Special Inspections

[Codegeek]

Are there any jurisdictions out there that have modified the IBC to require that the special inspector be hired by the owner, thus not requiring or allowing the design professional of responsible charge to employ the special inspector?

 

[Yankee]

Why would it matter to the Building Department? IMHO the Special inspector/firm has to be approved.

 

[Codegeek]

Understood they need to be approved. I do not work for an AHJ, so I'm trying to find out if there are any jurisdictions that see having the design professional employing the special inspector as a conflict of interest.

 

[Yankee]

I do see it as a conflict of interest and unless the inspection is very minor and something that I can also oversee, I do not approve such.

 

[Paul Sweet]

I don't see it as a conflict of interest. A lot of the special inspection items are things that an A/E can spot check. The A/E is just as interested as the building official in seeing that the building is constructed properly, and probably has more exposure to liability if it isn't.

I think most A/Es leave special inspections to a third party because they can be very time consuming, and some of them require special expertise.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Are there any jurisdictions out there that have modified the IBC to require that the special inspector be hired by the owner, thus not requiring or allowing the design professional of responsible charge to employ the special inspector?

Why does it matter if it is the owner or DP. What you do not want is the contractor highering the special inspectors. It is their work that is being inspected not the DP's design.

 

[brudgers]

I don't see it as a conflict of interest. A lot of the special inspection items are things that an A/E can spot check. The A/E is just as interested as the building official in seeing that the building is constructed properly, and probably has more exposure to liability if it isn't. I think most A/Es leave special inspections to a third party because they can be very time consuming, and some of them require special expertise.

They also necessitate insurance which a typical E&O policy may not cover.

 

[Codegeek]

You're correct brudgers; it puts liability back on the DP which they may not want and it may not be covered under their E&O.

 

[Mark K]

The special inspector must be hired by the owner or the design professional acting as the owners agenet. This has been the case for a long time.

The IBC has been ammended to specifically allow the design professional himself to perform inspections when he has the technical qualifications.

Where doe the IBC require that the special inspector have insurance coverage? Do not believe that such a requirement exists.

I hear these vague references to conflict of interest. It would be interested to understand the nature of the perceived conflicts.

There are a number of situations where the design professional is better qualified to perform special inspections than a special inspector with all of the certifications.

 

[Codegeek]

Mark K, you are correct. There is nothing in the IBC addressing insurance. However, if the DP is going to oversee the special inspections, there are insurance companies who would want the E&O to cover issues related specifically to the special inspections. Not all E&O policies carried by DP cover such a thing.

Many years ago, when I was working as a plans examiner and had my first case of a DP acting as their own special inspector, I questioned it, perceiving it as a conflict of interest. However, after further investigating, I concluded that the DP would be even better than a third party special inspector because they are more intimately familiar with their own design. There are folks that will disagree with this line of thought, which is partly the reason I posed the original question.

In this particular case to have a DP oversee ALL of the special inspections, including areas they have not played a role in, could create problems for the DP. While the third party inspection agency acting as the approved agency will bear most of the responsibilities with anything associated with liability, the DP will also have their fair share of liability to address.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Unless your state law has something to say about a building dept verifying a DP or special inspector has insurance and what kind why would you care? Insurance is there to protect the one who is insured.

 

[Codegeek]

Agree mtlogcabin, but not all insurance coverage for E&O may cover special inspections.

 

[brudgers]

You're correct brudgers; it puts liability back on the DP which they may not want and it may not be covered under their E&O.

However, any special inspector hired by the owner is no different. They may or may not have insurance, they may or may not be qualified, and more importantly, like the architect or engineer they are being paid by someone with a vested interest in the completion of the building. And even though it is obvious I guess I need to point out that if the contractor hires the special inspector, the money to pay him comes from the owner as well.

Mrs. Jones: I want granite counter tops.

Contractor: I'm sorry Mrs Jones, but granite counter tops are not part of the contract, I will be happy to install them but there will be a $4000 change order.

Mrs. Jones [to Architect]: Well who is going to pay for that?

Architect: You are Mrs. Jones. The Owner pays for everything.

 

[Mark K]

The E&O carriers are concerned about the design professional performing inspections but do not prevent it. There are also many engineers who would not want to perform special inspections but there are some who want to. Ultimately this is something that sould be left to the design professional and his client. Our legal system has an inherent bias in favor of allowing individuals to contractually agree on how to do things.

