Eight Straight Days of Residential Framing Inspections

[High Desert]

I've been dropping in on the thread now and again to see how it's going. One thing I did notice was the "COWNews" or whatever it was had this statement in it.

"What we think that mouthful means is that Woodside just got a new properly qualified top building cop."

It appears that maybe he thinks he's a cop instead of a regulator.

 

[conarb]

Now he's attacking the special inspector, I got this today:

I had to tear off one of my steel I-Beam nailers so Curtis could look at the welds. Now I might have to tear down the building so the special inspection company, CTS, can perform a sonic test on the welds.

Here is a copy of the Correction Notice note on the bottom that this is a large firm with several offices, does high-rise buildings etc. For those interested here is the house again.

 

[Yankee]

Now he's attacking the special inspector, I got this today:

Here is a copy of the Correction Notice note on the bottom that this is a large firm with several offices, does high-rise buildings etc. For those interested here is the house again.

I am confused. Why is the Special Inspector calling it "my steel I-Beam nailer"?

 

[conarb]

Yankee:

The note to me is from the framing contractor, the city inspector made him remove the nailers bolted to the steel so he could check the welds, then wrote the Correction Notice. Nailers like these. Note that the special inspector even signed the steel.

 

[Yankee]

It appears that the Special Inspector that signed off on a portion of the welding work signed off as compliant some part of the work that was NOT compliant with the structural steel specifications. If I noticed that a Special Inspector passed some work that didn't comply, I'd be worried also, and take measures to verify that the work was compliant which might include hiring a separate inspector or inspection agency if the problem was rampant.

 

[TimNY]

It does sound like the inspector is correct. Intermittent welds where they are to be continuous (sounds like it was just a failure to get the new details), inspectors not certified.. It doesn't seem complicated.

However, the contractor should not be on the hook financially for correcting (or having to expose) everybody elses mistakes.

 

[conarb]

Yankee & Tim:

Thanks for your comments, you woke me up, I reviewed things and wrote the following questions to Sim (the framing contractor):

Sim: Some questions:

It appears that plans were revised on 3/30/10 requiring a fillet weld connecting a stiffener, why can't that just be done? The work was done and approved by the special inspector on 12/22-24/09, I don't understand why the revised plans were dated after the work was done?

1. The WPS was on the plans as drawn by the structural engineer wasn't it?
   
2. Three men appeared at the site on three different days, 12/22 Robert Cortez, 12/23 Coby Harris, and 12/24 John White, the report was signed by Yale Chhoun EJT, none of these are certified?
   
3. Why not just hold the meeting and settle it?
   
4. How do you get from this Correction Notice that Curtis is going to require X-Rays?
   

Dick

Would you believe that when I went to post this I got this message so I broke it up into two posts.

The text that you have entered is too long (11232 characters). Please shorten it to 10000 characters long.

 

[conarb]

And the rest of the post:Here is Sim's response with my replies in bold type:

Sim: In a message dated 4/18/2010 6:03:31 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sim@sbebuilders.com writes:Dick,



1. We had the details on the welding from the structural engineer before it was done. The date on the plans is screwy, because the plans have been revised so many times. I think we’re on delta #7 now, we started off with delta #2.



The only correction I see is adding the fillet weld, was the fillet weld missing on the earlier plans and added in subsequent versions? To play devil's advocate, it seems that it was the GC's responsibility to see that the welder and the special inspection firm had the latest plans.





2… Yes, the

WPS

was always on the plans, written by the structural engineer.



The structural engineer wrote the WPS; therefore, he approved it. Why is Curtis saying: "...and approved by the structural engineer."? What wasn't followed in the WPS, only the fillet weld?



3….Yes, these three

CTS

special inspectors were on the job site during the welding on these dates. There were also other special inspectors on the jobsite during the rest of the welding. I think the special inspectors were on the jobsite to inspect the welding about 7 times. I have no idea why their not certified.



They may well be certified, has anyone asked CTS if they were certified? If they are all that should be required is sending Curtis copies of their certifications, the rub I see is if some were certified and others were not, then there could be a ****ing match as to who inspected what.





4… Yes, there will be a meeting this week to talk about how to proceed.



Let's hope that with proper certifications in hand this can all be resolved by just adding the fillet weld.



5… I’m not sure about the sonic testing that is required on this job. There was sonic testing on the

Palo Alto

job. I’m not sure why the sonic testing was required on the

Palo Alto

job, but I think the sonic testing on the Woodside job is required, because the special inspectors weren’t certified to inspect the welding.



If CTS sent out uncertified inspectors they should be responsible for the additional sonic testing necessary to obtain approval. Special inspection is the responsibility of the owner, any additional costs or delays caused by special inspection problems should be borne by the owner (See my code section quote in a prior E-mail).



All in all, the welders missed the

WPS

requirement on the plans. The special inspectors missed the

WPS

requirement on the plans and the EOR never said anything over the last 6 months about the

WPS

not being submitted to him for approval.



