When the Contractor Does Not Follow Specs from the Engineer

[jar546]

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 agree. Not per approved plans. How they address it is up to them (owner/contractor/engineer). Who said differently?

 

[Mark K]

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.

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.

The engineer interacts with all of the players including the building department and their inspectors. From the engineer's perspective sometimes, it is the building official that appears to claim GOD given powers.

The engineer is not aware of everything the contractor does and has no direct control over the contractor and cannot be responsible if the failure is caused by the contractor.

An engineer is well aware that he is not perfect. He is constantly reminded of that fact by others. Rember the building department has approved the issuance of the building permit. Why would this be necessary if the engineer were perfect? Why does the building department claim immunity from their actions?

"The engineer is still the licensed design professional and is still responsible/liable if the structure fails." misrepresents the engineers role. The engineer has liability for his recommendations and actions. The engineer is not responsible for a failure resulting from the actions of the contractor or others.

 

[ICE]

I am curious about the special inspection requirement. Given who’s territory this is in, there’s a public flogging in the future.

So what about that special inspector?

 

[steveray]

So what about that special inspector?

View attachment 13061

I would ban him from my jurisdiction for life.....

 

[tmurray]

I agree. Not per approved plans. How they address it is up to them (owner/contractor/engineer). Who said differently?

There were some comments that they need the RDP to sign off on the use of different epoxies. That is just one of the possible solutions.

 

[ICE]

There were some comments that they need the RDP to sign off on the use of different epoxies. That is just one of the possible solutions.

And what about the AHJ? Should the AHJ plan checker have a say in approving the substitution. I have encountered mistakes/alternates/repairs that were blessed by a RDP that I had to reject.

The case at hand that was brought by the OP lacks details. The steel is 3/4" so there's something going on... is the bar subject to tension or shear? For a long time we didn't require special inspection on epoxy dowels. We even allowed dry-packing.

My point is that this case may matter and then again, maybe not so much. Engineers can develop tunnel vision... if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a snail.... and oh what a mess that can become.

 

[tmurray]

And what about the AHJ? Should the AHJ plan checker have a say in approving the substitution. I have encountered mistakes/alternates/repairs that were blessed by a RDP that I had to reject.

The case at had that was brought by the OP lacks details. The steel is 3/4" so there's something going on... is the bar subject to tension or shear? For a long time we didn't require special inspection on epoxy dowels. We even allowed dry-packing.

My point is that this case may matter and then again, maybe not so much. Engineers can develop tunnel vision... if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a snail.... and oh what a mess that can become.

Agreed, if the designer makes changes to the approved plans, they are no longer approved.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I didn't look up the third substitute epoxy, but both of the DeWalt products said they have ICC ESR reports. I suspect if we were to look up those ESR reports they would call for special inspection of the use of those products for embedding rebar. The IBC requires continuous inspection for adhesive anchors covered by subparagraph a below, and periodic special inspection for all others-- Table 1705.3

4. Inspect anchors post-installed in hardened concrete
members.
a. Adhesive anchors installed in horizontally or
upwardly inclined orientations to resist sustained
tension loads.
b. Mechanical anchors and adhesive anchors not
defined in 4.a.