-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
Unqualified Inspector? What to do?
- Thread starter QWERTY
- Start date
Incognito
The statement that "The contract between an owner and design professional is worthless paper as far as I am concerned." reflects a lack of respect for our legal system. I will guarantee that the design professional does not feel the same way.
If the design professional does not turn in his inspection reports you can take action against the project and refuse to issue certificate of occupancy. The building official's job is not to regulate the design professionals. That role is reserved to the State.
I do not see the state licensing board as taking action against the design profession due to a complaint by the building official that he had not turned in inspection reports. On the other hand if the Owner made such a complaint the state board would investigate it. The difference is that the design professional provides his services to the Owner not the Building Official.
If the building official reported violations of the state licensing laws or evidence of incompetance to the board licensing engineers then they would investigate it.
BSSTG
The involvement of the local building inspector while desirable will not prevent all problems. With respect to the use of improper fill dirt the "Fooring and foundation inspection" in Section 110.3.1 of the 2009 IBCdoes not address reviewing the dirt fill or its compaction and I would suggest that most building department inspectors wiould not have the expertise or equipment to perform the necessary tests. Such tests and inspections (Table 1704.7 of the IBC) are best performed by the geotechnical engineer or by a qualified special inspector. Thus involvement of the local inspectors would likely not prevented the reported problem.
Yankee
Section 1704.1 of the 2009 IBC allows the design professional to provide special inspections of their own work provided the personnel doing the special inspections meet the qualification requirements.
The special inspectors need to be retained by the Owner and not just paid for by the project (IBC Section 1704.1).
The statement that "The contract between an owner and design professional is worthless paper as far as I am concerned." reflects a lack of respect for our legal system. I will guarantee that the design professional does not feel the same way.
If the design professional does not turn in his inspection reports you can take action against the project and refuse to issue certificate of occupancy. The building official's job is not to regulate the design professionals. That role is reserved to the State.
I do not see the state licensing board as taking action against the design profession due to a complaint by the building official that he had not turned in inspection reports. On the other hand if the Owner made such a complaint the state board would investigate it. The difference is that the design professional provides his services to the Owner not the Building Official.
If the building official reported violations of the state licensing laws or evidence of incompetance to the board licensing engineers then they would investigate it.
BSSTG
The involvement of the local building inspector while desirable will not prevent all problems. With respect to the use of improper fill dirt the "Fooring and foundation inspection" in Section 110.3.1 of the 2009 IBCdoes not address reviewing the dirt fill or its compaction and I would suggest that most building department inspectors wiould not have the expertise or equipment to perform the necessary tests. Such tests and inspections (Table 1704.7 of the IBC) are best performed by the geotechnical engineer or by a qualified special inspector. Thus involvement of the local inspectors would likely not prevented the reported problem.
Yankee
Section 1704.1 of the 2009 IBC allows the design professional to provide special inspections of their own work provided the personnel doing the special inspections meet the qualification requirements.
The special inspectors need to be retained by the Owner and not just paid for by the project (IBC Section 1704.1).
Brudgers
My comment was addressed to Min&Max.
I agree that the Alabama the Architect is not required to perform inspections. If the design professional was contracted to perform butfailed to provide the minimum CA services then the Architects board could take action against his license. On the other hand if the design professional had not been engaged to perform Construction Administration services then he would appear to have no other obligation other than reporting according to the regulations.
The referenced regulations are very similar to the requirements in Chapter 17 related to structural observation and the provisions in IBC Section 107.3.4 dealing with the role of the role of the design professional in responsible charge.
I wonder if the requirements for professional engineers are the same. Since they appear to be licensed by a seperate board they may be quite different.
My comment was addressed to Min&Max.
I agree that the Alabama the Architect is not required to perform inspections. If the design professional was contracted to perform butfailed to provide the minimum CA services then the Architects board could take action against his license. On the other hand if the design professional had not been engaged to perform Construction Administration services then he would appear to have no other obligation other than reporting according to the regulations.
The referenced regulations are very similar to the requirements in Chapter 17 related to structural observation and the provisions in IBC Section 107.3.4 dealing with the role of the role of the design professional in responsible charge.
I wonder if the requirements for professional engineers are the same. Since they appear to be licensed by a seperate board they may be quite different.
Yankee
SILVER MEMBER
Mark I believe it is a mistake to approve an engineer to inspect his own work, and the special inspector needs to be "independent", meaning should have no other fiduciary entanglement with the Owner beyond the inspection. You are right, I am using "project" as "owner".
1703.1.1 Independence. An approved agency shall be objective, competent and independent from the contractor responsible for the work being inspected. The agency shall also disclose possible conflicts of interest so that objectivity can be confirmed.
1703.1.1 Independence. An approved agency shall be objective, competent and independent from the contractor responsible for the work being inspected. The agency shall also disclose possible conflicts of interest so that objectivity can be confirmed.
