I say the Contractor is STILL Responsible

[brother]

Ok, here's the situation, I would like to know how your area inspectors enforce it.

There's this job where the contractor had to move a wall and of course the receptacles had to be relocated as well. There was this 1 special purpose receptacle (50amp) that was on #8 wire but the breaker was 70 amp. Basically oversized and a code violation. Need to down size breaker and a shutdown for that whole panel is needed.

The engineer only drew up the plan for moving receptacles etc.. no mention of the breaker at the panel ( I suppose it was assumed it was correct).. So when the bid was put in and the work done, the contractor only did what he bid for.

There's a debate on who's responsible for the code violation, I say the contractor is still responsible because he had to turn off the power to move the stuff and he 'touch' it and relocated, and installed a CODE VIOLATION'. Others claim that the contractor would have to bill the owner to correct it.

But I say NAY, he should have known better and he should have contacted the engineer and owner and let them know the situation and let them know it would be a 'change order' to relocate that 50 amp.

I say he should just eat the cost and call it a day, besides, its only replacing one breaker (even though its a very old panel) even though a shutdown and late night work would have to be done because of the other circuits in the panel that would affect other areas.

Others say the engineer should pay, others say just charge the owner. How does your area or how would you deal with it??. The contract seemed a little vague, but it did say contractor agrees to install to NEC codes.

 

[LawnGuyLandSparky]

I disagree. The contractor didn't install the violation. The scope of the work was to relocate the wall and the associated electrical equipment within that wall, not correct every code violation he witnessed within the building.

 

[aftershock]

I would charge for the breaker and eat the labor, but that is me.

I would think that the electrical contractor would be responsible for correcting the violation.
Those who the service is being done for should be responsible for paying for it. Of course there are time where no one feels they should have to pay for it and when it comes down to that I resort to my opening line in this response.

 

[brother]

I disagree. The contractor didn't install the violation. The scope of the work was to relocate the wall and the associated electrical equipment within that wall, not correct every code violation he witnessed within the building.

I highlighted the main point i wanted to address. The contractor did install a code violation when he 'relocated' it. He had to run new wire etc.. to put it on a new wall. Thats when it became 'his' code violation. Basically the way it works here is that if you 'touch' it , then its yours and must comply.

Would you say the same thing if it was in your house and you pay an electrician to relocate a 20 amp receptacle on a new wall that was built, and it turns out that receptacle was on a 40 amp breaker??

 

[iwire]

Where I am I would be allowed to move the receptacle without fixing any existing violations. See rule 3


If the inspector felt this was an 'actual hazard' he could employ rule 4.

 

[brother]

Where I am I would be allowed to move the receptacle without fixing any existing violations. See rule 3


If the inspector felt this was an 'actual hazard' he could employ rule 4.

Interesting info/codes from your area. I would wonder if an inspector in your area would use Section 110 that deals with listing. I know this contractor bought a new receptacle 50 and installed it there. The listing cleary says not to install over a 50 amp branch circuit.

 

[dbuckley]

The question is: is this a modification to an existing insatllation? If relocating the reclocation is an addition or modification, then its OK, if its an 'installation' then its a violation.

Semantically, it would be my opinion that placing a recep where there was none previously would be an installation, and thus its a violoation, but its a fine judgement call.

 

[iwire]

I would wonder if an inspector in your area would use Section 110 that deals with listing. I know this contractor bought a new receptacle 50 and installed it there. The listing cleary says not to install over a 50 amp branch circuit.

I am just relocating a receptacle, I have nothing to do with the breaker. That said, in the real world the inspector would likely force the issue to be taken car of.

But what is the load? Perhaps it is supposed to be on a 70 amp circuit even with a 50 amp cord.

 

[brother]

I am just relocating a receptacle, I have nothing to do with the breaker. That said, in the real world the inspector would likely force the issue to be taken car of.

But what is the load? Perhaps it is supposed to be on a 70 amp circuit even with a 50 amp cord.

This equipment is clearly for a 50 amp circuit, (its been confirmed). To be honest I cannot say I have ever seen any equipment with a '50 amp' cord cap that plugs into a 50 amp receptacle that can plug into a 70 amp? According to the NEC this would be a code violation.

Have you ever seen one?

 

[iwire]

This equipment is clearly for a 50 amp circuit, (its been confirmed). To be honest I cannot say I have ever seen any equipment with a '50 amp' cord cap that plugs into a 50 amp receptacle that can plug into a 70 amp? According to the NEC this would be a code violation.

