Navigating the Fine Line: Guidance vs. Directives in Building Inspections

Navigating the Fine Line: Guidance vs. Directives in Building Inspections​

In the complex world of construction, the relationship between building inspectors and contractors is pivotal. At the heart of this relationship lies a crucial balance – the distinction between providing guidance and issuing directives. This balance is not merely a matter of communication style; it's embedded in the fabric of legal, ethical, and professional standards that govern the construction industry.

The Role of Building Inspectors: A Clarifying Lens

Building inspectors play a critical role in ensuring the safety and compliance of construction projects. Their primary responsibility is to enforce building codes, standards that are designed to ensure the safety, health, and welfare of the public. When a contractor fails an inspection, for instance, due to framing that does not meet the minimum standards, the inspector's duty is to cite the specific code violations. However, the line is drawn at prescribing the exact method for correction.

The Gray Area: Guidance vs. Design

The distinction between providing guidance and veering into the territory of design or directive is delicate. Inspectors are expected to help contractors understand the code's requirements without dictating specific methods for compliance. This approach respects the contractor's autonomy in determining the means and methods of construction, a principle that acknowledges the contractor's expertise and responsibility in the execution of work.

Liability and Professional Boundaries

Entering the domain of design suggestions carries potential liabilities for inspectors. For example, if an inspector advises a contractor on how to rectify a framing issue and the contractor later discovers a more efficient, cost-effective method, the inspector could face criticism or even legal challenges for overstepping their role. Such situations underscore the importance of maintaining professional boundaries, ensuring inspectors provide valuable insights into code requirements without assuming the role of a designer or engineer.

Contractor Competency and the Quest for Solutions

Contractors often seek clear answers, asking inspectors "how do you want me to do it?" This query reflects a desire for straightforward solutions to pass inspection. However, it also highlights a deeper issue: the varying levels of competency and code knowledge among contractors. Inspectors, while navigating these interactions, must foster an environment where contractors feel supported in understanding and applying building codes without relinquishing their responsibility for the project's execution.

Best Practices for Inspectors

• Educate Rather Than Dictate: Focus on clarifying code requirements and the rationale behind them, empowering contractors to devise compliant solutions.
• Encourage Professional Development: Recommend resources, workshops, and courses that enhance contractors' understanding of building codes and construction practices.
• Foster Collaborative Relationships: Build rapport with contractors that encourages open dialogue and mutual respect, creating a foundation for successful project outcomes.
• Document Interactions: Keep detailed records of advice and decisions made during inspections to protect against future liabilities.

In Summary

The role of building inspectors is undeniably complex, balancing the need to enforce building codes with the importance of respecting the expertise of contractors. By clearly delineating the boundaries of guidance and directive, inspectors can uphold the integrity of the construction process, support the professional growth of contractors, and ultimately contribute to the safety and quality of the built environment. This delicate dance, when performed skillfully, enhances the collaboration between inspectors and contractors, ensuring that each project not only meets the letter of the law but also serves the community's best interests.

 

[jar546]

Although I truly believe what I wrote, this can vary regionally based on the dynamics of the relationship between the contractors and the building department. Either way, you can find yourself getting into trouble as an inspector if you start designing as an official.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The Gray Area: Guidance vs. Design

The distinction between providing guidance and veering into the territory of design or directive is delicate. Inspectors are expected to help contractors understand the code's requirements without dictating specific methods for compliance. This approach respects the contractor's autonomy in determining the means and methods of construction, a principle that acknowledges the contractor's expertise and responsibility in the execution of work.

Being able to establish the line between guidance and directive is often difficult, and can be more so when dealing with difficult people. I recently had an engineer try to justify a clearly non-compliant aspect of his design by using some diagrams he had downloaded from somewhere. I told him I didn't regard his diagrams as authoritative, and I added that when I feel I need clarification on what the code says I refer to the ICC commentaries or I call our state building inspector's office. On his next submission, he included a narrative with reams of [largely irrelevant] quotations from the IBC Commentary, with a statement something like "As directed by the building department, I researched the IBC Commentary ..." I knew he was billing his client by the hour to clean up his mess, so I immediately responded that I took exception to the statement "As directed by the building department," because (a) I had not directed him to do anything other than comply with the code, and (b) I had already researched the Commentary, so I certainly didn't need him to do it for me.

On the residential side (and, to a less frequent extent the commercial side), there are always going to be owners who know nothing about the code or construction but they want to see their project moving forward. They don't know enough to know what they don't know, they don't understand the code and they don't WANT to understand the code, they just want you to tell them what they have to do. Those are the ones to be careful of.

Liability and Professional Boundaries

Entering the domain of design suggestions carries potential liabilities for inspectors. For example, if an inspector advises a contractor on how to rectify a framing issue and the contractor later discovers a more efficient, cost-effective method, the inspector could face criticism or even legal challenges for overstepping their role. Such situations underscore the importance of maintaining professional boundaries, ensuring inspectors provide valuable insights into code requirements without assuming the role of a designer or engineer.

Exactly.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The Gray Area: Guidance vs. Design

The distinction between providing guidance and veering into the territory of design or directive is delicate. Inspectors are expected to help contractors understand the code's requirements without dictating specific methods for compliance. This approach respects the contractor's autonomy in determining the means and methods of construction, a principle that acknowledges the contractor's expertise and responsibility in the execution of work.

The contractor's means and methods refers to how the contractor performs the work, it does NOT refer in any way to the design (compliant or not) of the work. The contractor's means and methods (the AIA General Conditions uses the terms "techniques, means and methods") don't begin to address code issues, other than the nebulous code requirements for safety on the job site. The contractor's autonomy in determining its means and methods doesn't extend to design of the work.

