What liability do special inspectors assume for structures? 4

[abusementpark]

Lately, we've been pushing for more owners to perform all the special inspections required by the IBC. However, I've noticed that a lot of the special inspectors don't do a very good job, particularly with rebar.

What type of liability does these guys assume? They sure miss a lot that we have to catch behind them.

 

[azcats]

The firm that had issues inspecting the City Center in Las Vegas was prohibited from taking new projects for 6 months.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/harmon-hotel-inspector-hit-hard?mobile=y

So apparently not much liability assumed.

 

[BAretired]

Why are you pushing for owners to do inspection? Isn't that the job of the EOR?

BA

 

[JLNJ]

The International Building Code places the responsibility for stating what needs to be inspected at the feet of the EOR. The responsibility for hiring the inspector is borne by the Owner.

Playing Devil's advocate: Why should the Owner hire the EOR at big $$ to make sure rebar is placed per the drawings and samples are taken of concrete as it is placed? Shouldn't the EOR be at a bit of a higher level?

In non-seismic areas I often wonder if the Owner is really getting any value from these "special" inspections. The fee for the inspections can exceed the fee for the structural engineering. Somehow that doesn't seem right to me.

 

[BAretired]

If the inspectors are not doing a good job and the EOR has to come to the site and re-inspect, what has been gained?

In the final analysis, the EOR is responsible for his design and also ensuring that the Contractor interprets his design correctly. In my locale, the EOR has to sign off on the structural work not only for design but also for review during construction. I thought that was universally true.

BA

 

[dhengr]

BA:
There is no body who should be better able/more qualified to inspect the construction than the EOR. Who knows the bldg., its design and design intent better than he/she does? Except, every effort is being made to minimize our involvement, we are too expensive, and pushy to do it right. However, here in the U.S., btwn. the insurance companies and attorneys, we are told to call it construction observation, not inspection, which is the responsibility of the G.C. or his various subs. Construction observation means you were out there looking at the scenery, you certainly don’t want to imply that you are really inspecting, supervising or directing the work. You have to be very careful about how to relay any corrective information or direct any work. It is the same old, same old, put the responsibility on the next guy if you can, you’re already on the hook for the design, and God help you if that isn’t perfect. You are from the old school, where we kinda thought the Structural Engineer or Architect were a master builder who really understood how it all worked and went together, and would assume some responsibility for his involvement, and cooperate in getting it done right. We special inspect everything these days because you shouldn’t/can’t expect the construction workers to do it right or care about what they are doing. They get a pay check, and that’s it. We certainly don’t want to sign-off saying it was done right, that is interpreted to be that we guarantee everything.

 

[BAretired]

dhengr,

We differentiate between the terms inspection and supervision as well. We don't tell the contractor how to do the work and we don't direct his men. But we do inspect his work and we do advise him what is required beforehand, at least we did when I was practicing. But if insurance companies and lawyers in the U.S.A. are advising engineers to use the term "construction observation" then I suppose it is just a matter of time until they do the same here.

I guess it is not too important what we call it. We call it "review during construction" but whatever we call it, it is crucial that the contractor's superintendent knows the designer's intent before proceeding with the work.

BA

 

[rowingengineer]

money makes the world turnaround, I'm not in the usa so here we still inspect everything including geotechnical but the clients are starting to push for lower levels of inspections. We shall see if they win.

http://www.nceng.com.au/

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

 

[Ron]

Also here in the US, your professional liability insurance premium goes up if you inspect your own designs. The insurors thought there is if you don't inspect your own work, you can always blame a failure on someone else!

 

[abusementpark]

The firm that had issues inspecting the City Center in Las Vegas was prohibited from taking new projects for 6 months.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/harmon-hotel...

So apparently not much liability assumed.

Interesting.

It sure seems to me like an owner could sue an inspector for some part of damages associated with blatant construction errors that were repeatedly missed.

 

[abusementpark]

In the final analysis, the EOR is responsible for his design and also ensuring that the Contractor interprets his design correctly. In my locale, the EOR has to sign off on the structural work not only for design but also for review during construction. I thought that was universally true.

Well, there are some firms that are fine with performing no construction administration services as longs as it is clearly stated in their contract. My firm isn't one of them and the reason has to with what you said, making sure the design is correctly interpreted. You've got to be pretty damn confident in your documents to believe that they could not be misinterpreted in some way. I guess it could be a reasonable assumption for very cookie-cutter work. But almost every job we work on has some unique aspects.

Now, I would never want to sign off or guarantee any contractor's work.

 

[spats]

I was recently asked to provide a letter certifying the as-built condition of a mezzanine I designed. Essentially, the landlord was asking me to certify or warrant that the contractor has completed every bit of construction according to my design. Nobody in their right mind would ever certify as-built construction, EOR or special inspector. I would essentially be assuming the owners liability, and the contractor's. My insurance company tells me that assuming another’s liability is basically an uninsurable action, and I would not be covered.