Have you ever seen one?

Welders, motor loads etc., there are exceptions to most NEC sections.

 

[hardworkingstiff]

The engineer only drew up the plan for moving receptacles etc.. no mention of the breaker at the panel ( I suppose it was assumed it was correct).. So when the bid was put in and the work done, the contractor only did what he bid for.

There's a debate on who's responsible for the code violation, I say the contractor is still responsible because he had to turn off the power to move the stuff and he 'touch' it and relocated, and installed a CODE VIOLATION'. Others claim that the contractor would have to bill the owner to correct it.

I say the owner should pay the contractor to fix it since it was not but should have been on the plans.

But I say NAY, he should have known better and he should have contacted the engineer and owner and let them know the situation and let them know it would be a 'change order' to relocate that 50 amp.

I say he should just eat the cost and call it a day, besides, its only replacing one breaker (even though its a very old panel) even though a shutdown and late night work would have to be done because of the other circuits in the panel that would affect other areas.

Others say the engineer should pay, others say just charge the owner. How does your area or how would you deal with it??. The contract seemed a little vague, but it did say contractor agrees to install to NEC codes.

I say the contractor should fix it and charge the owner. Tell the owner before you do it, but do it.

 

[jumper]

The engineer only drew up the plan for moving receptacles etc.. no mention of the breaker at the panel ( I suppose it was assumed it was correct).. So when the bid was put in and the work done, the contractor only did what he bid for.

I would do the same exact thing. The engineer specs are what I follow. Good, bad, or ugly. He carries insurance for mistakes.

 

[roger]

I would do the same exact thing. The engineer specs are what I follow. Good, bad, or ugly. He carries insurance for mistakes.

Same here. Unless there is time pre bid to get a clarrification on an item or items, the deisgn is what I bid and do. If an inspector forces a change then I would submitt a COR and be paid to make the correction.

Roger

 

[petersonra]

fix it by disconnecting the circuit at the PB.

 

[brother]

Same here. Unless there is time pre bid to get a clarrification on an item or items, the deisgn is what I bid and do. If an inspector forces a change then I would submitt a COR and be paid to make the correction.

Roger

How would you deal with the language in the contract that says 'conctractor agrees to complete all installations to (2008 NEC) code.'

 

[roger]

How would you deal with the language in the contract that says 'conctractor agrees to complete all installations to (2008 NEC) code.'

I would complete all the items shown on the bid documents per the 2008 NEC, anything left out of the documents are outside my my bid. I would also include a scope letter to the same effect when I submitted my bid.

Roger

 

[iwire]

Brother I think what many of us are saying is 'where would you have our responsibility end'?

What if the feeder to the panel this circuit comes from has violations?

What if there are 100.26 issues at the panel?

What if the service supplying the building has violations?

We do what we are paid to do and if more is needed someone will have to pay us to do it.

 

[jumper]

How would you deal with the language in the contract that says 'conctractor agrees to complete all installations to (2008 NEC) code.'

EC did not install the circuit, he moved per EE specs.

 

[Steviechia2]

That's why when I write the contract/bid, I make sure anything beyond what is spelled out on the prints and scope of the work is an additional fee. If it's a stab in breaker no big deal but if it's a bolt on breaker It's definitely a few more bucks! I also look to see how much money I am making on the particular job where I can just do the extra work with out any additional charge. This goes a long way when your customer needs some more work done, they will always call you back!

 

[kwired]

I assume you need to shut down the panel late at nignt because you are changing bolt on style breaker and you would be in direct contact with the buss.

If you do not want to do this you could install a feeder from existing breaker to a properly sized breaker and then to the receptacle.

Depending on how much the shut down is going to cost vs the cost of installing the feeder and breaker it could be a good idea. If the shut down is not going to cost much except for inconvenience because it is late at night I would still do it late at night. All work can be done ahead of time and shut down power long enough to change breaker. Changing breaker usually does not take long especially if doing with power off (like you should)

Removing and replacing panel covers sometimes takes more time than changing the breaker.

I don't know who should pay for it. From a contract point of view it could be anybody, from a future business point of view you may need to just eat the cost it may get you more work with the owner, GC or whoever. You could also spread the cost into other change orders if you have them by inflating those change orders and no one even knows about it.