Liability issues are something for the design professional to be concerned about and he needs to make the tradeoffs. Some engineers believe that their liability exposure is actually reduced by their active participation in the special inspections. Liability of individuals is not something for the building official to worry about in the absense of a state requirement such as for workmens compensation for contractors. Ultimately liability is something that is assigned by the courts not the building department.

 

[Codegeek]

I appreciate everyone's input on this. Thank you!

 

[Mark K]

The problem with the contractor hiring the special inspector is that when this is done contractors tend to hire special inspection firms that are easy and apply pressure to reassign special inspectors who give them are hard time.

In addition if hired by the contractor the special inspection costs come out of the contractors profit so there is more pressure to minimize inspections. If the inspectors are hired by the owner and the inspectors fail the inspection there is less pressure on the inspectors. In addition there is often a mechanism for the Contractor to reimbures the Owner for the added inspection costs.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Agree mtlogcabin, but not all insurance coverage for E&O may cover special inspections.

E & O insurance it is not a concern of the building department. Is the firm/inspector qualified and what does a department require to be certified? that is all that a building department should be concerned with. None of these programs require any insurance

https://www.cityofnorthlasvegas.com/Departments/PublicWorks/PDFs/BuildingSafety/DesignCriteria/ThirdPartySpecialInspectionGuidelines.pdf

http://www.oboaonline.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=30

http://www.wabo.org/index.php?page=forms

 

[Codegeek]

I understand it's not a concern of the building department. I do not work for an AHJ and have been asked by a client to find out if there are AHJ's who would not allow the DP to be in charge of the third party special inspector. I want to know if there are AHJ's who see it as a conflict of interest for the DP rather than the owner to be responsible.

 

[brudgers]

The problem with the contractor hiring the special inspector is that when this is done contractors tend to hire special inspection firms that are easy and apply pressure to reassign special inspectors who give them are hard time.In addition if hired by the contractor the special inspection costs come out of the contractors profit so there is more pressure to minimize inspections. If the inspectors are hired by the owner and the inspectors fail the inspection there is less pressure on the inspectors. In addition there is often a mechanism for the Contractor to reimbures the Owner for the added inspection costs.

A couple of points.

The owner is also often interested in an easy special inspector...institutional clients are not the norm in the real world.

Second, if the contractor is passing the cost through to the owner, he gets overhead and profit on it so there is an incentive to push that number higher.

Finally, Owner's are interested in saving a buck or two - and so are architecture and engineering offices - that's why so much work is done by interns.

 

[Mark K]

I suggest that you tell your client that if the AHJ is imposing a requirement that is not consistent with the formally adopted regulations and state laws that the agency is exceeding their authority.

Brudgers it is easy to be cynical. If I would adopt the same attitude I could point out the existance of corruption by building inspectors and the other problems building departments have such as inadequate plan checks and limited time to do inspections.

In my extensive experience in engineering offices interns are rare. Practically all engineering designers are paid and have an engineering degree and the majority are licensed even if they do not sign the drawings. Engineers in training are typically fairly well supervised. The individuals who make site visits and perform inspections on their own are almost without exception licensed.

Sure there are pressures to save money but the design engineer is also aware of the problems that can occur if things are not done right. He is also painfully aware that if things go wrong it will cost him money and pain even if he did nothing wrong.

Other than we need to be paid for our work what are the conflicts of interest that are of concern?

 

[brudgers]

I suggest that you tell your client that if the AHJ is imposing a requirement that is not consistent with the formally adopted regulations and state laws that the agency is exceeding their authority. Brudgers it is easy to be cynical. If I would adopt the same attitude I could point out the existance of corruption by building inspectors and the other problems building departments have such as inadequate plan checks and limited time to do inspections. In my extensive experience in engineering offices interns are rare. Practically all engineering designers are paid and have an engineering degree and the majority are licensed even if they do not sign the drawings. Engineers in training are typically fairly well supervised. The individuals who make site visits and perform inspections on their own are almost without exception licensed. Sure there are pressures to save money but the design engineer is also aware of the problems that can occur if things are not done right. He is also painfully aware that if things go wrong it will cost him money and pain even if he did nothing wrong. Other than we need to be paid for our work what are the conflicts of interest that are of concern?

I'm not being cynical, I'm being realistic. The distribution of honest and forthright individuals in engineering is the same as in any other profession.

And money creates the same pressures on engineering firms as on contractors and owners.

Likewise with architects.

 

[Architect1281]

Sometimes the enabling building code legislation such as this from RI where Responsibilites are defined and assigned having the impact of Law vs. Regulation (ICC) set the stage

§ 23-27.3-128.1.1 Owner's responsibilities.

