electrical inspectors enforcing specs

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wyboy

Senior Member
Has anyone ever heard of electrical inspectors enforcing specs provided by the architect or engineer over and above the NEC and local amendments? Do they have the authority?
 
wyboy said:
Has anyone ever heard of electrical inspectors enforcing specs provided by the architect or engineer over and above the NEC and local amendments? Do they have the authority?
Click to expand...

As long as the specs go "over and above", yes they can. The NEC is a Minimum design standard. If the specs go over this than the inspector will inforce it.
 
In NJ the law use to read that we inspected per adopted codes and plans. Then we would require work above and beyound the code if it was referenced in the plans. They later changed the law to as per adopted codes and now we don't enforce above and beyound the code but we can require revised plans if we want them.
 
Cavie said:
As long as the specs go "over and above", yes they can. The NEC is a Minimum design standard. If the specs go over this than the inspector will inforce it.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Did the inspector get a copy of the project manual? Is he conversant with all the RFI's and responses thereto? All the change orders? The AHJ or inspector can only enforce what's required by code. If the spec requires wiring in RMC but the code allows wiring in MC, the inspector has no choice but to say "pass" if the EC uses MC. The rest is a melee with the EC, architect, GC, and owner. If I was an inspector I'd want no part of it.
 
IBC Vol II 106.4: Work shall be installed in accordance with the approved construction documents, and any changes made during construction that are not in compliance with the approved construction docucments shall be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of construction documents.
 
wyboy said:
Has anyone ever heard of electrical inspectors enforcing specs provided by the architect or engineer over and above the NEC and local amendments? Do they have the authority?
Click to expand...

If those specs are on the approved drawings the AHJ has every right to do so. If they're in a spec book that wasn't part of approved plan review, no.

You can also have a situation where the inspector is also the customer. I've done several schools in Palm Beach County and the school board has their own inspectors. They always enforced specs.

My question is though, why are you not following specs? If the customer is willing to pay for (let's say rigid, instead of EMT), why not provide it. That's somewhat like paying for a Mercedes and the auto dealer delivers me a Yugo.
I'm asking this cause I've seen it so many times where a contractor tries to beat the competition by not bidding per specs, then tries to wiggle out of following them.
 
cowboyjwc said:
IBC Vol II 106.4: Work shall be installed in accordance with the approved construction documents, and any changes made during construction that are not in compliance with the approved construction docucments shall be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of construction documents.
Click to expand...
Ick!!!!!! But I will ask - "approved" - By Whom?
 
wyboy said:
Has anyone ever heard of electrical inspectors enforcing specs provided by the architect or engineer over and above the NEC and local amendments? Do they have the authority?
Click to expand...

You will find out that the answer to this question depends on the area that you are in.

There are jurisdictions where by law the inspector is required to inspect to the engineers stamped plans and other areas where the inspector is only required to inspect to the adopted code.

FWIW the State of Utah's licensing statute for inspectors requires that we inspect to the approved engineer's stamped drawings and specifications.

Chris
 
cowboyjwc said:
IBC Vol II 106.4: Work shall be installed in accordance with the approved construction documents, and any changes made during construction that are not in compliance with the approved construction docucments shall be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of construction documents.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm, I stand corrected. At least where the jurisdiction enforces the IBC. If the drawings showed RMC and the EC put in EMT, I suppose the the inspector could reasonably fail the install. If the drawings somehow were silent on the matter (I'll admit an unlikely event) and the spec called for RMC and the EC put in EMT, it might lead to a more interesting round of discussions.
 
dejeud said:
My question is though, why are you not following specs? If the customer is willing to pay for (let's say rigid, instead of EMT), why not provide it. That's somewhat like paying for a Mercedes and the auto dealer delivers me a Yugo.
I'm asking this cause I've seen it so many times where a contractor tries to beat the competition by not bidding per specs, then tries to wiggle out of following them.
Click to expand...