Last edited by a moderator:
incognito
Silver Member
Mark K
The statement that "The contract between an owner and design professional is worthless paper as far as I am concerned." reflects a lack of respect for our legal system. I will guarantee that the design professional does not feel the same way.
Not at all Mark K. The contract between an owner and design professional has no bearing on the project from the building officials position. All I care about is that the project meets minimum code requirements which is what was agreed upon once the permit was signed by the applicant. I'm sure the design professional does feel strongly about his contract with the owner but that contract has absolutely no bearing on how the building official carries out his duties. The design professional cannot undermine his obligations(which are spelled out by state law) to perform, by merely writing a contract with the owner.
The statement that "The contract between an owner and design professional is worthless paper as far as I am concerned." reflects a lack of respect for our legal system. I will guarantee that the design professional does not feel the same way.
Not at all Mark K. The contract between an owner and design professional has no bearing on the project from the building officials position. All I care about is that the project meets minimum code requirements which is what was agreed upon once the permit was signed by the applicant. I'm sure the design professional does feel strongly about his contract with the owner but that contract has absolutely no bearing on how the building official carries out his duties. The design professional cannot undermine his obligations(which are spelled out by state law) to perform, by merely writing a contract with the owner.
Yankee
SILVER MEMBER
So do you believe it is good practice to hire the licensed design professional to also do the Special Inspections and testing?brudgers said:
Where I work, there is a very successful 3rd party inspection program where the developer pays for the inspections (above and beyond what the jurisdiction collectes for permits and plan review fees). The jurisdiction maintains oversight and reviews all the inspection reports, and most agencies (including my own) employ experienced, honest, certified inspectors.
Money isn't usually the issue with hospitals (or most large commercial projects); they NEED professional inspections; the jurisdiction needs to admit they can't provide them.
Money isn't usually the issue with hospitals (or most large commercial projects); they NEED professional inspections; the jurisdiction needs to admit they can't provide them.
Incognito
Please provide a link to the state law as brudgers did for Alabama. The engineers obligations may not be what you believe them to be.
I agree that the building official should only worry about meeting the code requirements. I suggest that when you believe that they have not been complied with that you should convey that to the Owner of the project. What confuses people is that the design professional often steps in as an agent/consultant of the owner to assist in resolving problems but at the end of the day if the problems with the building are not resolved the jurisdiction will take legal action against the Owner.
Please provide a link to the state law as brudgers did for Alabama. The engineers obligations may not be what you believe them to be.
I agree that the building official should only worry about meeting the code requirements. I suggest that when you believe that they have not been complied with that you should convey that to the Owner of the project. What confuses people is that the design professional often steps in as an agent/consultant of the owner to assist in resolving problems but at the end of the day if the problems with the building are not resolved the jurisdiction will take legal action against the Owner.
Depending on their insurance coverage, it's not necessarily an issue.Yankee said:
The IBC sets a ridiculously low threshold for requiring special inspections - then again it sets no threshold for being a code official so I guess it is relatively high.
I'm probably biased because I worked in Florida for so many years where, threshold inspections (the equivalent of IBC's special inspections) kick in when a building is over three stories, and otherwise the contractor and code officials are expected to have enough competence to perform correctly - then again in Florida, both contractors and code officials have to meet state licensing standards.
But in any event, IBC allows code officials to require special inspections on a 2000 square foot one story warehouse, which in my opinion is a building that any code official ought to be capable of inspecting.
Yankee
SILVER MEMBER
I have found that licensed design professionals aren't often aware of code issues. Many times code issues come into play in that area where various trades intermingle, and there is no reason to believe that either of the design professionals are going to "see" that in the field on an inspection.
For instance, the Architect or FP Engineer designs a wall on which a kitchen hood is to be attached. The Mechanical Engineer specs the hood. Neither of those two (nor the installer for that matter) is going to check each others work to verify that which was built works as a unit.
For instance, the Architect or FP Engineer designs a wall on which a kitchen hood is to be attached. The Mechanical Engineer specs the hood. Neither of those two (nor the installer for that matter) is going to check each others work to verify that which was built works as a unit.
bgingras
BRONZE MEMBER
This exactly how it works in MA. On buildings, other than 1 or 2 family dwellings, that are over 35,000 cubic feet of enclosed space, the architect or engineer, or both, or more than those RDP, must provide us with periodic affidavits during the course of construction. The RDPs are the ones performing the inspections and assuring all work complies. With larger projects, we may see reports from a dozen or more RDPs that will monitor various parts of the project. AQ bigger project will bury me in papers to review. these items are things that I am in no way experienced or qualified to be inspecting anyway. Once work is complete, we perform a final inspection to assure that the interior environment passes, that all work appears to be complete, and all orders of conditions are completed and/or complied with if any exist, before issuing a C of O.Yankee said:
That's not an argument against using an engineer of record to conduct the special inspections required by code because it is not as if a special inspector can pick and choose which required inspections to perform - the required inspections list has already been reviewed by the building department.Yankee said:
Coordination of design disciplines is an entirely different matter and if that is the basis for your opinion then your argument relies on shifting the ground.