(a) The owner shall be responsible for providing the services as required in § 23-27.3-128.3(1) –(3).

SO HERE the OWNER MUST PROVIDE but our law preserves his right to choose.

The contractual rights of the owner shall be preserved in that he or she will still be able to assign the duties for which he or she is responsible to whatever person he or she desires, so long as the person so assigned qualifies to fulfill the requirements of this section of the code.

AS LONG AS THOSE CHOSEN MEET THE CRITERA ACCEPTED BY THE OFFICIAL

128 section relates to design and construction procedures

RI Law Required DP for all except 1&2 Family so you the owner gets to pick one

Construction procedures duplicates and code incorporates CH 17 so the owner also gets to chose the same or different

with approval of official of course.

 

[ICE]

Many years ago, when I was working as a plans examiner and had my first case of a DP acting as their own special inspector, I questioned it, perceiving it as a conflict of interest. However, after further investigating, I concluded that the DP would be even better than a third party special inspector because they are more intimately familiar with their own design. There are folks that will disagree with this line of thought, which is partly the reason I posed the original question.

An engineer could be a wonderful special inspector. If he/she has Certification for the discipline [that's required here].

Structural observations may portend an engineer's ability as a special inspector. Rarely do I not find corrections on top of structural observations. Engineers are great at engineering, the mechanics of it should be left to inspectors. Too often, I have discovered an inspectors signature on a job card that stated "Per Engineer's structural observation report." I other words, the inspector didn't inspect. I could tell you a story or two.

From another thread:

Speaking of bolts, I inspected a four{might have been three, crap my memory is waning} story dormitory. Upon arrival for footing and slab inspection I parked my truck 15' from the forms and sat there for a moment as the superintendent approached. He handed me an engineers structural observation report and they passed without a glitch. I asked the super what diameter anchor bolt was specified on the plans and he said 5/8". I said that I found that hard to believe because my office set says 3/4". He threw his plans in the air and tore up the report. The anchor bolts were 9" apart and there were hundreds .... all 5/8".

Later they framed a first floor wing and had the engineer generate a struc. report. I just happened to notice and stopped in. The place was swept clean and I found one nail wedged at the bottom plate. I placed that nail against a 3"x and asked the super if this was the nail they used for framing. He said yes. I said it's too short. He said he had an engineers struc. report and the plans call for 20s and that's a 20. Yes it was a 20, a 20 sinker and the plans spec. is 20 common. The engineer added an A35 to each side of every stud and a bunch of flats went in at king studs, plates etc.

It is not that I disrespect engineers. But think about it, how many of them can tell the difference between a sinker and a common nail from 20' or even 2'? I know they always see 3" when it comes to re-bar and some can't distinguish 5/8" from 3/4". The form work may be flopping in the wind but engineers see the concrete within. The point is that all the stuff we inspectors do adds up and the person that designed it should let someone else inspect it.

 

[Mark K]

Engineers could point out situations where all of the certified building department inspectors did not find things but they normally say nothing because it is not productive to get in a ****ing match with the inspector.

ICE

I would be interested in the engineer's understanding of the nature of his visits. It may differ from your understanding of what the reports signify. Structural Observations are not inspections because the intent is not to focus on the detail inspections and as a result it will not find things that a focused inspector is dealing with. Was the other "struc report" a site visit report or was it a report of a focused inspection visit. It may be in the contractors interest to present it as something more than it is.

I propose what may be an interesting test. After one inspector has looked at a project have another inspector visit the same project without knowing what was found. The reality is that we are limited on what we can focus on so we will often not see something that we wern't looking for. This is basic human psychology. Inspectors may feel invincible because in many cases they do not get any feedback. How many times have contractors later found something that the city inspector missed? How often do they tell the inspector?

Architect1281

I support the concept that the Owner is the entity ultimately responsible for compliance with the regulations. If the Owner is to have a real right to decide how to provide the required services the regulators should exercise restraint in limiting who he can hire. Thus when the owner wishes the engineer to perform inspections the building official should not withhold permission just because he may feel that there is a potential conflict of interest.

The concept that the engineer must always have a certification to perform all inspections does not make sense and in some instances may be in conflict with professional engineering licensing statutes. It is generally agreed that performing inspections are an inherent part of the practice of engineering. This is especially the case the certification tests are largely focused on how to interpret the drawigs. It should be assumed that the individual who prepared the documents is iable to interpret them. Thus for such things as formork and concrete reingorcing inspections it should be assumed that the engineer who designed it is capable of inspecting it. Welding inspections are another animal.