Engineer VS. AHJ

[gadfly56]

Thank you for all your replies.
In the past, I have simply issued a VE request to the engineer with price changes. Some get approved, some get denied.
This question is hypothetical in nature and I believe this forum has made it clear.
Thank you.

Now, another hypothetical question.

Lets say an engineer under designed a project and his design would not meet NEC requirements.
Can the AHJ fail the installation for not meeting code even though the drawings were stamped by an EE?:?

You betcha. In the end, every code enforcement agency puts the onus on the installer for a code-compliant installation. Also, the next set of plans for a project I see that don't carry a phrase to the effect that "Installer shall provide a code-compliant installation suitable for the intended use" or something similar, will be the first set I've ever seen.

 

[Carultch]

Thank you for all your replies.
Now, another hypothetical question.

Lets say an engineer under designed a project and his design would not meet NEC requirements.
Can the AHJ fail the installation for not meeting code even though the drawings were stamped by an EE?:?

Yes. That is precisely what an AHJ has the authority to do. To cite violations of applicable codes, regardless of who caused it to be built that way. AHJ's do not cite people, they cite buildings. "The building doesn't comply with the NEC, because it doesn't meet this rule".

It is not an AHJ's job to catch you not meeting an overly conservative design provided by the engineer. That is a job for other people on the project team, hired by the owner. It is the AHJ's job to cite the construction when it doesn't meet code.

 

[steve66]

Now, another hypothetical question.

Lets say an engineer under designed a project and his design would not meet NEC requirements.
Can the AHJ fail the installation for not meeting code even though the drawings were stamped by an EE?:?

Yes, the AHJ can fail an installation for not meeting the code.

IMO, I believe in most cases, public safety is enhanced when the engineer, AHJ, and contractor all agree that a particular installation is safe and code compliant.

The typical workflow of design by an engineer, plan review by the AHJ, installation by a trained electrician, and inspection by AHJ tends to work pretty well.

 

[GoldDigger]

in general, yes

One exception being where the plan set explicitly asked for a variance from NEC for plausible reasons and it was granted in plan review.

 

[ggunn]

Lets say an engineer under designed a project and his design would not meet NEC requirements.
Can the AHJ fail the installation for not meeting code even though the drawings were stamped by an EE?:?

Of course, but then it would be the engineer's fault that it failed, not yours. The best scenario would be for you to review the plans and find the error before anything gets built, and then confer with the engineer to get it corrected in the plans. I work closely with electricians and if they find something I have missed, I am very grateful.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Yes, the AHJ can fail an installation for not meeting the code.
...........

You betcha. In the end, every code enforcement agency puts the onus on the installer for a code-compliant installation. Also, the next set of plans for a project I see that don't carry a phrase to the effect that "Installer shall provide a code-compliant installation suitable for the intended use" or something similar, will be the first set I've ever seen.

I totaly agree with gadfly,
I have yet to see a set of plans that don't place all the blame with the contractor~

 

[Ingenieur]

You betcha. In the end, every code enforcement agency puts the onus on the installer for a code-compliant installation. Also, the next set of plans for a project I see that don't carry a phrase to the effect that "Installer shall provide a code-compliant installation suitable for the intended use" or something similar, will be the first set I've ever seen.

around here the owner bears responsibilty if he wants his occupancy permit

those clauses seldom hold up in arbitration/court
as long as notice was served to the owner/engineer
most are discovered during pre-bid rfi's
if subtle and missed by both parties the owner pays
the contractor is not responsible for the engineers e&o

all kind of bogus crap in contract docs
like delay damages, ie, $100/day past beneficial occ date
contracts must be fair to both parties
if there are delay penalties there must be bonuses for early completion

we had one of the best lawyers in the field review our docs
west point, viet nam
msce plus pe, over 12 years, taught engineering in the evenings
then law school
http://www.lawyerdb.org/Lawyer/Brian-Ashbaugh/
kept me out of trouble lol
met him while taking a grad course in engr & construction law

 