Even when I directly observe milestone construction activities, like I do as a licensed Special Inspector in the State of Florida, I cannot "certify" the construction since I have not observed 24-7. In my final sign-off letter to the building department, I basically state "To the best of my knowledge and belief, the construction of all structural load-bearing components described in the Threshold Inspection Plan complies with the permitted documents, and as directed by the structural engineer-of-record."

I might well be considered liable by the parties involved if something went wrong, but my insurance company would not stand behind me if I assumed somebody else's liability. That's why you must be very careful with the words you choose, and as others have said, never direct work in the field that is the responsibility of others.

 

[BAretired]

Inspection by the EOR or an outside inspection agency does not relieve the contractor of his liability and does not guarantee the contractor's work. The authority having jurisdiction requires only that the person or company responsible for inspection state that the work is in accordance with contract documents "to the best of his knowledge and belief". The inspector cannot and should not certify the work of the contractor.

If a structure fails after completion, the conduct of all individuals involved during construction will be reviewed. Liability may be apportioned to all those found responsible including the inspector if his work during construction is deemed to be unskilled or negligent.

BA

 

[SLTA]

Special inspections involves a lot of very technical testing skills that most structural engineers don't have - checking welds, slump and strength testing of concrete, etc. Sure, we know the design side behind it, but to do the actual testing of it? Seems to me that's another specialized field... hence, special inspectors and testing companies.

 

[spats]

slta,

I don't agree with your statement about Special Inspectors having "very technical testing skills". I'm a Special Inspector, but all it really takes to be licensed in Florida is to be a P.E. and have "X" number of years of experience doing field inspections. There is no special testing to show proficiency in inspecting welds, knowing how to take cylinders, etc. I'm sure it's similar in other jurisdictions. Special Inspectors don't take cylinders, they review test reports only. When it comes to visually inspecting welds, I know just as much if not more than some technician from a testing agency, even without special training. If welds actually need testing, a testing agency performs the work. "Special Inspectors" and "testing agencies" are not synonymous.

 

[SLTA]

Our local SEA group just had a talk about special inspections, and everything I said was straight out of the presentation. Interesting that it's being disagreed with. Now I'm wondering if things are different in FL, or if our presentation wasn't correct.

 

[dhengr]

Abusementpark:
The owner (his attorneys and money people) doesn’t want the best and most capable inspector, which would be the EOR, he’s already on the hook for the design, and really sueable. The owner wants to maximize the pool of people he can sue if anything goes afoul. They’re all/each good for 20, 30, 40k, just to get out of the fray. It seems that anyone who gets near a construction site these days might be sued, so be very careful what you do or say when you are there. And, if we rap it all up with BIM, we can all be mesmerize by all the colors and many layers. Then when we get to court we can claim that that wasn’t our color or our layer, and all well be forgiven.

Most of my time on a job site these days is because someone else has shot a bull, so I am looking at one area and what went wrong at that location. Someone else has found the problem, and now what to do to fix it. Special inspection is a strange animal too, they may be out here to inspect one thing, and they could walk right by the fact that six concrete columns are missing and never notice or comment on it. They were contracted to look at the vert. rebar in a CMU wall, nothing else, so how does that mean we are providing better construction or a better bldg? As a younger engineer, I remember a much broader inspection responsibility, and I also generally remember a much more cooperative and amicable relationship with the contractor, in an effort to get it done right. I can imagine what Ron says, but I’ve not run into that problem yet. Pretty soon they will want a premium increase if we want to be insured for what we are paying a premium to being insured for. In my old age, I’m upset with they way they have sliced and diced the responsibility for anything and everything. This quadruples the potential for communication error or lapses; the third guy down the chain has no idea of the real engineering intention of that #5 bar, he just checks off that it is there, and maybe not in the right location. We can’t afford to pay the EOR to do a proper job any longer, because of these other seventeen layers of inspectors and paper shufflers. And, I don’t see any evidence that we are producing better infrastructure, just employing more flunkies.

 

[Ron]

spats...a "Special Inspector" under Florida law is different than that described and used in the IBC and requires that the Special Inspector of Threshold Buildings have separate qualifications, such as being a licensed professional engineer in Florida and meeting the other requirements of the state board for such certification. You are correct in that it does not require the engineer to have specialty testing capabilities, but he is responsible to see that it is done and to review the results. A Special Inspector under this definition is only required on certain defined buildings (more that 3 stories in height, greater than 500 person assembly occupancy or greater than 5000 sf of assembly area).

[highlight #FCE94F]slta's statement is correct as well[/highlight]...in most instances a "Special Inspector" under IBC definition has special skills in the field testing and inspection of various building components. They must demonstrate their capabilities to the satisfaction of the building official through various levels of training (ASNT Level II for welding inspection,NICET Level III for concrete, etc.)

The Florida law is confusing when both definitions are used...as an example, we have run into instances in Dade and Broward where the AHJ wanted "Special Inspection" of masonry walls of a small, one-story building have no assembly occupancy. That doesn't come under the Threshold Building criteria, but would come under the IBC criteria of special inspection.