Code requires a DPOR (Design Professional of Record), I assume by EOR you mean the structural engineer and he is fulfilling that role in the absence of an architect who usually takes overall reasonability as the DPOR. Since the EOR was on the job he presumably saw what was going on and didn't say anything, his approval is implied. Let's face it, as any design professional walks though a job he doesn't call out things done correctly, he only calls out problems he sees, his silence is an implied approval. If he misses something that doesn't signify approval, and anybody can miss things, but that doesn't lead to a blanket condemnation of the work inspected by the special inspector.



When I started the Woodside job the GC asked me which company to use for a special inspector for the rebar in the concrete. So I told him that

CTS

was the special inspection company on the last three jobs that I did. All three jobs had moment frames and the same welding company did all three jobs. So, I think the welding issues on the Woodside job are caused by the

WPS

requirement not being followed and because Curtis is on the job. I’ve never seen a building inspector ever look at the moment frames after the special inspector has signed off on the welding. Curtis is sharp, but a pain in the butt.



Agreed, the purpose of special inspections is to provide on-going inspections in areas that a municipal inspector doesn't have the time to hang around for, so certified special inspectors take over inspections in those areas, I've never seen an inspector challenge the work of a special inspector, or even re-inspect their inspections. This a case of the inspector inspecting the inspector, Curtis is hanging his hat on the fact that the special inspectors aren't certified; therefore, he has to inspect their work. At this point in time, even if CTS provides verifications for all inspectors listed on their report, Curtis' questions will have to be addressed by CTS and any corrective action implemented.



In the future inform all GCs you work with that under CBC 1704.1 the special inspector must be retained and compensated by the owner or his agent, if there are any problems they will clearly be on the back of the owner.

SECTION 1704


SPECIAL INSPECTIONS


1704.1 General.


Where application is made for construction as


described in this section, the owner or the registered design


professional in responsible charge acting as the owner's agent


shall employ one or more special inspectors to provide inspections


during construction on the types of work listed under Section


1704. The special inspector shall be a qualified person who


shall demonstrate competence, to the satisfaction of the building


official, for inspection of the particular type of construction


or operation requiring special inspection. These inspections


are in addition to the inspections specified in Section 109,


Appendix Chapter 1.


You are right in saying "Curtis is sharp, but a pain in the butt" we better be prepared for more sharp inspectors so they don't become pains in the butt. Dick

I think at this point that this case is of interest to inspectors nationwide to show what a really sharp inspector can do, in this case inspecting the inspector! I have never had a municipal inspector call the work of a special inspector, of course I've never had a municipal inspector call a structural engineer, the municipal inspectors are usually just happy to see structural engineers and special inspectors take the workload and legal liabilities off their backs. For those interested I've attached below the WPS from the plans.View attachment 109

View attachment 109

/monthly_2010_04/wps.jpg.c940d716debe64804d8940692b95dd9e.jpg

 

[Yankee]

Wow, , , what a pickle,

In any case, IMHO, the B.O. trumps the Special Inspector should the B.O. have knowledge or information that the S.E. is not preforming, certified or not. I think it just happens to be the case that most Building Officials don't have the detailed specialized knowledge that a Special Inspector (is supposed to) have. However, there are plenty of Building Officials with a high degree of knowledge in one specialized area, and they could certainly recognize an inspection fault in that area should they see one and it is incumbent upon them to "hold the presses" in that instance.

 

[conarb]

Yankee:

Here's the problem as I see it, whenever I've had a special inspection signed off I've proceeded as if the inspector had signed it off, in this case Sim had his Special Inspection report and the SE's personal sign off on the steel, he proceeded to bolt his nailers and continue his framing. After the building is framed the municipal inspector comes on site and condemns the special inspection, now parts of what had been framed up have to be torn down so the work already inspected can be fixed and re-inspected, prior to replacing the framing.

If Special Inspections are going to be second guessed maybe we ought to do away with that whole section of the code and have the municipal inspector inspect everything, even if it means he's got to stand around and watch things like iron work, pier drilling, epoxy bolting, and CMU lift pouring, to mention a few.

To me the bigger infraction here is allowing the Special Inspector to be employed by the contractor, in this situation this SE firm had inspected several of the framing contractor's recent prior homes, if the SE firm knows that the contractor is referring future work to him he may well allow some corners to be cut.

 

[Yankee]

It is hard for me to follow the paperwork discussion i.e. who knew what and when, but to keep it simple, if the connection is not correct it will need to be fixed or accepted as an equal alternative to meeting the code. I have a slight suspicion that the BO did not simply stumble upon this error after asking that the brace be removed but was following some kind of thought process that would indicate that he was likely to find a flaw. There is the Building Board of Appeals process for the contractor or engineer, , , , or inspection agency, or all three if they feel their acceptable alternative is not being approved by the BO. Maybe a bit hard to win the appeal in this town which seems to be cheer-leading for their BO. Amazing.