Well duhh, so he can get the work :roll:!! I've seen this, and it's basically "spec shaving". You look at the spec, see what's code vs. the spec, bid to the code and add some fraction to the bid that lies between code and spec (20%? 30%?) and see if anyone catches it. If someone calls your bluff, you try to talk them down to the code. They may say yes, and then demand you give back the difference. That's when you see how much of the contingency you can keep and what it takes to make the customer happy. If they stick to the spec, well, it's beans and franks for the next quarter.

I don't like to work this way. If I'm bidding an alarm system as "parts & smarts" to an EC and I see things I think are likely to drive the price up by a lot without adding real value I'll inform the EC. If it's in the spec I'll bid it as an "add alternate" to the EC and let him decide how he wants to go into the GC.
 
As an engineer, I don't see inspectors (AHJ) reviewing the installed product and enforcing the spec. They seem to enforce only the code.

What is funny though, I send them drawings to approve (plan review and approval) and they return them stating something like they have reviewed them, but they have not reviewed them for code compliance. LOL Cushy job, huh?

Seems that my job is to review their install and enforce the spec (and the code if I have to).

I have seen plenty of installs where the Contractor installed to code and didn't come close to the spec. I've also seen them not come close to code either. :( We always over design and give a quality product, but if they send in an RFI and propose a cost saving method, I will consider it and may even let them do it. If they just do it without asking and then try to 'talk me down to code' then by golly they're going to rip it out and install what was designed...even if its overkill.

Same thing on submitted products. I may not care what brand of wire, lug, condulet, color paint, bolt, nut, widget you submit and install, but if it isn't what was submitted (or its all different types) then we have problems.
 
Quite often it is engineered with overkill. As a plan review I don't try talk them down to minimum. When they "Value Engineer" after the permit is issued then they must have a letter from the engineer approving the change and if it is code they can go forward.
 
I've seen inspection inspect per specs here in cali but most are lax about it and are fine if the contractor negotiates within reason. Myself and most engineers I know don't mind agreeing with stuff thats code compliant - I guess there are a few who can't sleep at night unless they prove they're right (at least in their mind ;) ). Regardless I think it depends on the local codes.

By the way, Dejeud you answered your own question. However sometimes the contractor gets in trouble when they bid WAY low, then the client (specially big clients and when it comes to healthcare facilities, etc.) asks us to go through the product submittals and if they are per specs, then we end up with a project where the contractor wishes they did not big to begin with when they cant get away with installing sub-par crap instead of what was specified.
 
Our office (Nashville) sent out a memo that we were to enforce NEC only.
 
Had a contractor install aluminum conductors for 3 different sub feed runs, everything sized correctly. I looked at the plans and it called for copper and told him to contact the EE, if he was ok with it I was ok with it. EE contacted the owner and the owner asked "didn't I specify copper? I know I did because that's what I wanted."

EC said he installed it because it was cheaper. Owner called him on it and told him that's not what he bid. Expesive mistake.

One of the things that EE's really need to get away from is all of the "cut & paste" plans. I'll have commercial plans that have all kinds of residential energy notes on them and visa versa. Note's that say all electrical shall be installed per Article 517 of the NEC and it's just a suite of offices. I had a contractor try to call me on the fact that it was a medical suite and the plans "didn't" say that he had to wire it per 517.

One of my correction notes is "remove all notes that do not pertain to this job."
 
CA Contractors License Law 7109(b) Departure from Plans and/or Specifications. Minimum Penalty: Revocation, stayed, 2 years probation. Maimum Penalty: Revocation.
 
e57 said:
Around here - the only electrical required to be sumbitted and approved to the AHJ is fire alarm, and energy calc's. The rest is up to you and the client to sort out.... (within the code that is)
Click to expand...

Mark, where is around here? I work all over the SF Bay Area and most projects require electrical plans submitted for review to get a permit. Small jobs such as adding a few receptacles don't usually require plans or calcs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top