Unqualified Inspector? What to do?

[Yankee]

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.

Inspections/observations by the design professional also cost money, they don't work for free.

 

[ICE]

Pardon me for interrupting, but this thread hasn't done much for the OP's question about sand bagging the town's inspector anyway.

I wonder if any of the inspectors out there have required that a special inspector be replaced.

 

[Mark K]

Yaankee

The Owner is obligated by the adopted regulations to pay for the costs of what is required. The problem is when the Owner finds that he needs to pay more or is not be able to hire the individual he prefers, who meets the code requirements. The qualified individual who was not hired just because of the building officials preferences also suffers.

 

[Yankee]

YaankeeThe Owner is obligated by the adopted regulations to pay for the costs of what is required. The problem is when the Owner finds that he needs to pay more or is not be able to hire the individual he prefers, who meets the code requirements. The qualified individual who was not hired just because of the building officials preferences also suffers.

There can be issues with who the "owner prefers", , , just sayin' . . . having said that, I have never not approved an independent third party inspection/testing firm for the Special Inspections that was also the choice of the owner. But also no owner has asked me to approve the special inspections to be done by their design professional, and many of the Special Inspections require testing which most design professionals are not qualified, nor do they want, to do. Think of the testing of steel bolt torque for instance. I did approve a job which included one steel header to be inspected by the person who designed it, but that was a very minor piece of work. The inspection and testing agents are approved by the building official. It's a judgement call as are many other elements and does not constitute any misuse of power (unless the agent is my brother-in-law).

 

[Mark K]

If the design professional is not qualified the code gives you the right to reject him as a special inspector (IBC Section 1704.1). Welding inspection is a common example that comes to mind.

IBC Section 1704.1 Exception 1 does not require special inspections for work of a minor nature or as warrented by the conditions.

While there are judgement calls to be made one must always be sensitive to personal biases that one might have.

 

[brudgers]

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.

So long as the design professional is not an employee or a shareholder of the contractor, they are independent.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I wonder if any of the inspectors out there have required that a special inspector be replaced.

Yes we did. The special inspector okayed 3 concrete pours where the rebar size and spacings did not match the engineered plans. I called and talked to the owner of the firm and then sent him our pictures and a detail from the plans. Found out it was an EIT they hired for the summer. Never saw that individual again.

 

[Yankee]

So long as the design professional is not an employee or a shareholder of the contractor, they are independent.

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.Design professionals engaged in a fiduciary relationship with the owner aside from the special inspections need to be reviewed for a possible conflict of interest to be approved

 

[brudgers]

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.Design professionals engaged in a fiduciary relationship with the owner aside from the special inspections need to be reviewed for a possible conflict of interest to be approved

First, a design professional does not have a fiduciary responsibility to the owner unless such a relationship is created by verbal or written contract.

And any intelligent architect who listens to his E&O carrier will avoid creating one because the additional exposure created by such a relationship will not be covered by his policy.

What an architect does have is a responsibility to protect the public by exercising a reasonable standard of care as a licensed design professional.

 

[Mark K]

One of my legal books dealing with architects and engineers states:

"The retention of a professional designer by a client-like the relationship between employer and employee and between partners-creates a fiduciary relationship"

Yankee

You appear to be saying that a design professional who was hired to design the building has a possible conflict of interest. In the context I am assuming that you can then use this to reject the design professional as a special inspector. If this is so you are contorting the code contrary to the intent of the code change that you disagree with.

 

[Yankee]

Well Mark, that is your opinion. I do not agree that there is a code contortion.