- Location
- Massachusetts
In my experience, inspectors will generally enforce the specs as written by the engineer.
Which is the opposite of my experience.
In my experience, inspectors will generally enforce the specs as written by the engineer.
It's not enforceable by the Inspector. It is enforceable by the Owener/Arch/Engineer/GC if you have a contract to install per the specifications.
Below is an excerpt from the jurisdiction I live in, on what a contractor working under a permit must do regarding changing the design that was approved for the permit.
"Sec. 8-2-103.3.2 Revision of Approved Plans.
If during the progress of the execution of the permitted work, it is desired to deviate (in any manner affecting the construction or essentials of the building) from the terms of the application, plans or specifications or statement of costs, notice of such intention to alter or deviate
shall be given in writing to the Code Official.
The Code Official?s written assent shall be obtained before such alterations or
deviations may be made."
Note: Code Official is the Permit and Inspection Department and those in that department tasked to carry out the areas laws regarding same, i.e. the inspector.
As I read this I believe it allows the inspector to enforce the design unless the permitted contractor request and receives approval for the deviation from the design by the Inspector.
Additionally, if you have a contract for the installation to install per the design documents, you must get approval for deviation from the design by the party you are contracted to, if that is what your contract calls for.
As others stated the inspector should not be the party enforcing anything but the code. The intent of the definition of approval is not to allow the AHJ to make up any random requirement they desire.
Having said that I absolutely agree with Charlie & markstg. I personally don't know of any commercial or industrial projects where the contractor was not under contract to provide a complete installation per drawings AND specifications. Almost all engineering drawings I've seen contain a general note on the title sheet clarifying that in event of conflict between drawings, specifications and applicable codes, the more stringent requirement shall be used for bidding purposes. I find it absurd for a contractor to argue that he/she should be allowed to install the very minimum allowed per code. I do understand that we all have to make a buck but it is the designer's responsibility to produce work that is both proper engineering in his/her opinion and meets the needs & wants of the client.
I am getting a mixed message here. Do you agree that approved engineered plans are enforceable or is code enough?
Second post seems to says you agree with me.
This is something that will vary from state to state. State law in Utah makes it unprofessional conduct for an inspector to knowingly approve work that does not conform to the plans and the specifications that have been designed by a licensed design professional.
Which is the opposite of my experience.
Which is the opposite of my experience.
My experience is also that inspectors inspect for code, owners inspectors inspect for design.
In practicality, can I really expect the inspector to read pages and pages of specification, and all the drawings with many notes, etc etc. with each job being different with each engineers nuances on things. No, I do not. And I wouldn't say, for an install not per design, but per Code....Well why didn't the inspector catch that.
Charlie tried but was ignored.
Do not the drawings go through plans review, which is part of the building/electrical department that the inspector is a part of?
Why would he/she not be responsible for enforcement of the approved plans, if his/her department approved them?
Ok, I really shouldn't be speaking for or representing what Inspectors and the plan/spec review or the install inspection by inspector process is.
I've always been on the Engineer/Architect/Owner side of things. I do know what my responsibilities are and those I will perform.
PS: If I found that the EC had installed a smaller ground wire or no ground wire on the MWBC, then the specs called for......
Yes it should be inspected that way, but not by the inspector that represents the government. That inspection should only be my someone who is paid by the owner, not by the taxpayers....
Cool. I respect your position, I just believe that if an engineer designs it, I will install that way and it should be inspected that way, assuming it meets or exceeds code. He/she carries the O and E insurance and that is the final line for me.
...
Yes it should be inspected that way, but not by the inspector that represents the government. That inspection should only be my someone who is paid by the owner, not by the taxpayers.