Failed inspection for having rj45 supported on seismic hanging wire

[Mark K]

It seems that building departments understanding of reality is different from the understanding that design professionals have.

In California and I expect many other states building inspectors and building officials are not licensed. They may be hired by the local government thus becoming public employees, but they are not licensed. Since licensing restrains trade it is subject to the federal antitrust laws. The US Supreme court has ruled that only the state legislature can make use of the exemption provided by the state action doctrine. Home rule does not apply.

On the other hand, architects and engineers who do not do a good job will find it difficult to get clients. Building departments that don't do a good job cannot be avoided.

The fee that engineering and architectural firms charge is typically fixed by their contract and they do not get paid more if they have to spend time resolving plan check comments so they are motivated to produce drawings that have no mistakes. There is one state agency that is notorious for the nature of their plan check comments. They essentially had/have a policy that no matter how good the construction documents were they would have the same number of plan check comments. -

If an engineer or architect is negligent in his work he can be personally sued under the laws of negligence. Building departments and building officials are immune from being sued. The exact form of this immunity varies from state to state but the net result is that building departments have no liability.

A plan checker should not assume that just because the design professional made the requested change that the design professional accepted the comment as valid. In many cases changes are made because it costs less to make the change than to challenge the comment. The formal appeals process is limited to big ticket items since the formal appeals process will delay the issuance of the permit and start of construction.

If the inspectors are regularly scheduled with too many inspections is that not the fault of the building department? Engineers do not get a pass if they have too much work and thus do subpar work. On the contrary they are more likely to be sued.

A statement was made about allowing "the contractor to bill the municipality because they don't know the code themselves and the inspector did not provide it is ludacris.". This might be a separate topic but it is the responsibility of the building owner to provide a building that complies with the building code. The contractor is only acting as an agent of the building owner in picking up the permit and performing the work. If it is determined that the building does not comply with the applicable building regulations the building department can take action against the building not the contractor. The owner of the building must address the problem. Thus the contractor may play a role in resolving the issue but would have no authority to bill the municipality.

The contractors obligation for code compliance is typically a contractual issue, not something that is determined by the building department. Yes the contractor in many cases will play a role in resolving questions of code compliance but the building department looks to the building owner. The building owner may sue the contractor for his actions but that is a separate issue.

 

[tmurray]

On the other hand, architects and engineers who do not do a good job will find it difficult to get clients.

Not sure I agree with this. They seem to be cheaper (thus getting many of the budget conscious clients) and rely on building officials as their QA/QC and inspection regimes as their liability mitigation in my experience, but to be fair it is just my experience that I can draw from.

Do you have any empirical evidence to base this claim off of, or is from your personal experience?

 

[jar546]

It seems that building departments understanding of reality is different from the understanding that design professionals have.

In California and I expect many other states building inspectors and building officials are not licensed. They may be hired by the local government thus becoming public employees, but they are not licensed. Since licensing restrains trade it is subject to the federal antitrust laws. The US Supreme court has ruled that only the state legislature can make use of the exemption provided by the state action doctrine. Home rule does not apply.

On the other hand, architects and engineers who do not do a good job will find it difficult to get clients. Building departments that don't do a good job cannot be avoided.

The fee that engineering and architectural firms charge is typically fixed by their contract and they do not get paid more if they have to spend time resolving plan check comments so they are motivated to produce drawings that have no mistakes. There is one state agency that is notorious for the nature of their plan check comments. They essentially had/have a policy that no matter how good the construction documents were they would have the same number of plan check comments. -

If an engineer or architect is negligent in his work he can be personally sued under the laws of negligence. Building departments and building officials are immune from being sued. The exact form of this immunity varies from state to state but the net result is that building departments have no liability.

A plan checker should not assume that just because the design professional made the requested change that the design professional accepted the comment as valid. In many cases changes are made because it costs less to make the change than to challenge the comment. The formal appeals process is limited to big ticket items since the formal appeals process will delay the issuance of the permit and start of construction.

If the inspectors are regularly scheduled with too many inspections is that not the fault of the building department? Engineers do not get a pass if they have too much work and thus do subpar work. On the contrary they are more likely to be sued.

A statement was made about allowing "the contractor to bill the municipality because they don't know the code themselves and the inspector did not provide it is ludacris.". This might be a separate topic but it is the responsibility of the building owner to provide a building that complies with the building code. The contractor is only acting as an agent of the building owner in picking up the permit and performing the work. If it is determined that the building does not comply with the applicable building regulations the building department can take action against the building not the contractor. The owner of the building must address the problem. Thus the contractor may play a role in resolving the issue but would have no authority to bill the municipality.

