Acceptance of conduit routing

[mull982]

I am working as a project engineer on the construction of a new cement plant. I have an electrician who is working with me in the field and is responsible for all QA/QC tasks. The electrican is very detail oriented and comes up with some elaborate schemes for running conduit in various areas.

I tend to go with what he is saying due to the fact that he has much more expereince in the field in regards to conduit routing and having to do maintance work on various installations.

However alot of times the electrical contractor will disagree with the proposed condiut routing and argue that it is unessary and will cost more money therefore it is not thier responsibility to install it as requested. I am then the one who is stuck arguing the commercial issues as to weather or not the required installation is absolutely necessary.

My question is what responsibilty the contractor has in adhering to what the client wants in regards to conduit routing. The specs are very vauge and do not give a whole lot of detail on this issue.

What are others experiences with "contractors duty" vs. "clients preference" in regards to conduit routing?

What about conduit that has already been installed and then the client works up a punch list requiring the contractor to move, re-route, or add fitting to conduit?

What about the client asking for various junction boxes and pull boxes throughout the project to make maintance of areas easier in the future?

 

[celtic]

We [the EC] reserve the right of means and methods....as long as it is code compliant.

 

[billdozier]

as the electrician running the conduit if it doesnt affect the other trades I think you should stay out of the way. I have my reasons for running conduit the way it is ran. The biggest being cost of material. If my runs are done to code including neat and workman like manner that is all that I am required to do

 

[tkb]

If the customer has specified what they want and the routing and the EC submits a price and does not quailfy what changes they made to the RFQ, then the EC should install as requested or repair the installation or issue a credit.

 

[220/221]

The specs are very vauge and do not give a whole lot of detail on this issue.

Well, there you go.


A) Have your guy detail his requirements on the plans.

B) Accept what the EC decides to do.

We are called on to get power from A to B using the best of our skills.

If it needs to go from A to C, to D and then to B, unless it's painfully obvious, you need to tell us.

 

[ceb58]

I am working as a project engineer on the construction of a new cement plant. I have an electrician who is working with me in the field and is responsible for all QA/QC tasks. The electrican is very detail oriented and comes up with some elaborate schemes for running conduit in various areas.

I tend to go with what he is saying due to the fact that he has much more expereince in the field in regards to conduit routing and having to do maintance work on various installations.

Your electricain is trying to look after him self down the road. In a lot of ways I cannot blame him. But if it's not on the plans then its a change order. Your electrican is coming up with "what if's" in his mind later down the road. The only problem is the "what if's" may never come an you have payed extra for nothing.

However alot of times the electrical contractor will disagree with the proposed condiut routing and argue that it is unessary and will cost more money therefore it is not thier responsibility to install it as requested. I am then the one who is stuck arguing the commercial issues as to weather or not the required installation is absolutely necessary.

My question is what responsibilty the contractor has in adhering to what the client wants in regards to conduit routing. The specs are very vauge and do not give a whole lot of detail on this issue.

And there lies the prolem.

What are others experiences with "contractors duty" vs. "clients preference" in regards to conduit routing?

What about conduit that has already been installed and then the client works up a punch list requiring the contractor to move, re-route, or add fitting to conduit?

If it is installed per code, with as you have stated, vauge details.
$$$$$$ Move or add what ever you want $$$$$

What about the client asking for various junction boxes and pull boxes throughout the project to make maintance of areas easier in the future?

See above.

 

[petersonra]

Its the contractor's job to do the work in accordance with the contract. If the client failed to specify what they really wanted, that problem is solely the client's. That does not mean there is no room for compromise on some issues, but if there is extra cost involved, it is the client's problem.

It seems to me that you have allowed this electrician working with you to seriously overstep his bounds which you said are QA/QC. He seems to have gone way beyond that scope.

Its not clear to me who this guy works for, since you used the word "with". If he works for you, you need to make it clear what his bounds are. If he works for the client, you should seek some agreement with the client as to what his scope of responsibility is.

 

[nunu161]

Is it a bid job or T&M? If its a bid let him do it as he wishes hes trying to save his company a few bucks, If its T&M then you should be the one telling how to do it and he shouldnt have a problem as long as hes gettin paid.

 

[mull982]

Thanks for everyones input.

To clarify things, I am employed by the client serving as the client project engineer for the project. The electrican that I was referencing works for us (the client) as well and we hired him to keep a watch on things in the field and handle all QA/QC related tasks.

I did a little more research and found in the specification where it does call out some specifications for conduit routing. Some of them include:

"Conduit routing shall not interfere with the space required for equipment removal or for maintanance. Final and exact location of conduit shall be determined by examination of job conditions and by reference to drawings of all other trades"

I take this to mean that we the client do resereve the right to make the contractor re-move or re-route any conduit that looks like it may interfere with any maintance activities. However I am still vauge as to wheather or not we have the right to request pull boxes, extra conduit racks etc... prior to routing with no extra expense to us the client.

"The owners represenative may require the electrical contractor to remove conduit unions or unnecesary offsets if, in his opinion their use could have been avoided by proper layout and planning of the installation. Such removal shall be at the electrical contractors expense"

How would you guys interpert this one??

"Flexible metallic conduit shall be used for connecting rigid metal conduit to all equiptment subject to vibration, or requiring adjustment, or removal for service"

I take this as meaning that if rigid conduit is run between two strucures or pieces of equipment that we the client feel will expand or vibrate, then we have the right to make the contractor re-install this conduit with flexible conduit. Do others agree?

 

[MarkyMarkNC]

It sounds to me like you are splitting hairs here. I'd be willing to bet this is more of an ego thing on the part of your QC guy than an actual installation problem. Of course he wouldn't be doing his job if he wasn't finding something wrong would he?

For every installation there are a thousand ways to do it "right" and everyone is going to argue that their way is "right" and your way is "wrong." Unless there is a glaring case where equipment maintenance is seriously impeded, or equipment connected to rigid is going to rattle its way out of the connections, I would not try to belabor the specs you cited here. You're just going to escalate what already sounds like a pissing contest.

 

[petersonra]

Thanks for everyones input.

To clarify things, I am employed by the client serving as the client project engineer for the project. The electrican that I was referencing works for us (the client) as well and we hired him to keep a watch on things in the field and handle all QA/QC related tasks.

The task of the electrician seems very vague. QA/QC does not include determining where and how to route conduit.

I did a little more research and found in the specification where it does call out some specifications for conduit routing. Some of them include:

"Conduit routing shall not interfere with the space required for equipment removal or for maintanance. Final and exact location of conduit shall be determined by examination of job conditions and by reference to drawings of all other trades"

I take this to mean that we the client do resereve the right to make the contractor re-move or re-route any conduit that looks like it may interfere with any maintance activities. However I am still vauge as to wheather or not we have the right to request pull boxes, extra conduit racks etc... prior to routing with no extra expense to us the client.

It seems obvious that conduit cannot be routed where it will interfere with equipment removal and maintenance. That seems like a normal kind of requirement. Why would extra j-boxes or racks be needed to fulfill this requirement?

"The owners represenative may require the electrical contractor to remove conduit unions or unnecesary offsets if, in his opinion their use could have been avoided by proper layout and planning of the installation. Such removal shall be at the electrical contractors expense"

How would you guys interpert this one??

I would interpret this means if an offset was installed solely because the contractor screwed up the bend, or a union put in solely to use up short lengths of conduit, that the owner can disapprove of that. I am amazed that an EC would ever agree to such a thing since it is so vague and one sided.
Does the spec require the EC to use 20 foot sections of conduit by any chance? I saw that in a spec once, and the client's inspector was reportedly measuring the distance between unions to make sure it was actually 20 feet.

"Flexible metallic conduit shall be used for connecting rigid metal conduit to all equiptment subject to vibration, or requiring adjustment, or removal for service"

I take this as meaning that if rigid conduit is run between two strucures or pieces of equipment that we the client feel will expand or vibrate, then we have the right to make the contractor re-install this conduit with flexible conduit. Do others agree?

I agree in geenral that it is best to use flexible conduit to make the final attachment to equipment to reduce problems from vibration and to facilitate repair and maintainers. This seems like a no brainer.

 

[mkgrady]

"Conduit routing shall not interfere with the space required for equipment removal or for maintanance. Final and exact location of conduit shall be determined by examination of job conditions and by reference to drawings of all other trades"

"The owners represenative may require the electrical contractor to remove conduit unions or unnecesary offsets if, in his opinion their use could have been avoided by proper layout and planning of the installation. Such removal shall be at the electrical contractors expense"

"Flexible metallic conduit shall be used for connecting rigid metal conduit to all equiptment subject to vibration, or requiring adjustment, or removal for service"

Reading specs is like reading the code. The contractor has to do what the spec says, but it doesn't mean he has to do what you think it means, only what it says.

From your first spec paragraph above, the contractor must look at the drawings of all trades and job conditions for final and exact location of conduit routing. He needs to be sure there are no conflicts with regard to maintaining or removal of the equipment shown on the various contract drawings. It does not mean he needs to know what you plan to have going on in the future. If his conduit runs will conflict with something that he can not accertain from the drawings then you are out of luck.