Yankee
SILVER MEMBER
At least in practice I am not on shifting ground . . . truly independent third party firms, no design professionals previously involved in the project, is what I hire for section 109/110 and approve for Chapter 1700 Special Inspections, with rare exceptions.
1704 was extensively revised in the 2009 IBC to clarify that the Registered Design Professional may carry out the special inspections.
And your argument has become, hiring Special Inspectors who are not involved in the design is better because that is how I do it.
And your argument has become, hiring Special Inspectors who are not involved in the design is better because that is how I do it.
Yankee
SILVER MEMBER
Yes, make sure you read the "may", which gives me, the BO, a choice : ), and yes, my way is the best way (for me and my jurisdiction). My argument and opinion is based on my experiences in a couple of scenarios. I do not want to put the inspector that I have hired or approved into a situation where there is a conflict for him. It is in the inspectors best interest as well as my best interest.brudgers said:
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
So what does an Alabama architect observe? Yep they are building a building. Nope it does not look like what I designed.brudgers said:
What do you do when what you observe is wrong? Just curious?
When the code uses the word may the may applies to the applicant and his consultants not to the building official unless it specifically states that it is applying to the building official. The building official is not in a position to change the intent of the regulations because he believes it is best for himself. If the building official does not like the adopted provisions he can request that the agency modify the regulations.
If the design professional on the project is technically qualified to perform the inspections the building official is compelled to accept him as a special inspector. There are several special inspections that the design professional should be assumed qualified to perform even though he may not have a certification. In my opinion these include but are not necessarily limited to formwork geometry, reinforcing steel, steel frame joint details, curing of concrete, verification of use of required mix design, and structural wood. In many of these cases the design professional is more knowledgable about what is needed than any "independent" inspectors because he developed the design.
Similarly it is not appropriate for the building official to modify the adopted requirements because he believes it is best for the special inspector.
When a building official enforces his preferences as opposed to what the adopted regulations call for he is acting illegaly.
If the design professional on the project is technically qualified to perform the inspections the building official is compelled to accept him as a special inspector. There are several special inspections that the design professional should be assumed qualified to perform even though he may not have a certification. In my opinion these include but are not necessarily limited to formwork geometry, reinforcing steel, steel frame joint details, curing of concrete, verification of use of required mix design, and structural wood. In many of these cases the design professional is more knowledgable about what is needed than any "independent" inspectors because he developed the design.
Similarly it is not appropriate for the building official to modify the adopted requirements because he believes it is best for the special inspector.
When a building official enforces his preferences as opposed to what the adopted regulations call for he is acting illegaly.
There is a distinct difference between inspections and observations (IBC Section 1710). Inspections involve the inspector performing a specific set of tasks, which often include taking measurements of performing tests. Observations are more of an opportunity for the design professional to spot check the quality of the work, to observe if the configuration of the work is consistent with the design, and to determine whether the contractor has made changes such as adding a wall in the middle of the shear walls. Observations typically are not as focused or detailed as inspections Observations can also provide the design professional an opportunity to talk with the contractor and hopefully clarify questions.
If the design professionals observations were could be considered inspections it is feared that he would be liable for any defects later discovered even if he spent a fraction of the time the special inspectors spent on the job.
If the design professional observes any defects in his visit he is required to report any deficiencies that have not been observed (Section 1710.1)
If the design professionals observations were could be considered inspections it is feared that he would be liable for any defects later discovered even if he spent a fraction of the time the special inspectors spent on the job.
If the design professional observes any defects in his visit he is required to report any deficiencies that have not been observed (Section 1710.1)
I put it in writing and forward it to my client.mtlogcabin said:
If it stays wrong, I put it in writing and forward it to the Owner (who is often the client), the building official, the board of architecture, and my insurance carrier (though this is not required by law); and withdraw from the job.
What I observe complies with the standard of care required by the architecture board in all cases. In some cases it also complies with a contractual obligation to administer some or all of the contract on behalf of the owner.
What is the difference between a building official who accepts a bribe and a building official that exxpects the applicant to spend extra money to do something not required by the code, just to accomodate the preferences of the building official? Moraly there is little difference.
Yankee
SILVER MEMBER
No, it may be grounded in a lack of independence also.1703.1.1 Independence. An approved agency shall be objective, competent and independent from the contractor responsible for the work being inspected. The agency shall also disclose possible conflicts of interest so that objectivity can be confirmed.brudgers said:
Last edited by a moderator: