Special Inspectors

[jar546]

Does anyone feel that soils testing or blower door testing results or special inspections are inaccurate? These tests do not have political pressure but do they bear pressure from the builder as the bldr is the person paying the bill of these companies performing such tests.

I am not sure that I understand. Soil tests should be signed off by an engineer. The blower door test is the responsibility of the person who performed the test, and unless we witness it, how do we know? In addition, what context are these subjects relative to this thread? If you want, you can ask this in another thread rather than creating thread drift.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Does anyone feel that soils testing or blower door testing results or special inspections are inaccurate? These tests do not have political pressure but do they bear pressure from the builder as the bldr is the person paying the bill of these companies performing such tests.

The builder doesn't pay for soils testing or special inspections. If by "soils testing" you are referring to a geotechnical inspection prior to design so the engineers know how to design the foundations -- the owner pays for that. And special inspections (including compaction of engineered fill) are also paid for by the owner. The code specifically requires that the contractor may NOT pay for special inspections.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

what protections do Municipal employees have? Maybe in a large city but in a City of 10k there is a lot more political pressure present. I had the Mayor hand me a blank permit application and tell me to fill it out for him, had the city administrator tell me to find a way to say yes.

Does your jurisdiction adopt Chapter 1 of the IBC? If so, your protection is spelled out right there:

104.8 Liability. The building official, member of the
board of appeals or employee charged with the enforcement of
this code, while acting for the jurisdiction in good faith and
without malice in the discharge of the duties required by this
code or other pertinent law or ordinance, shall not thereby be
civilly or criminally rendered liable personally and is hereby
relieved from personal liability for any damage accruing to
persons or property as a result of any act or by reason of an act
or omission in the discharge of official duties.

When I (along with my boss and several other people in various town offices) was sued for doing my job, the town's insurance paid for our defense, and would have paid any judgment if we had lost. It was a nuisance lawsuit, though, and the judge threw it out once it got into court.

 

[Sifu]

Makes me wonder because I never saw a blower door test fail. Has anyone?

Not sure I ever have, but then why would they share it if they failed? We would require verification that they passed, how many tries it took isn't my concern and I don't want the documents. I have witnessed a few by chance. My recollection is that they never failed, they just kept working on it until they passed.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The code specifically requires that the contractor may NOT pay for special inspections.

Anybody ever verify that requirement? In this state you can be the owner and general contractor of anything you want to build since there is no licensing requirement for a general contractor.

 

[Sifu]

Anybody ever verify that requirement? In this state you can be the owner and general contractor of anything you want to build since there is no licensing requirement for a general contractor.

Nope.

 

[ICE]

Gosh you guys got this thread way off track. Ms. Remas is sure to notice.

The job was a university library. Many caissons 40’ deep. I showed up for the first pour. The special inspector was in the parking lot. Two caissons had been poured. I found eight feet of water in the next hole. The special inspector couldn’t test the slump or take samples due to a lack of equipment. I had no choice but to stop the work. The contractor billed the university claiming that since the university hired the special inspector which resulted in the stop work notice, the contractor should be reimbursed for lost time and material. I made it clear that the eight feet of water was discovered before I knew that the special inspector wasn’t all that special. This was twenty-five years ago and the contractor was asking for $80,000.00 which falls short of two years tuition today.

The two caissons that were poured were discounted and two more were drilled as replacements. The contractor resorted to dewatering the holes. That created huge bulbs at the bottom as the sand collapsed and was sucked out. The bulbs contained as much concrete as a normal caisson. Five or six out of fifty were like that in a corner. I asked the structural engineer to address the situation.

 

[mtlogcabin]

 

[ICE]

Does Google only see the titles? This thread made it all the way to the 14th reply. You can stick a fork in it at the 14th reply.

I get that you spend a bunch of time curating a thread. You do produce college quality threads. Then us Blutos muck it up. Well sorry about that. Try spitting out less polished threads and when we step on it you won’t be so upset. This thread went for a while on the topic of 3rd party outfits and then drifted to special inspectors. The average reader was getting a twofer. Why do you think that is so bad? There was, in fact, some good stuff there. It was even tangentially related.

The original drifter would not start a thread for special inspectors so the value is lost if we are constrained to reading the title repeatedly.

But hey now, you call the tune.

 

[ICE]

Gosh you guys got this thread way off track. Ms. Remas is sure to notice.

I was teasing the touchy owner. This thread was hardly drifted… but we were just getting started and it was gonna be so far out in the weeds that he wouldn’t be able to find it.

 

[jar546]

Special inspectors and third-party agencies are completely different topics.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Anybody ever verify that requirement? In this state you can be the owner and general contractor of anything you want to build since there is no licensing requirement for a general contractor.

The statement of special inspections form promulgated by CASE (the Council of American Structural Engineers) and recommended by our state building inspector's office (and available to download from that office's web site) requires the owner's signature. Other forms may be used, but they must contain the same information.

I believe there is a specific exception for projects in which the owner is also the contractor.

 

[classicT]

Special inspectors and third-party agencies are completely different topics.

I would not word it that way. I get your intent w/ regards to the thread drift, but...

Special Inspection firms are often referred to as third-party testing and inspection - they are independent of the contractor and AHJ.

 

[steveray]

Anybody ever verify that requirement? In this state you can be the owner and general contractor of anything you want to build since there is no licensing requirement for a general contractor.

Covered in Exception in 1704.2

1. The contractor is permitted to employ the approved agencies where the contractor is also the owner.

 

[steveray]

Soil tests should be signed off by an engineer.

Depends....If the SI is not an engineer and they are just verifying conformance with the con docs, and the soil meets spec, I do not believe there is anything in my code that allows me to mandate an engineers seal...Just the ability to run the equipment...