Require the contractor to get an acceptance document from the engineer.Require the designing engineer provide an acceptance document.
You said: "Caveat: Were project specifications provided, reviewed, and approved"The permit is a permit to build what is called for in the "approved" construction documents. The substitution is a reject. The engineer should provide an engineered judgment that the substituted products (all three of them!) are equal to the specified product. If the engineer is not willing to provide that -- sealed and signed -- then the work gets rejected.
Caveat: Were project specifications provided, reviewed, and approved at the time the permit was issued? It's very common for specs to list one or two alternate products. If that was the case here, then any product named in the spec would be considered to be in compliance. However, I think it would be extremely unlikely that an engineer would specify two different DeWalt products for the same application.
Epoxy bonding of rebar is a can of worms. For those old enough to remember the collapse of the roof of Boston's "Big Dig" tunnel, the failure was found to have occurred because the contractor substituted the epoxy that held the suspended roof panels over the highway. The specified product was appropriate for overhead use -- the substitute product used was not.
You said: "Caveat: Were project specifications provided, reviewed, and approved"
It is that "approved" word that I think is troublesome and a landmind. We have to remember we are MERELY the Reviewer, and later the Inspector, and look to see if Plans (and specs?) are consistent with the Minimum, Safety aspects of the Code.
[A] 107.3.1 Approval of construction documents. When the
building official issues a permit, the construction documents
shall be approved, in writing or by stamp, as “Reviewed for
Code Compliance.” One set of construction documents so
reviewed shall be retained by the building official. The other
set shall be returned to the applicant, shall be kept at the site of
work and shall be open to inspection by the building official or
a duly authorized representative.
R106.3.1 Approval of construction documents. Where the
building official issues a permit, the construction documents
shall be approved in writing or by a stamp that states
“REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE.” One set of
construction documents so reviewed shall be retained by the
building official. The other set shall be returned to the applicant,
shall be kept at the site of work and shall be open to
inspection by the building official or a duly authorized
representative.
[A] 106.5.1 Approved construction documents. When
the code official issues the permit where construction
documents are required, the construction documents shall
be endorsed in writing and stamped “APPROVED.” Such
approved construction documents shall not be changed,
modified or altered without authorization from the code
official. Work shall be done in accordance with the
approved construction documents.
The code official shall have the authority to issue a
permit for the construction of a part of a plumbing system
before the entire construction documents for the whole
system have been submitted or approved, provided that
adequate information and detailed statements have been
filed complying with all pertinent requirements of this
code. The holders of such permit shall proceed at their
own risk without assurance that the permit for the entire
plumbing system will be granted.
[A] 106.4.1 Approved construction documents. When
the code official issues the permit where construction
documents are required, the construction documents shall
be endorsed in writing and stamped “APPROVED.” Such
approved construction documents shall not be changed,
modified or altered without authorization from the code
official. Work shall be done in accordance with the
approved construction documents.
The code official shall have the authority to issue a
permit for the construction of part of a mechanical system
before the construction documents for the entire system
have been submitted or approved, provided that adequate
information and detailed statements have been filed
complying with all pertinent requirements of this code.
The holder of such permit shall proceed at his or her own
risk without assurance that the permit for the entire
mechanical system will be granted.
Require the contractor to get an acceptance document from the engineer.
Splitting hairs........require the RDP ultimately accept the alternative, or not.
Yes it’s splitting hairs, but it’s the contractors responsibility to follow the specs or get approval to deviate.Splitting hairs........require the RDP ultimately accept the alternative, or not.
fatboy was splitting a different hair. His statement had nothing to do with the substitution of epoxy. fatboy was splitting a hair between a contractor and an engineer… so you are wrong and Jeff likes that.It's a lot more than splitting hairs. Using epoxy to anchor rebar is a structural application. Using the wrong epoxy can result in structural failure. Tell the people who were killed when the roof of the Big Dig tunnel fell that the choice of epoxy was just "splitting hairs."
There are times when splitting those hairs is what we get paid to do.
You said: "Caveat: Were project specifications provided, reviewed, and approved"
It is that "approved" word that I think is troublesome and a landmind. We have to remember we are MERELY the Reviewer, and later the Inspector, and look to see if Plans (and specs?) are consistent with the Minimum, Safety aspects of the Code. We are historically about Public Safety. So the Job shouldn't Blow-Up or Fall Down. We are Not the Design Professional. When we, as experienced Construction people, see or somehow it comes to our attention, that something isn't consistent with the Construction doc, of course, we need a "Clarification" The other area is that "Good Workmanship", judgement call. And God knows we certainly are not judging "Best Practices" or what constitutes "A Good Job" judgement thing
Require the contractor to get an acceptance document from the engineer.
The building department approves the permit. In this context "approve" is the appropriate term.
[A] 105.3.1 Action on application. The building official shall
examine or cause to be examined applications for permits and
amendments thereto within a reasonable time after filing. If the
application or the construction documents do not conform to
the requirements of pertinent laws, the building official shall
reject such application in writing, stating the reasons therefor.
If the building official is satisfied that the proposed work
conforms to the requirements of this code and laws and ordinances
applicable thereto, the building official shall issue a
permit therefor as soon as practicable.
I agree with Mark K on this one. It is not the role of the building inspection department to dictate how this must be fixed, simply that it does not comply with the approved specifications. Certainly, the building inspector can provide guidance in how this could be fixed, but selecting the appropriate fix is ultimately at the discretion of the owner or their representative. I've been involved in situations like this where the owner was not accepting of any deviation and the contractor had to remove the defective work and replace it. It seems harsh, but the contractor paid much more attention to the plans and specs after that.
I forgot … the Engineer sits at the right hand of God and cannot be bothered to interact with mere mortals, the great unwashed caste of contractors.The references to the engineer misrepresent the engineers role.
It is the Owner, not the contractor, that involves the engineer of record.
What if it’s a design-build, and the gc engaged the engineer?
And more to the point, the contractor has the ability to submit an RFI directly to the design professionals for clarification of misunderstood items. Notice I didn’t say “unclear” because well all know everything the Engineer publishes is perfect, the fault lies with caste.
Interesting they used 3 different products, and left the evidence lying around.......or the contractor is being cheap and trying to sneak one by.