Owner/Contractor doesn't want me on site 5

[vato]

I recently visited the site of a new building which I designed to perform a construction observation of
wall reinforcement on an ICF building. I noticed a lot of honeycomb in the recently poured footers and I remarked that the walls need to be poured much better than that or I will reject it. I like to remove some foam in random spots to make sure the pour was done properly on ICF walls. The crew was also inexperienced in pouring icf walls so I had legitimate concerns. Anyway, the owner/contractor stopped communicating with me after I asked in and email when is the next pour? He has since told me, thanks for the design, but we are fine with inspections by the building department, we'll call you when we need you. I asked if it was ok for me to visit the site and photograph construction progress for my records (in an email). And now I'm getting no response.
I'm not sure how to handle this one. Do I have any legal rights regarding the ability to visit the site if it's not explicitly stated in the contract? Should I just raise my concerns to the building department and let it go?
Thanks in advance for the help.

 

[vato]

It is residential which will eventually become commercial with a future change of use, just to muddy the water a little.
I designed it as a commercial building.
Even as commercial there would be no special inspection required for it that I am aware of. ICF walls with wood trusses and nothing crazy.

I hear you Mike. I typically try to create a really open relationship with the gc during construction and probably put myself out there more than a lawyer would recommend. I did inform the "owner/contractor" but the "contractor/owner" is not concerned. So I will contact the building department and convey my concerns.
Unfortunately, the building department here could start a longer thread than this.

And thanks to everyone for paying some attention to this situation. I really appreciate the advice.

 

[MacGruber22]

msquared48, I understand the uncomfortable feeling you have about it. Maybe in your area, the legal and insurance "climate" is such that you shouldn't perform observations. However, it is a bit concerning that the EOR should be categorically afraid (nervous, etc.) to visit the construction site. I understand that in legal claims blame is distributed 100% to all parties (initially) in the vicinity; but, that broad legal tactic is found in every walk of life. I think that it is more important to have well-constructed legal basis than to be paralyzed by the mere thought of risk. As somewhat of a side note, I think we all know that is beneficial to have a close relationship with our errors and omissions liability carrier. Ours have often provided seminars and other preemptive guidance, and engaging in those activities with the insurance carrier pays off two-fold - 1) you're learning great construction legal stuff 2) the insurer tends to trust that you are doing as much as you can to mitigate their liability.

That said, these people the OP are dealing with warrant a more careful approach.

 

[JLNJ]

I don't think the Special Inspection requirements are waived in low wind and seismic areas as a matter of course.

We have slowly (finally!) seen more and more CBOs ask for inspection statements, inspections, and reports (here in the midwest) even though the requirement for statements and inspections has been in the code for a while now. Locally there was a tall masonry wall which fell over during construction (the verts were never placed in the wall) and that triggered the regional CBOs to ask the design professionals for their special instection statements.

 

[rb1957]

my 2c (and i doubt it's worth that) ...

1) i think you're not responsible for inspection, that's someone else's responsibility; and their responsibility to co-ordinate inspections so they can inspect critical elements of the structure.
2) you might inject your personal opinion on how things should be done, increasing cost.
3) you might be "hiding" some short comings of the design with these "observations" by objecting to how they're doing something ... but probably not really ... any change would be a drwg change. mind you i'd've thought it was a good check to have the guy who designed it look over his creation to see that it was how he expected it to be.
4) i find it odd that you "persona non gratia" at the site. i would file something on record of the state of affairs.
5) it'd be interesting to see if you could get the guys who are inspecting the work to invite you to the site during their inspection ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[vato]

The building department is performing required inspections, as far as I know, but they require nothing of me in terms of signing off or giving them direction.
Again, I was only going to perform construction observation, and it was minimal per the contract.

rb1957 - I had the thought of showing up with the county's inspector, but the letter that I'm going to write will likely end up causing enough problems with
the owner/contractor. I was a hero, as far as the design goes, until I noticed the crappy footer.

And just to add some color to the thread, while on site, after commenting on the lack of consolidation and while checking some rebar placement, the project manager yells down to me "you know structural engineering is not an exact science!" I didn't go into why he is the reason it's not an exact science, but another red flag for sure.

 

[MacGruber22]

Ugh...yeah we know it isn't an exact science all the time - part of OUR job is to understand those tolerances that make it more artful sometimes.

Even worse, what his snarky remark says to me is that he doesn't give a rats behind about the ACI 117. I hope this works out for you, vato.

 

[BigH]

Is there anything that might affect the safety of the public after construction? I would think that this needs to be addressed as well as the rights and obligations of the EOR. This has not been brought up yet.