Second spec paragraph, If the contractor used unnecesary offsets and unions because he failed to plan his routes so they would not be needed, then you can direct him to remove them. Be prepared however for junction boxes in place of the offsets. These are not prohibited in your specifications.

Third paragraph, You can require flexible conduit where rigid is run to equipment that vibrates. Expansion is not mentioned. Only the last couple of feet would be flexible, not the whole run. You can also require flex where using it would facilitate equipment adjustment and or removal, but I suspect that will be as clear as mud.

Something to remember about specifications. They are interpreted in favor of whoever did not write them. If a specification can be reasonably interpreted in two opposing ways it will go to the benifit of the party that did not write it.

As far as requiring lots of other things in the conduit runs that would make the facitily better in the long run, you better figure on paying for all that. You haven't shown anything that would cause the contractor to even consider that part of his contract.

 

[mull982]

It seems obvious that conduit cannot be routed where it will interfere with equipment removal and maintenance. That seems like a normal kind of requirement. Why would extra j-boxes or racks be needed to fulfill this requirement?

Sometimes the electrican would ask for j-boxes to break out wiring better, maybe in place of a fitting. He would ask for boxes to be mounted on certain equipment sort of a top-hats to allow more room for cables so it would be easier to work with in the future.

He has also requested conduit stands in several places more or less as a preference for maintanance. There is one particular case where on our existing plant the conduit is run on the ground of a certain piece of equeipment and now for the new plant he wants to have conduit stands built for which the contractor is asking form more money.

 

[petersonra]

Sometimes the electrican would ask for j-boxes to break out wiring better, maybe in place of a fitting. He would ask for boxes to be mounted on certain equipment sort of a top-hats to allow more room for cables so it would be easier to work with in the future.

i don't see any of this as being required by the spec you quoted. There is a huge difference between what "is easier to work on in the future" and something that "allows for work to be done in the future".

He has also requested conduit stands in several places more or less as a preference for maintanance. There is one particular case where on our existing plant the conduit is run on the ground of a certain piece of equeipment and now for the new plant he wants to have conduit stands built for which the contractor is asking form more money.

Sounds like a change order to me.

<added> Just out of curiousity - who actually wrote the spec?

 

[charlietuna]

We have had only one job as you discribe and we hired a draftsman to submit our conduit routing prior to conduit installation. It is common to combine circuits by increasing pipe size, thereby reducing the number of raceways necessary to run. Most plans do not actually show total routing of conduits, only an arrow coming out of a junction box. Start splitting hairs and the paperwork between engineers and electrical contractors would require more work than the job itself!! Most conflicts between trades is easily handled in the field -- start being specific -- would require some very fancy and accurate plans by the engineer. Most client engineers take our "as builts" and re-draw a set of plans after the job is complete for their client....

 

[Cow]

I would interpret this means if an offset was installed solely because the contractor screwed up the bend, or a union put in solely to use up short lengths of conduit, that the owner can disapprove of that. I am amazed that an EC would ever agree to such a thing since it is so vague and one sided.
Does the spec require the EC to use 20 foot sections of conduit by any chance? I saw that in a spec once, and the client's inspector was reportedly measuring the distance between unions to make sure it was actually 20 feet.

Do you refer to couplings as unions?:-?

 

[petersonra]

Do you refer to couplings as unions?:-?

Not normally. Now and then I screw up though.

 

[SmithBuilt]

"Conduit routing shall not interfere with the space required for equipment removal or for maintanance. Final and exact location of conduit shall be determined by examination of job conditions and by reference to drawings of all other trades"

I take this to mean that we the client do resereve the right to make the contractor re-move or re-route any conduit that looks like it may interfere with any maintance activities.

If the EC runs conduit in front of an access panel I agree. It sounds as things are not this clear.

However I am still vauge as to wheather or not we have the right to request pull boxes, extra conduit racks etc... prior to routing with no extra expense to us the client.

IMO you do not have that right.

"The owners represenative may require the electrical contractor to remove conduit unions or unnecesary offsets if, in his opinion their use could have been avoided by proper layout and planning of the installation. Such removal shall be at the electrical contractors expense"

How would you guys interpert this one??

Almost too vague to enforce. If the problem is excessive you have a right.

"Flexible metallic conduit shall be used for connecting rigid metal conduit to all equiptment subject to vibration, or requiring adjustment, or removal for service"

I take this as meaning that if rigid conduit is run between two strucures or pieces of equipment that we the client feel will expand or vibrate, then we have the right to make the contractor re-install this conduit with flexible conduit. Do others agree?

I agree.


Communication is king. These problems can be avoided in the future by discussing the layout ahead of time.

 

[mull982]

<added> Just out of curiousity - who actually wrote the spec?

The spec was written by the engineering company