The contractors obligation for code compliance is typically a contractual issue, not something that is determined by the building department. Yes the contractor in many cases will play a role in resolving questions of code compliance but the building department looks to the building owner. The building owner may sue the contractor for his actions but that is a separate issue.

I can see where California is frustrating because they don't have State licensing program for inspectors, plan reviewers or building officials. I find that odd in the state that is know for regulation.

 

[tmurray]

I can see where California is frustrating because they don't have State licensing program for inspectors, plan reviewers or building officials. I find that odd in the state that is know for regulation.

We have a voluntary certification program in Canada. Building officials can be certified at the provincial and/or federal level.

Probably about 90% of officials are certified at one or both levels in my province, but changes are on the horizon to make it mandatory.

Since we are not protected by statutory immunity, certification is good for liability protection.

 

[ICE]

It is time to come clean. Mark K almost has it correct when he denigrates California building departments. I say almost because it is so much worse than he realizes. Of course I don't particularly like his attitude and the lofty place given to engineers is tiresome but his assessment of inspectors .... well that's so far from reality as to be ignored.

The people that spend time at this forum are nothing like what passes for an inspector in California. There are hundreds of building departments in California and Shirley a few have their priorities aligned with the best of you ... but oh my, it's hard to fathom the abject failure of so many.

I retired from a building department that has more than 100 inspectors. There was a time when a contract city had to pick a new inspector as the old guy retired. After interviews, the city planning director asked for a particular inspector that was green as green can be. That city has residential, commercial, industrial and a private university.
The city was told to pick someone else because their first choice had only six months on the job and hasn't a clue. The planning director was adamant and said that the inspector could learn it as he goes. And so he went. Obviously he was not chosen for his ability as an inspector. In retrospect I find that there was few, if any, better inspectors to choose from. At least he was a blank slate....but learning it as you go is a scary proposition.

Everybody would be better served if inspection was tabled until an entire new batch of qualified people were trained and equipped to perform inspections. Pie in the sky....it can't happen. The good aren't out there, you can't get rid of the bad, you're stuck with the ugly.

 

[Mark K]

You can always find some engineers that only compete on price and do a minimal job. These engineers also and tend to be associated with problem projects. Too often these projects are residential projects. I am sure that there is a similar distribution among building departments. But when you deal with larger projects, while fees for the designers is always a concern it is often secondary to other considerations. The firms I worked with competed based on the services they could provide and thus tended to be more profitable and able to pay higher salaries. In many cases we got jobs without having to compete with other firms.

In my experience, even on small jobs, designers do not intentionally rely on the "...building officials as their QA/QC and inspection regimes as their liability mitigation." The inspections provided by city are typically minimal and often idiosyncratic. More reliance is placed on the special inspections and other inspections retained by the owner.

 

[Mark K]

I can see where California is frustrating because they don't have State licensing program for inspectors, plan reviewers or building officials. I find that odd in the state that is know for regulation.

I realize that bashing California is to be expected but in reality it is a pretty good place to live.

My sense is that our building departments, for all of their problems tend to be better qualified than many building departments in other states. Decent sized departments tend to have engineers on staff to perform structural plan checks and some smaller departments tend to contract out these plan checks.

California has a law on the books that requires that the individual in the building department responsible for exercising engineering judgement in the permitting process must be a licensed engineer or architect. Because this is relatively new and because of grandfathering provisions there are still many building officials that are not licensed. But whether the building official or other staff must be licensed is made mute when there is governmental immunity and when there are no consequences.

From my perspective a major problem is the failure of building departments to comply with state law.

 

[jar546]

I realize that bashing California is to be expected but in reality it is a pretty good place to live.

In all actuality, I would prefer to live in California. I looked into it and coming from a state that has zer0 state income tax, I would have to make anywhere from 30-60% more than what I am making now just to be in the same financial position. The 30-60% range is based on where in CA I would choose and of course, the areas I like are closer to the 60% range, such as Orange County. Trying to find a comparable job with the benefits I enjoy along with the large increase in pay was not easy and did not result in any finds.

 

[Mark K]

In all actuality, I would prefer to live in California. I looked into it and coming from a state that has zer0 state income tax, I would have to make anywhere from 30-60% more than what I am making now just to be in the same financial position. The 30-60% range is based on where in CA I would choose and of course, the areas I like are closer to the 60% range, such as Orange County. Trying to find a comparable job with the benefits I enjoy along with the large increase in pay was not easy and did not result in any finds.

