missed special inspection

huangyhg

missed special inspection
hypothetical question for you here guys:
lets say an architect and contractor value engineer special inspections out of a project.  upon the engineer learning of this liberty, the concrete walls to be inspected are halfway complete.  how do you handle this situation?
akastud
david s. merrell, p.e.
tor engineering
as a special inspector, i suggest you kick it back to the building official and that you document that they (everyone else) are the ones that removed special inspections from the project. if the eor allows this to happen, then it could eventually fall back on the eor since they allowed the work to occur/continue without special inspection. if the building official allows this to happen, then the eor should advise all parties involved that they are violating the building code and possibly state law (many states have laws requiring special inspections--however, many states do not actively enforce their own laws). if everything still goes forward, document the heck out of everything because i feel the eor still has liability for allowing it to occur. above all else, the eor should not provide paperwork stating that the special inspections occurred (for example, final report of special inspections). the eor might lose a client but the offset of liability would likely be well worth it. also, by not requiring special inspections, everyone involved increases their exposure to future problems due to deficient workmanship.
you notice i reference "eor" quite a bit...they are the only ones with complete liability should something go wrong in this scenario. i hate to use the word "complete" but the eor is on the hook for the design, oversight/approval of the construction and inspection of the work. the eor is the one that has the biggest target painted on their back. that's my advise for what it's worth. good luck.
you might go to the icc board and discuss the issue among building officials/inspectors. you'll probably get good feedback to your question.
first double check if special inspections are really required for your application.
second, assess what sort of problems could arise from the lack of inspection.  are your walls are pushed to the limit, or do they have double the capacity required?  are they shear walls or gravity?
third, if you feel there could be a serious problem, if for example they put #5's instead of #6's, then i would formalize the problem by writing to the bo, contractor, and architect.
it gets too project specific to tell you what to do from there.
im not so sure the responsibility falls squarely on the eor to babysit the contractor.  there is a large liability the contractor assumes if he/she deviates from the design.  special inspections is intended as a third party control, but if you look at a lot of the requirements, they dont need to be out on site 24/7 to check every piece of reinforcement, every footing dimension, etc.  what if the si misses something...where does the liability lie then?  does your project require structural observations or just special inspections??
if, to take an example here, you designed the structure predicated on special inspections, as cmu, using higher allowable stresses as a result, i would call the bo and stop order the project if the architect and contractor changed the rules in the middle of the game.  sit back, put in your earplugs and watch the sparks fly!
personally, i would not do business with either of them ever again if they left you out of the loop, particularly when the structural design parameters are your call, not theirs.
mike mccann
mccann engineering
my point is that the eor will ultimately end up taking the biggest hit of anyone involved in the project. i'm a geotech with a testing firm and if i was/am involved in a project where special inspections were specified but the architect said they weren't going to be done, i'd first call the eor to get it from them (it is their design and their call, so i'm calling them...not the architect and dang sure not the contractor). then i'd put out a letter stating that we had been directed by the eor to disregard the plans/specs & code requirements. (i'm not going to be the one crucified in court over someone else's decision)
here's a phrase out of my state ammended code (now if the bo says si's aren't required, then you're off the hook to a certain degree if someone decided to take it to litigation--i'd suggest you get that in writing since it doesn't exist if it's not on paper):
1704.1 general. where application is made for construction as described in this section, the owner or the registered design professional in responsible charge acting as the owner’s agent shall employ one or more special inspectors to provide inspections during construction on the types of work listed under section 1704. the special inspector shall be qualified in accordance with table 1704.1. these inspections are in addition to the inspections specified in section 109.
and as i previously noted, it may be code and it may be the law, but it might not be enforced (yet). all i can do is follow the appropriate standard and hope everyone else is doing their jobs. that's the best way for me to stay out of or protect myself from litigation.
i am aware of a cell site on school property where the first 4 courses of block were laid without the special inspector on site. i this case core sampling and testing were prescribed by dsa as remediation. the eor will need to work out with the permitting agency what sort of plan b processes they both find acceptable.
the architect is the lead on the job. it is not the responsibility of the eor to watch him. if the architect and the contractor (both licensed individuals) conspired to circumvent the directives of the eor (and any building code requirements) they alone should be held accountable for their actions.
do not take responsibility for things you didnt inspect.
i have issued inspection reports which finished by saying:
"we were unable to inspect the following areas..."
cover your arse by notifying the client of the consequences of their actions. they can claim they didnt know better, you cant.
csd
let me guess.  the contractor showed the bo your special inspection form to get a building permit, and then tossed it.
as the eor, your responsibilty is to provide the special inspection form and specify the special inspections.  at that point, your job is done, unless you are the special inspector.
apparently, the owner or contractor never hired a special inspector.
the building official should require the special inspection form be presented by a special inspector, before issuing a certificate of occupancy.
as msquared48 says, i'd just stay out of it (the fray, and the building).
the architect is the primary design professional(pdp).  the pdp is responsible for code compliance. many times our industry thinks special inspections are all about the eor or ser.  the truth is that the pdp is a major player that gets overlooked by engineers (i believe it is because of the old engineer/architect rivalry, you know, who are the real designers that are in responsible charge)
your title is wrong.  in your hypothetical, there are no special inspections of the concrete walls. this is because the pdp reduced the scope of si. therefore, no missed inspections.
the contractor has no role in your hypothetical.  sure the contractor can suggest that si be eliminated to reduce costs to the owner, but they can't justify charging less for it.  even if the contractor gave a rebate for inspectionless work, it doesn't matter from a code compliance standpoint as it isn't their role to decide.
the big problem in the hypothetical is that the pdp didn't discuss this with the eor before construction started.  i'm assuming the eor is a consultant to the pdp and the eor specified the si works required.
the eor should request documentation from the pdp that the original statement of special inspections was never presented to the building department or that the pdp amended the statement of special inspections with the building department.  also, it would be a good time to remind them that the eor cannot state that all si work has been completed if it is to include the original scope that has been omitted.
thank you for your input, i have thought of many of the same things.  the jurisdiction where this occured does not require si certificates, other local jurisdictions require them but do not require any final sign off.  many a project has been built with my seal on a si certificate and me not knowing the project was completely built and inhabited until years later.  no one is paying me to drive by the hundreds of unbuilt project sites each week to look and see if there is any activity.  my understanding is that the certificate indicates to the jurisdiction that the owner or agent understand that special inspections are required.  i do not completely understand affixing my seal to the document other than to say to the owner these are the pieces that require it.
as to my hypothetical (aren't they always hypothetical), there are now two sides to the story.  1. the architect says they omitted testing on the project, not ssi (although i do not think they can omit testing by code) 2. the contractor says the architect did approve the change.  either way, it hasn't been done.  a local testing agency has been called to perform the rest of the inspections and the contractor is going to meet with the building official (supposedly) to determine how to proceed.  i am planning on writing a letter with the facts and some sort of disclaimer, and the extent of that letter will be based on what the contractor comes back with.
david s. merrell, p.e.
tor engineering
oh, somehow, i missed the fact that si are not required by law.  in that case, there's no point in filling out a special inspection form and sealing it.  filling out such a form that may not be followed may be giving a false sense of security, to yourself, if no one else.  prior to special inspections in these parts, we used to spell out the required testing and inspections in our specifications.