A simple example is a long header that inspection reveals doesn't have adequate end bearing. The fact that it needs two jack studs under each end rather than one, and therefore will probably require removing it and replacing it with a longer header, is a design issue. The inspector's role is to cite the code section that documents the violation. How the contractor shores up the second floor or the roof in order to remove the short header and replace with a longer one supported by two jack studs on each end is a matter of techniques, means and methods of construction.

 

[CASpAccess]

While often there are good and justifiable intentions at work, it is important to keep in mind that when anyone other than the design professional in responsible charge issues a directive, advice, design solution, or erroneous code interpretation, that individual becomes liable for the consequences. This is particularly concerning if and when a directive / advice causes or gives rise to a deviation from approved construction documents, are not in compliance with applicable codes and standards, or deviate from manufacturer's instructions (for example - void warranty, incurs additional cost, delays, etc.). Qualified immunity extends only so far and statutory protections for municipal employees is limited. For third party inspectors statutory protections may be non-existent unless expressly addressed by contract. PS While I respect many legal practitioners, I'm not an attorney and don't encourage conduct by code professionals resulting in being scrutinized by one.

 

[ICE]

the varying levels of competency and code knowledge among contractors. AND Inspectors

The contractors almost always ask for a solution. If I refuse they complain that I am not a team player. I point out that I know how to do my job and they are supposed to know how to do their job. It gets trickier when the customer is involved. They face the fact that their contractor doesn't know his job and I am expected to know both of our jobs. They, after all, pay my salary and I am the expert and if I don't hold the contractors hand I am letting down a constituent.

In the usual situation I am dealing with the contractor's employee. I tell owner and worker to ask the contractor for guidance... he is after all, licensed by the State of California.

If the person in front of me is the contractor.... well then

I have been known to take over but usually when there is just one solution and I am convinced that they can get it done right. There are those cases where the work is mechanically good but they just lacked experience.

Also coming at me are the hacks with plenty of hacking experience. I'll take heat for this but I've run off a few of them.

This should be an interesting Jeff thread.
I don't think that what I do is suitable for you... no matter who you are..so don't waste the ink chewing me out.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Contractor Competency and the Quest for Solutions

Contractors often seek clear answers, asking inspectors "how do you want me to do it?" This query reflects a desire for straightforward solutions to pass inspection. However, it also highlights a deeper issue: the varying levels of competency and code knowledge among contractors. Inspectors, while navigating these interactions, must foster an environment where contractors feel supported in understanding and applying building codes without relinquishing their responsibility for the project's execution.

That's the loaded question. My standard answer is, "I want you to do it so it meets the code." When (not "if") the next question is, "So how am I supposed to meet the code if you don't the way I've been doing it for thirty years?" my answer has to be, "I'm not legally allowed to tell you what to do, I'm only allowed to tell you when you do it wrong. Talk to the architect [or the designer, if there's no architect]."

Best Practices for Inspectors

• Educate Rather Than Dictate: Focus on clarifying code requirements and the rationale behind them, empowering contractors to devise compliant solutions.
• Encourage Professional Development: Recommend resources, workshops, and courses that enhance contractors' understanding of building codes and construction practices.
• Foster Collaborative Relationships: Build rapport with contractors that encourages open dialogue and mutual respect, creating a foundation for successful project outcomes.
• Document Interactions: Keep detailed records of advice and decisions made during inspections to protect against future liabilities.

In Summary

The role of building inspectors is undeniably complex, balancing the need to enforce building codes with the importance of respecting the expertise of contractors. By clearly delineating the boundaries of guidance and directive, inspectors can uphold the integrity of the construction process, support the professional growth of contractors, and ultimately contribute to the safety and quality of the built environment. This delicate dance, when performed skillfully, enhances the collaboration between inspectors and contractors, ensuring that each project not only meets the letter of the law but also serves the community's best interests.

In my case, it's sometimes painful to refrain from playing architect, since I am one. I have on more than one occasion told people that, "I am an architect, but I'm not your architect." [Left unsaid: "The town isn't paying me enough to redesign your dumb mistakes."]

 

[Inspector Gadget]

I'm fortunate, I guess, because both our association code of conduct and the law prohibit me from doing anything that can be considered design.

I can provide the paths/options to compliance, nothing more.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I'm fortunate, I guess, because both our association code of conduct and the law prohibit me from doing anything that can be considered design.

I can provide the paths/options to compliance, nothing more.

The sticky wicket lies in how you provide the paths or options. It is (IMHO) important to be exceptionally clear that you are not instructing the applicant/owner/contractor how to do something. Even "suggesting" or "offering" options can later be presented (in court) as "He told me to do ___ ."

Some regard it as a waste of time but, when we have sit-down meetings with owners and/or contractors on potentially contentious projects, I always write up a summary of the meeting and stick it in the file, and I make it a point to cover anything that the other side might later try to present as "They told me to do ___ ." Yes, a memo to file that I write is, to an extent, self-serving (or could be argued to be), but when it's written down contemporaneously with the event (the meeting or discussion) it can be admissible in court.

My boss and his boss know that I do this, and they both agree that it's worth the time it takes to do it.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

The sticky wicket lies in how you provide the paths or options. It is (IMHO) important to be exceptionally clear that you are not instructing the applicant/owner/contractor how to do something. Even "suggesting" or "offering" options can later be presented (in court) as "He told me to do ___ ."

An example from a file I'm dealing with now: contractor installed profiled metal roofing on a 2:12 slope. Code says metal can't be used on anything less than a 4:12 slope without manufacturer's written declaration.

Options provided:
1) Give us manufacturer's written docs that roof is OK as is
2) Manufacturer's docs stating roof can be used with stated modifications (ie: sealant, etc)
3) Alternative solution from a qualified profesisonal
4) Install something else.

That's the sorta thing I'm referring to.