Since I am not aware of any engineers on food stamps, although they may not be rich, I am assuming that the salaries are adjusted. The biggest issue is probably the cost of housing.

I regularly get announcements of engineering jobs that jurisdictions are trying to fill and it is clear that the salaries are larger than at private firms.

 

[tmurray]

You can always find some engineers that only compete on price and do a minimal job. These engineers also and tend to be associated with problem projects. Too often these projects are residential projects. I am sure that there is a similar distribution among building departments. But when you deal with larger projects, while fees for the designers is always a concern it is often secondary to other considerations. The firms I worked with competed based on the services they could provide and thus tended to be more profitable and able to pay higher salaries. In many cases we got jobs without having to compete with other firms.

In my experience, even on small jobs, designers do not intentionally rely on the "...building officials as their QA/QC and inspection regimes as their liability mitigation." The inspections provided by city are typically minimal and often idiosyncratic. More reliance is placed on the special inspections and other inspections retained by the owner.

We have a couple local engineers and architects who have had this mentality. Some were on relatively large projects. There is no such thing as a special inspection here.

Not everyone has the intelligence to invest the money in good professionals and the design stage to save a staggeringly greater amount during construction.

In a previous post, you pointed out that when you need to work in a jurisdiction that has a poor performing building department, you are forced to work with them. Of course, you are correct in this. As ICE pointed out, we all know they are there and even sometimes who they are. One thing we see from our perspective is that we are forced to work with anyone who wants to build in our jurisdictions. We know who the "bad" engineers/architects/contractors are and when we see their name on the building permit application, shudder in anticipation at the pain and frustration we are about to undergo.

 

[Mark K]

We have a couple local engineers and architects who have had this mentality. Some were on relatively large projects. There is no such thing as a special inspection here.

Not everyone has the intelligence to invest the money in good professionals and the design stage to save a staggeringly greater amount during construction.

In a previous post, you pointed out that when you need to work in a jurisdiction that has a poor performing building department, you are forced to work with them. Of course, you are correct in this. As ICE pointed out, we all know they are there and even sometimes who they are. One thing we see from our perspective is that we are forced to work with anyone who wants to build in our jurisdictions. We know who the "bad" engineers/architects/contractors are and when we see their name on the building permit application, shudder in anticipation at the pain and frustration we are about to undergo.

What is important to recognize is that even if you have what you perceive to be problematic engineers or architects your job is not to regulate or punish them. The job of the building department is to enforce the adopted building code.

These problematic architects and engineers only exist because of the clients that employ them.

 

[ICE]

What is important to recognize is that even if you have what you perceive to be problematic engineers or architects your job is not to regulate or punish them. The job of the building department is to enforce the adopted building code.

These problematic architects and engineers only exist because of the clients that employ them.

It's the clients fault? How was the client supposed to know that the person he was about to hire is a dummy? Some of the busiest contractors screw every customer they have.

 

[Mark K]

Enforce the building code.

Our legal system does not give the building official the power to punish or regulate contractors or engineers.

You always have the option of filing a complaint with the state licensing boards that regulate engineers or contractors. These state entities have the authority to regulate these individuals. When the building department attempts to punish these entities the building department is denying them of due process.

 

[tmurray]

I agree with you, it is not our job to police professionals. However, it is my job to regulate some of the work that they do when there is an interaction between that work and the code. Certainly, I would not regulate the official themselves, or likely the majority of their work. This is left to the local licensing regime.

It's interesting that you use the word "punish". I'm interested in what you mean by that. The word suggests an intent to do harm, or at least correct.

Our courts have established that building officials not only can treat people differently based on past experience, but that they must. We provide a certain level of discretion to those professionals who have established reliable track records. For those that have demonstrated poor past performance, the official must exercise more diligence.

We have performed more frequent inspections, required more supporting documentation, etc. for poor performers. Anything less than this not only exposes my jurisdiction to liability, it is a dereliction of my responsibility to the public.

I guess, I would say that I do not punish poor performers. I exercise the level of due diligence that they require based on their performance. Do I regulate? Well, as a regulator, I certainly hope I do. Otherwise I should be fired.

When you say "enforce the building code" are you suggesting that some building officials apply requirements outside of the code to professionals that they deem to be sub-standard? Or is this simply a statement that we must paint everyone with the same brush?

 

[jar546]

What is important to recognize is that even if you have what you perceive to be problematic engineers or architects your job is not to regulate or punish them. The job of the building department is to enforce the adopted building code.

These problematic architects and engineers only exist because of the clients that employ them.

They also exist, in part due to incompetent plans examiners that enable them by allowing sub-standard, non-compliant work to get through the system. In many smaller municipalities, the plans examiners are also the inspectors.

 

[jar546]

Enforce the building code.

Our legal system does not give the building official the power to punish or regulate contractors or engineers.

You always have the option of filing a complaint with the state licensing boards that regulate engineers or contractors. These state entities have the authority to regulate these individuals. When the building department attempts to punish these entities the building department is denying them of due process.

The administrative sections of all building codes provide an appeals process, aka due process. If you continually fail to utilize the tools given to you then you are an enabler of a broken system. You consistently paint doom and gloom as though the building departments are tying your hands behind your back when, in fact, you have options that you are not utilizing. I see it as pointless to whine about a system that you are improperly using and therefore becoming part of your own problem.

 

[Mark K]

The administrative sections of all building codes provide an appeals process, aka due process. If you continually fail to utilize the tools given to you then you are an enabler of a broken system. You consistently paint doom and gloom as though the building departments are tying your hands behind your back when, in fact, you have options that you are not utilizing. I see it as pointless to whine about a system that you are improperly using and therefore becoming part of your own problem.

My comment was a simple statement about what a building department should do in response to problematic engineers or architects.

Architects and engineers are not improperly using the system. They are attempting to comply with the properly adopted laws and are attempting to minimize any risk to their clients.

The architect and engineers do not have standing to initiate the formal appeals system. This is the prerogative of the client/owner why typically does not want the delays associated with the formal appeals process. It does not make sense for the design professional to ignore the wishes of his client. The calculus is that it is typically cheaper and quicker to accommodate the building department than to appeal.

A fact of life that your attorney will tell you is that it is often not cost effective to litigate your rights.

 

[jar546]

A fact of life that your attorney will tell you is that it is often not cost effective to litigate your rights.

Another fact of life is that filing an appeal through the jurisdiction is not litigation. The excuses you have for not filing an appeal of questioning the plans checker are quite frankly pure laziness. It appears as though you would rather have something to complain about rather than just having normal dialogue with your plans examiner or Building Official.

You are very intelligent and also outspoken about the limitations of the Building Department and how they are an impediment to your business when, in fact, you appear to be a poor communicator, making mountains out of mole hills, stating it is easier to comply rather than start dialogue to clarify a code issue or non-code issue. As I previously stated, you are nothing more than an enabler if you choose to comply and whine when you think you are right rather than going through due process that is not litigation. You are creating your own misery.

 

[Sifu]

There is no reason why your response letter to the plan review can't be a statement asking for code section for the alleged violations.

Agree, but I try to eliminate the time spent for both of us by providing it up front. I do get responses that want to discuss the issue further, but by then they have read the applicable sections and reasoning and have developed their own reasonable counter point. So it saves time on the back side. I am certainly not espousing that everyone should do it, it just works for me.

 

[Sifu]

The plan review is not a courtesy. It is a legal obligation and part of that obligation is to let the impacted parties know what regulations (laws) that are not being complied with. How would you feel if a police officer issued you a citation without letting you know what law you supposedly violated?

While some code provisions may be clear without a reference by the inspector or plan checker to the specific provision this may not always be the case. I have helped to write several changes to the IBC so I might be assumed to know what those code provisions mean. Yet I have heard a code official espousing an interpretation of one of those code sections that was inconsistent with the code provision.

A basic assumption is that I need to respond to all of the plan checkers comments without using the abbreviation "LOL". This is facilitated if I understand the basis for the concern.

I say largely a courtesy in that the plans can be examined up front, before construction begins to try to identify issues, or they could be examined later. It happens all the time depending on what a particular AHJ decides based on the type of permit. For example, many AHJ's don't examine the plans for a window replacement permit. That is left up to the field inspector. Only then does the inspector inform the applicant that the window isn't compliant with the code because it is in a hazardous location. Or, walks right by and says nothing. It is a courtesy to do it before the window is purchased and installed...thus saving time and money. Some see the value in that, others don't.

The code says the plans must be examined, but not when. Most AHJ's recognize the need to do it up front. Admittedly, some don't do a great job and are less concerned with the quality of the review and more concerned with getting them out the door and avoiding headaches. Some large agencies I know of don't do any plan review up front. In my opinion, there is a dynamic involved that dictates the person reviewing the plans up front to exercise due diligence to identify code compliance, and the field inspector to verify the plans were followed and also identify code compliance of the installations. Neither entity can see everything, but if they both do their best the mission is accomplished. If the job is done well on the front end, the job is easier on the back end.

I think we agree that a poor plans examination is less than helpful, so I guess the courtesy I refer to is more about providing a good examination, with proper justification and communication, rather than going through the motions and wasting everyone's time with unjustified remarks or no remarks at all.

