than learning and following them. Isn't that a bit backwards?

Don’t get me wrong – there are some top-notch contractors out there who take codes seriously and hit the books just like inspectors. These pros are leading the way, showing how it’s done right.

So, what's the deal? Shouldn’t all contractors be aiming to know these codes inside out, rather than finding ways around them? Let’s get some thoughts rolling on this.

 

[Yikes]

While a knowledge of the codes is helpful, and I have high respect for those that know the codes, in the standard AIA contract language the contractor bears no design responsibility for the project (unless it has a design-build component for the contractor's scope).

The contracts only require the contractor to "endeavor to ascertain" that the contract documents are in conformance with codes, and to report any discrepancies discovered to the DPOR.
This requirement is subjective and can be legally fulfilled in about 15 seconds by glancing at the plans.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

So, what's the deal? Shouldn’t all contractors be aiming to know these codes inside out, rather than finding ways around them? Let’s get some thoughts rolling on this.

I am firmly on the fence about this. Throughout most of the time I was actively practicing architecture, my philosophy was that I didn't want a contractor to mention codes or wave code books at me on the site. But I was perhaps blessed to have always worked for firms that produced decent construction drawings, and we cared about code. It's the architect's job to design a code-compliant building AND to document code compliance in the construction documents.

So next in line is the plan reviewer. If the plans are complete enough for the plan reviewer to confirm that the design meets code -- why would the department issue a building permit? It shouldn't come down to an argument on the site between a contractor and a building inspector. That's far too late in the process.

Now that I've gone over to the dark side, I'd say my view hasn't changed much since I've been working as a building official. But, I am blessed again to be working in a good department, with smart people who want to do things right -- including plan review. We have VERY few commercial projects that get a permit based on the first set of drawings. Questions do come up in the field, even after thorough plan reviews, but the questions are usually pretty esoteric in nature. A lot of them are over electrical issues. Our electrical inspector ran his own electrical contracting company for many years, and he's very intelligent. My boss, the building official, is also an E-1 electrician and also ran his own electrical contracting company for many years. He's VERY intelligent. And the two of them sometimes look at the NEC and don't agree on what it says. So they call the BO in a nearby town, who teaches the NEC for the State -- and often he has a third opinion.

It ain't easy. I guess contractors should know the code -- but for the purpose of helping them do the work right, NOT so they think they're qualified to argue with every little thing the inspectors ding them on.

 

[Yikes]

YC, I will say that any subcontractor around here (so Cal) who knows the codes well will get a lot of repeat work.
And if they know codes well AND do prevailing wage projects, they are "belle of the ball".

 

[Joe.B]

When I talk to well seasoned contractors this is the perspective I get, and I agree with:

30 years ago the code was relatively small, and it didn't change very much, or very often. A builder could buy one little book, learn it, and reasonably expect that to stay relevant. Around here that was the UBC and builders would trust the plumber to know his code, and the electrician to know their code. Ever since the "code consolidation" and the advent of ICC things are different, WAY different, and they keep changing. A builder here can't go and buy one book and expect it to be relevant, and stay relevant. Also these same builders don't trust their subs to be up on current code either.

The best and most experienced builders I know here through my job are calling me all the time to double check things. "My electrician said that I need to protect this 240 outlet with GFCI, is that true?" I'd say that it's about 50/50 right and wrong. It seems to me like all code knowledge is word of mouth now, and grossly simplified. "Can I use.... Can I do... Do you guys allow... Etc..."

Another aspect that makes it extremely challenging here is the difference from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and inspector to inspector. Some jurisdictions have local amendments (whether those are legal or not is another story) and local interpretations. It's easier to learn what each place "wants" than it is to learn the code.

I stick to the codes and I don't care what you've been doing for 30 years, and I don't care what they let you do over there. The majority I deal with really appreciate that. They call me, I answer their question. Sometimes they call me for help when they get BS from another AHJ, but all I can do then is tell them where to look so they can show the inspector, my call doesn't mean anything outside my lines.

 

[jar546]

I guess contractors should know the code -- but for the purpose of helping them do the work right, NOT so they think they're qualified to argue with every little thing the inspectors ding them on.

Agree.

 

[Yikes]

It ain't easy. I guess contractors should know the code -- but for the purpose of helping them do the work right, NOT so they think they're qualified to argue with every little thing the inspectors ding them on.

As a DPOR (architect), I tell the contractor that they are not to argue code with an inspector. If we're going to dispute it, the contractor needs to be the "good cop", and I can be the "bad cop". Throw me under the bus instead: "Sorry to be a pain, but since your correction is different than what the plans tell me to do, the architect insists on having your code reference to accompany the correction notice".

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

As a DPOR (architect), I tell the contractor that they are not to argue code with an inspector. If we're going to dispute it, the contractor needs to be the "good cop", and I can be the "bad cop". Throw me under the bus instead: "Sorry to be a pain, but since your correction is different than what the plans tell me to do, the architect insists on having your code reference to accompany the correction notice".

As I have commented previously, pre-COVID world shut-down, the chief prosecutor for the State's Attorney's office used to put on a class annually for building officials and fire marshals. She always stressed that we had to cite a code section if we were going to write a violation. "f you don't have a code citation, you don't have a violation."

Yes, it may take a few minutes longer, but it's the only fair (and legal) way to do it.

 

[ICE]

Yes, it may take a few minutes longer, but it's the only fair (and legal) way to do it.

Alrighty then, If I provide the code section do I still need to tell them what they did wrong?

The assumption is that they need the code section so that they can look it up in a code book and figure out what the problem is... or am I missing something? What makes the lady lawyer think that anybody but us has a code book?

So give them the benefit of the doubt and figure that they have a code book... take it a step further and think that they understand it. Does that contractor make the silly mistakes? If he has the book, can read and comprehend what's in it, why does he need me to open it to the exact page? The truth is that he gets a dozen corrections and I have to waltz him from page to page and book to book. If you expect that style of service, you'll need to hold me to five inspections a day and no more than thirty miles driving distance.

Another assumption is that inspectors can't be trusted to write a description of the violation without a code section because,,, well inspectors can't be trusted. For example: "Secure cable within 12" of outlet boxes" is no good without a section number? How about: "Junction boxes shall remain accessible"? A code section is required to make that legal? Okay then is a bare bones code section legal without that stuff?

Comparison is made to a police officer. The police give you a section number on a form where they check a box. That's all you get.

Here's a twist similar to what building inspectors endure, "Officer, is says here that I ran a red light. Could you please tell me how to stop at a red light? Are you sure that's a red light? Would it matter if the light is chartreuse? It looks chartreuse to me officer. Look, I'll show you on my iPhone. Do you have a code section for chartreuse lights? Does it matter that I'm color blind? That should matter. I can prove it Officer O'Brien, you have white hair. Did I mention that my cousin is Alderman Phillips?"

 

[rktect 1]

They have been doing it that way for 30 years.

Why would they change when it was semi correct in 1993?

 

[Beniah Naylor]

I do not think that expecting a contractor to know the parts of chapters 3-10 of the IRC that are relevant to what they do is unreasonable when I have a stack of codes and standards on my desk that is 9" thick that I am expected to be an expert on. It's not that they don't have time, or they're not smart enough, or that it does not make sense for them to learn that material. It's not like they wouldn't use that knowledge every day. It's not like this is some hobby that they will do for a year and then move on, they are planning on doing this work for the rest of their lives.

Are we really going to say that contractors are too dumb to learn this stuff?

Contractors have told me they don't make any money reading the book. That often turns into expensive situations that could have been easily avoided if they had read the book. Even if it took you 50 hours to learn that tiny part of the code, and it cost you $100 per hour, one $5,000 mistake avoided pays for it. Code compliance the first time is way cheaper than tearing it out and trying again. Code knowledge pays for itself many times over.

They do things that have been against code everywhere since before they were born, and their excuse is that every jurisdiction is different and codes change?

It's like an M&M - colorful excuses on the outside, but the chocolate part is a culture of 100% pure intellectual laziness protected by dishonesty and self-deception.

As I have commented previously, pre-COVID world shut-down, the chief prosecutor for the State's Attorney's office used to put on a class annually for building officials and fire marshals. She always stressed that we had to cite a code section if we were going to write a violation. "f you don't have a code citation, you don't have a violation."

Yes, it may take a few minutes longer, but it's the only fair (and legal) way to do it.

I used to do this, but absolutely nobody cared that I had a code section, so I stopped providing them except on request. I like the concept, I just need to make a cheat sheet to make it less of a pain.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Here is the code section and in bold is what you have not followed.
I wonder if they are still scratching their heads trying to figure out what needs to be corrected to be compliant?

[F] 904.12 Commercial cooking systems.
The automatic fire-extinguishing system for commercial cooking systems shall be of a type recognized for protection of commercial cooking equipment and exhaust systems of the type and arrangement protected. Preengineered automatic dry- and wet-chemical extinguishing systems shall be tested in accordance with UL 300 and listed and labeled for the intended application. Other types of automatic fire-extinguishing systems shall be listed and labeled for specific use as protection for commercial cooking operations. The system shall be installed in accordance with this code, NFPA 96, its listing and the manufacturer’s installation instructions. Automatic fire-extinguishing systems of the following types shall be installed in accordance with the referenced standard indicated, as follows:

1. Carbon dioxide extinguishing systems, NFPA 12.

2. Automatic sprinkler systems, NFPA 13.

3. Automatic water mist systems, NFPA 750.

4. Foam-water sprinkler system or foam-water spray systems, NFPA 16.

5. Dry-chemical extinguishing systems, NFPA 17.

6. Wet-chemical extinguishing systems, NFPA 17A.

 

[jar546]

Code compliance the first time is way cheaper than tearing it out and trying again. Code knowledge pays for itself many times over.

Excellent statement

 

[Inspector Gadget]

I believe that we have the responsibility to provide some knowledge. Our website has a cluster of articles crafted to give DIY and contractors some basic info on what to do, and what not to do. Every year, we've listed a "top 10 code violations of 20xx" to help curb whatever big issues our inspectors have seen.

But few want to take the time to learn. This year, we had a seminar on earthquake bracing - our region is one of two east of the Canadian Rockies that requires such things for seismic safety. Contractors - and more specifically, designers - are constantly expressing frustration at how our area is "different."

So after months of prepwork, promotion, etc, etc, how many people do you think showed up for a free, evening session that was also live-Zoomed?

Eight.

Total waste of my time.