[Sierrasparky]

around here the owner bears responsibilty if he wants his occupancy permit

those clauses seldom hold up in arbitration/court
as long as notice was served to the owner/engineer
most are discovered during pre-bid rfi's
if subtle and missed by both parties the owner pays
the contractor is not responsible for the engineers e&o

all kind of bogus crap in contract docs
like delay damages, ie, $100/day past beneficial occ date
contracts must be fair to both parties
if there are delay penalties there must be bonuses for early completion

we had one of the best lawyers in the field review our docs
west point, viet nam
msce plus pe, over 12 years, taught engineering in the evenings
then law school
http://www.lawyerdb.org/Lawyer/Brian-Ashbaugh/
kept me out of trouble lol
met him while taking a grad course in engr & construction law

Yea but you are an engineer and they usually prevail if the contractor does not have written documentation of a change that was made!

 

[oldsparky52]

Lets say an engineer under designed a project and his design would not meet NEC requirements.
Can the AHJ fail the installation for not meeting code even though the drawings were stamped by an EE?:?

In theory, the AHJ's plans reviewer should have caught it before the permit was issued. The 2nd person that should have caught it would be the EC. If it got past those 2 and the EI catches it in the field, then a disgruntled EE will most likely be culpable but probably will cite the clause that says the contractor is responsible for all mistakes (sarcasm).

Push comes to shove and things get settled or the lawyers get involved then everybody loses.

 

[Ingenieur]

Yea but you are an engineer and they usually prevail if the contractor does not have written documentation of a change that was made!

I've worked both sides
contracting 10+ years
consulting close to 20

do NOT proceed without written authorization
an email is sufficient
if he won't put it in writing do not trust him

I had a good working relationship with most contractors
if The ec owed me I would hold the credit until the end
chances are I would owe him for some co's
we would negotiate a settlement at the end
private work only
public work my hands were tied, EVERYTHING was done by the book

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Unless the governmental agency has adopted a code that requires compliance with both the NEC and the project plans and spec, the inspection has no legal authority to require compliance with the plans and specs. His authority is to inspect the the legally adopted codes. It is rare to find an adopted code that requires compliance with the design plans and specs.

The compliance with the plans and specs is a civil issue between the contractor and the owner and a tax payer supported inspection authority has no business sticking his nose in that issue.

 

[Smart $]

Unless the governmental agency has adopted a code that requires compliance with both the NEC and the project plans and spec, the inspection has no legal authority to require compliance with the plans and specs. His authority is to inspect the the legally adopted codes. It is rare to find an adopted code that requires compliance with the design plans and specs.

The compliance with the plans and specs is a civil issue between the contractor and the owner and a tax payer supported inspection authority has no business sticking his nose in that issue.

The problem with that perspective is the NEC specifically states...

Approved. Acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required or
permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved.

It is plainly obvious what that means if plans have been 'approved for construction' through the AHJ.

 

[gadfly56]

Unless the governmental agency has adopted a code that requires compliance with both the NEC and the project plans and spec, the inspection has no legal authority to require compliance with the plans and specs. His authority is to inspect the the legally adopted codes. It is rare to find an adopted code that requires compliance with the design plans and specs.

The compliance with the plans and specs is a civil issue between the contractor and the owner and a tax payer supported inspection authority has no business sticking his nose in that issue.

I know in NJ, as long as the plans meet code, whatever is on them will be enforced, even if it is above and beyond code. It has to be, and I'm sure it's the same most places. How can an AHJ parse every exception to the drawings that a contractor wants to take, especially if the contractor only picks some of the possible downgrades? Now, in NJ he'd be rightly accused of practicing engineering without a license if the plans are signed and sealed. Which they must be, unless it's a HO doing his own work.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I've worked both sides
contracting 10+ years
consulting close to 20

do NOT proceed without written authorization
an email is sufficient
if he won't put it in writing do not trust him

I had a good working relationship with most contractors
if The ec owed me I would hold the credit until the end
chances are I would owe him for some co's
we would negotiate a settlement at the end
private work only
public work my hands were tied, EVERYTHING was done by the book

There should be no negotiation at the end. Are you kidding. You as the bank have the upper hand in private work. The changes cost should be known. If it is time and material it should be documented not negotiated.