 

[Sifu]

It seems a bit odd to call a designer and ask for a code section for a mistake that they made.

I spent a few years doing double duty as plan checker and inspector. Plan checkers have it way better than inspectors. Usually they only have one discipline to deal with because they only know the code for that one discipline. Each job comes with a voluminous checklist, complete with section numbers. The corrections that were not on the checklist weren't that difficult to find.
To be fair I must say that I plan checked residential and commercial tenant improvements. Somebody else did stadiums.

Inspectors do not have a checklist to go with the five disciplines they are tasked with knowing. Inspectors do not work in an air conditioned office and take a coffe break when the mood hits them. Inspectors have contractors barking and baying like sled dogs. Inspectors have 4000 pages with section numbers.

Not sure about that in all cases. I may spend hours and several submittals trying to verify compliance to ascertain what type rating and where it is required. The inspector spends 5 minutes making sure it is where it should be based on the plans I reviewed. I might have issued several comments to get a door swing and proper hardware, the inspector just pushed the panic hardware on his way out of the building. Certainly, on cold rainy days I feel like I hit the lottery. But sometimes I look out the window and wish I could enjoy the 80° sun instead of staring at a screen all day. It's all relative, and changes based on circumstance. Also, in my experience, I have found far more single trade inspectors than I have single trade reviewers and never found any plan review checklist of any real value. I have seen many inspection checklists as well, more so in fact, but I never found them of much use either.

 

[ICE]

Not sure about that in all cases. I may spend hours and several submittals trying to verify compliance to ascertain what type rating and where it is required. The inspector spends 5 minutes making sure it is where it should be based on the plans I reviewed. I might have issued several comments to get a door swing and proper hardware, the inspector just pushed the panic hardware on his way out of the building. Certainly, on cold rainy days I feel like I hit the lottery. But sometimes I look out the window and wish I could enjoy the 80° sun instead of staring at a screen all day. It's all relative, and changes based on circumstance. Also, in my experience, I have found far more single trade inspectors than I have single trade reviewers and never found any plan review checklist of any real value. I have seen many inspection checklists as well, more so in fact, but I never found them of much use either.

Residential only gets a Building Code review. There is no plan check for electrical, mechanical or plumbing. All of the MEPs are left up to the inspector. I used to give the contractor a document titled El 101 that delineated all of the CEC requirements for the residential project at hand. I did that at the first inspection and some appreciated that and others took it as an insult. Either way, when the work was wrong there was no excuse.

So in essence, that was a checklist that covered everything from the receptacles to the service panel. When Covid hit and we went virtual the County asked me to create a guide for various virtual inspections in an effort to educate the permittee. It was a checklist of things that the inspector would be looking at during the inspection . I created over twenty guides for such things as FAU, water heater, windows, solar, el panels, etc. Then I came to the conclusion that virtual inspections fall far short of my expectations. The County still has a few of the guides at the website and is still performing lousy virtual inspections.

 

[Sifu]

Residential only gets a Building Code review. There is no plan check for electrical, mechanical or plumbing. All of the MEPs are left up to the inspector. I used to give the contractor a document titled El 101 that delineated all of the CEC requirements for the residential project at hand. I did that at the first inspection and some appreciated that and others took it as an insult. Either way, when the work was wrong there was no excuse.

So in essence, that was a checklist that covered everything from the receptacles to the service panel. When Covid hit and we went virtual the County asked me to create a guide for various virtual inspections in an effort to educate the permittee. It was a checklist of things that the inspector would be looking for during the inspection. I created over twenty guides for such things as FAU, water heater, windows, solar, el panels, etc. Then I came to the conclusion that virtual inspections fall far short of my expectations. The County still has a few of the guides at the website and is still performing lousy virtual inspections.

I have created a few checklists, and they were among the ones I felt had no value. I find two major issues with checklists: #1, I feel that anytime you try to condense the code into a "top ten" list, you are giving tacit approval for them to ignore everything not on the list (at least in their eyes). And when inspection (or review) points out something not on the list the applicant screams that they weren't about it, and #2 they tend get so big (because you don't want the screaming in concern #1) they become worthless (at least the ones I wrote).

 

[jar546]

Agree, but I try to eliminate the time spent for both of us by providing it up front. I do get responses that want to discuss the issue further, but by then they have read the applicable sections and reasoning and have developed their own reasonable counter point. So it saves time on the back side. I am certainly not espousing that everyone should do it, it just works for me.

Pick up the phone and call before you send the response.