Liability

[Coalie]

I have been in the electrical industry for over 25 years. As long as I can remember, the electrical contractor has always been liable for all electrical installations to meet code regardless of the electrical engineer’s stamped documents. Meaning that we as electricians must review all electrical documents ensuring that the content will meet the NEC after the installation is complete even if we have to change what has been engineered.
with this being said, has this changed and where can I find this in writing. Does an engineered stamped set of drawings supersede the NEC.?
Also, common practice has us follow the most stringent code if there are multiple codes involved. Is this written as a standard, as such, anywhere?

 

[Buck Parrish]

I agree with you. Although most jurisdiction are different. Some states or cities choose not to adopt the entire Code. Some add to it, and call them ordinances.

Usually somewhere on the blue prints it will state that "All National and local electrical codes must be followed"

The engineer's drawings does not supersede the NEC. They make mistakes, too. For example if an engineer drew prints for a job in rual Indiana. If you used it in Indianapolis. You'd likely have problems.
But if you used it in Terre Haute or Tippecanoe , they don't care or notice.

Elsewhere most inspectors would catch it and want it done by the NEC standards.

However there are exceptions.

I would think during a disaster, like a hurricane 4, they would ease the code enforcement a bit.

 

[gadfly56]

As an engineer it bothers me a bit when I see that sort of general catch-all phrase added to a set of plans. However, there is a reason for that. Usually the plans, even a full design set, are diagrammatic in nature. They don't usually show the exact location of every single device, detailed conduit/wire routing sections and elevations and wire termination details. Frequently the contractor is responsible for providing shop drawings which do include the nitty-gritty information. Since engineers don't control the contractor's means and methods through design, the note is there to back-stop the gap.

That said, if there is the slightest doubt as to whether I've spec'd the correct cable for fire alarm, or got the spacing correct for the smoke detectors or horn/strobes, by all means send an RFI. I'm usually required by the general contract to respond within 5-10 business days.

 

[petersonra]

I have been in the electrical industry for over 25 years. As long as I can remember, the electrical contractor has always been liable for all electrical installations to meet code regardless of the electrical engineer’s stamped documents. Meaning that we as electricians must review all electrical documents ensuring that the content will meet the NEC after the installation is complete even if we have to change what has been engineered.
with this being said, has this changed and where can I find this in writing. Does an engineered stamped set of drawings supersede the NEC.?
Also, common practice has us follow the most stringent code if there are multiple codes involved. Is this written as a standard, as such, anywhere?

The only way to meet all of your contractual commitments is to go with the most stringent one. Just because the code would let you do otherwise does not mean you can ignore contractual requirements and just because it is on a drawing does not mean you can ignore code requirements.

I think one of the reasons you sometimes see statements like "contractor is responsible to meet all local codes" is that often drawings are not complete. They don't show elevations of conduits for instance. This is generally a good thing for the EC as he can run it the most efficient way. However it does put the onus of responsibility for meeting all the required codes on the EC, which is where it really belongs anyway.

 

[Strathead]

I have been in the electrical industry for over 25 years. As long as I can remember, the electrical contractor has always been liable for all electrical installations to meet code regardless of the electrical engineer’s stamped documents. Meaning that we as electricians must review all electrical documents ensuring that the content will meet the NEC after the installation is complete even if we have to change what has been engineered.
with this being said, has this changed and where can I find this in writing. Does an engineered stamped set of drawings supersede the NEC.?
Also, common practice has us follow the most stringent code if there are multiple codes involved. Is this written as a standard, as such, anywhere?

I think your question is vague and has broad implications. The electrical engineer is responsible for the design of the drawings he is paid and contracted to draw. The electrical contractor is legally required to install his work to the locally adopted codes. The EC is also contractually responsible (yes this is legally also) to install their work per the contract documents, which often include a specification issued by the Engineer. When the contract documents conflict with the code, the EC is responsible to notify the Engineer, not to "change what has been engineered". Then it is the Engineer's responsibility to issue solutions. There are some Engineers and Architects who try to put language in contracts that makes the contractor fiscally responsible to make these corrections for free, but the courts and the law don't uphold these clauses when the contractor fights them.

The "more stringent" language is a little more complicated. If you allow that language to obligate you contractually then you are bound by it. But is doesn't refer to multiple codes in my experience, but multiple contract requirement, and usually refers to a conflict between various sections of the contract documents. In my experience, I have found that this phrase is usually put in there to prevent the EC from trying to "get one over" on the design team. Contractors and Engineers who work together rarely run in to conflict on this. If the EC doesn't try to nickel and dime the Engineer, then I have never seen this issue come up. It is when the Engineer conceives that the Contractor is just trying to find a way to change order the job to death that those fights occur. I have been fortunate that I have mostly avoided those jobs in my career. I know they exist. They are often big government jobs. And also often done by big top 50 contractors who have lawyers on staff.

 

[Strathead]

The only way to meet all of your contractual commitments is to go with the most stringent one. Just because the code would let you do otherwise does not mean you can ignore contractual requirements and just because it is on a drawing does not mean you can ignore code requirements.

I think one of the reasons you sometimes see statements like "contractor is responsible to meet all local codes" is that often drawings are not complete. They don't show elevations of conduits for instance. This is generally a good thing for the EC as he can run it the most efficient way. However it does put the onus of responsibility for meeting all the required codes on the EC, which is where it really belongs anyway.

Agreed. Although "not complete" sounds more like an error than an intention.

 

[gadfly56]

Agreed. Although "not complete" sounds more like an error than an intention.

Depending on the parties involved, there may be a delegation of design to the EC for certain portions of the work. This should, of course, be made clear when bids are solicited.

 

[Strathead]

Depending on the parties involved, there may be a delegation of design to the EC for certain portions of the work. This should, of course, be made clear when bids are solicited.

I didn't complete my thought. I meant that it is usually intentional. By not directing exactly how work is to be done it gives both leeway and responsibility to the installing contractor. When they get too specific, it either sets up a situation where I tend to ignore the stringent specs, or I bid way too high to be awarded the job in the first place.

 

[petersonra]

Agreed. Although "not complete" sounds more like an error than an intention.

Do you really want an engineer to try and design conduit hangers and route the conduits? In most cases (seismic zone sometimes an exception) there is no reason for the engineer to try and design these kind of things. the EC can do it better once all the other crap that is in the way is actually there.

 

[gadfly56]

Do you really want an engineer to try and design conduit hangers and route the conduits? In most cases (seismic zone sometimes an exception) there is no reason for the engineer to try and design these kind of things. the EC can do it better once all the other crap that is in the way is actually there.

You are right, and that is why you wind up with "Contractor shall provide a code-compliant...yada, yada". No one could afford the design fees if engineers had to show the precise location, means and methods for every nail, screw and fitting and routing for everything down to the doorbell wire.

 

[Strathead]

Do you really want an engineer to try and design conduit hangers and route the conduits? In most cases (seismic zone sometimes an exception) there is no reason for the engineer to try and design these kind of things. the EC can do it better once all the other crap that is in the way is actually there.

sorry, that is not what I meant. I meant your wording made the statement sound like an error, when it is not. It is intentional to allow the EC leeway in means and methods. A good thing.