 

[electrofelon]

Unless the governmental agency has adopted a code that requires compliance with both the NEC and the project plans and spec, the inspection has no legal authority to require compliance with the plans and specs. His authority is to inspect the the legally adopted codes. It is rare to find an adopted code that requires compliance with the design plans and specs.

The compliance with the plans and specs is a civil issue between the contractor and the owner and a tax payer supported inspection authority has no business sticking his nose in that issue.

But some areas do require plans to be reviewed and approved by the AHJ. In that case, they would likely want the installation to match the plans. Now you could certainly resubmit modified plans, pay the additional fee for the second review, and install to that and the AHJ wont care (unless they require stamped plans of course and you are not an EE. In Washington State, I could design a skyscraper or a whole hospital - it would require plan review, but no EE required).

 

[Ingenieur]

There should be no negotiation at the end. Are you kidding. You as the bank have the upper hand in private work. The changes cost should be known. If it is time and material it should be documented not negotiated.

there is usually negotiation of change orders at closeout for large contracts, unless the contractor wants to play by the book, most are willing to work with you
it's give and take and simplifies the paperwork for both parties
I've managed 100's of large projects, several 100 thousand to 15 mil being the largest
the costs are known, for both credits and charges
some projects will have dozens of CO's, but credits/charges are usually only ~5% of the contract, so typically not a big cash flow issue
mutual trust

 

[don_resqcapt19]

But some areas do require plans to be reviewed and approved by the AHJ. In that case, they would likely want the installation to match the plans. Now you could certainly resubmit modified plans, pay the additional fee for the second review, and install to that and the AHJ wont care (unless they require stamped plans of course and you are not an EE. In Washington State, I could design a skyscraper or a whole hospital - it would require plan review, but no EE required).

Even where they require plan review and approval by the inspection department, they cannot enforce anything other than the legally adopted code. If they have an adopted rule that says they will inspect to the approved plans and specifications, that is fine. If their adopted code only specifies compliance with the NEC, they have no legal authority to enforced the approved plans and specs.

 

[Ingenieur]

Even where they require plan review and approval by the inspection department, they cannot enforce anything other than the legally adopted code. If they have an adopted rule that says they will inspect to the approved plans and specifications, that is fine. If their adopted code only specifies compliance with the NEC, they have no legal authority to enforced the approved plans and specs.

in our state if the drawings are required to be sealed the plans/specs are enforced in conjunction with the NEC
you can't deviate from plan/spec

 

[Fulthrotl]

You betcha. In the end, every code enforcement agency puts the onus on the installer for a code-compliant installation. Also, the next set of plans for a project I see that don't carry a phrase to the effect that "Installer shall provide a code-compliant installation suitable for the intended use" or something similar, will be the first set I've ever seen.

extra double plus you betcha.

i went into USC at 4am this morning, to watch the
electrical inspector have the contractor for breakfast at 5 am.

stamped approved drawings, correct or not, beats a full house
any day. until the AHJ doesn't agree. where to even start......

engineer was creative. used juno 12v. track lights instead of 120 volt
track lights.

for downlighting. in a title 24 primary daylighting zone. 13 watt heads.
7 per track. 10 tracks. in 600 sq. ft. track doesn't have current limiting
devices on track.

controlled and daylight harvested off a grafic eye system.

i'm watching the inspector go thru the prints, while i wait for the outcome.

stamped, approved drawings. contractor installed per drawings, did not
have any RFI's. just put it in.

AHJ finally looks around at the install, i say i'm the one doing the third party
T24 certification. he looks at me, and says "why are you even here at this point?". :lol:

needless to say, they didn't get final today. or a T24 cert. we are on a bold adventure
to see if low voltage juno lights can successfully produce a T24:2016 compliant install.

it isn't looking good right now. they aren't designed to be dimmed. bet they flicker
like a mother when this is all said and done. and you have to be able to drop the
power consumed by two thirds, without it flickering.

 

[dpeter]

How is a "Flicker" defined?