MC ap issue w/ Engineer

Status
Not open for further replies.
RUWired said:
It was a tube untill the manufacturer stuffed it with a bunch of wires. Then it became a cable. IMO the dividing line is how we put it to use.Nonmetallic sheath was a tube untill they put in the conductors, and then it became a cable. Both of which can be put in a tube or conduit.
Rick
Click to expand...

Rick, where in your definition of 'conduit' does it specify when the conductors are installed?

But forget about that, this disagreement between us perfectly illustrates the need for the person writing the specification with specific words that can not be used in multiple ways. :)
 
Ron, that is one of the links I e-mailed to the engineer, somewhere in that article is says its 350% safer.
I hoping he thinks so as well, we have about 3500' of mc ap pulled and strapped, I don't want to remove it and loose my butt

ken
 
kengod said:
Tx for the reply,

The spec sheet "raceways and Boxes for electrical systems" sections states the following

Click on this link to view this section, I uploaded it to my flkr account for all to view and read, its easier then typing the entire thing

Tx
Ken

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/2811588614_b49d32b439_b.jpg
Click to expand...

If i was reviewing the spec's for the first time before ordering the material for the job, i would had made clear with an RFI that any type of MC was allowed any where other than in the walls.To me it is clear that MC is only allowed in the walls and for final connections.
Rick
 
ruwired,
it also states,

inter connections between all recessed lights and junction boxes

and the one I am glad is in there,

final connections where rigid conduit is not practical.

The use of the phrase "is not practical" in my eyes leaves that definition up to the installer. I could do almost the entire store in Mc and say, In my opinion it was not practical to use rigid conduit, and I would 100% correct because they left the definition of not practical up to me.

Still doesn't help the mc ap situation tho.

Ken
 
kengod said:
ruwired,
it also states,

inter connections between all recessed lights and junction boxes

and the one I am glad is in there,

final connections where rigid conduit is not practical.

The use of the phrase "is not practical" in my eyes leaves that definition up to the installer. I could do almost the entire store in Mc and say, In my opinion it was not practical to use rigid conduit, and I would 100% correct because they left the definition of not practical up to me.

Still doesn't help the mc ap situation tho.

Ken
Click to expand...

WOW, not practical IMO is not being able to run a metal raceway down an existing block or poured wall, or an existing hard ceiling with out demo. Good luck with that one.
 
Ken, The more I read the more I think you know exactly what you are doing.

I'm sure you can bid a job in mc for less than pipe and wire for these stores.

The impression the specs. gives is mc is only allowed in limited applications, if

the other bidders figured pipe and wire, well you are a shoe-in. The only

problem is you are rolling the dice, some you win some you don't. If you don't

want to lose your butt, don't put yourself in the position you are in.
 
benaround said:
Ken, The more I read the more I think you know exactly what you are doing.

I'm sure you can bid a job in mc for less than pipe and wire for these stores.

The impression the specs. gives is mc is only allowed in limited applications, if

the other bidders figured pipe and wire, well you are a shoe-in. The only

problem is you are rolling the dice, some you win some you don't. If you don't

want to lose your butt, don't put yourself in the position you are in.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly!

When estimating a project, it is imperative that the estimator read and comprehend the specs and estimate the job accordingly.

If there is some conflict or confusion in the interpretation of the specs, an RFI should be sent to the engineer for clarification in writing.

It has been my experience that many estimators balk at submitting RFIs because the engineers response is typically available to all bidders, thus eliminating the requestors competive edge. A "crap shoot".

I have also seen estimators pick up on print errors and remain silent in hope of a lower initial bid and a subsequent change order once the job is underway. Another risky proposition.

Then there are contractors who do not execute the work according to spec on purpose, in hope of saving money and increasing profit. Their argument is, "you don't need to do that crap, do it like this".

I knew of a contractor that installed die cast EMT fittings in lieu of the specified steel fittings on a government job. He got caught and had to change every fitting. What a PITA! This error/act of greed proved ultimately fatal.

As far as the OP goes, I hope Ken can present a case in his favor gets this resolved.
 
I was NOT trying to save money, MC and MCap cost the same. Yes it saves labor time, but more so I am giving the client a SAFER product then what they are spec'n out. As I understand it MC will be phased out over the next 5 years anyway, so sooner or later he will have to accept the MC ap

Bottom line the product I am using is safer, the engineer doesn't know anything about the product, so I emailed tons of literature trying to educate him and show him that I am installing a product that is safer then what he has in his spec's.
He is ok with mc runs, We didn't run mc from panel out, we ran our emt to local j box's then used mc ap, Its not how we wired the store its he is not sure what MC ap is and he is concerned about it not being safe.
I will also try to relieve any concerns he might have tomorrow by talking with him and letting him know the local Southwire rep is willing to stop by there office and further explain the product to him.

Ken
 
kengod said:
I was NOT trying to save money, MC and MCap cost the same. Yes it saves labor time, but more so I am giving the client a SAFER product then what they are spec'n out.
Click to expand...

Safer?

Based only on the manufacturers opinion and did they really say it was 350% safer or did that say it could handle 350% more fault current?

Having the EGC able to carry 350% more current then the circuit conductors it serves really does not make things safer.

No matter how you spin it the spec calls for copper conductors and the MCap has an aluminum EGC.
 
Looks like the engineer has 'got' you.

First, it's not a code issue, or a listing issue. It's a spec issue. He specified a ground wire ... even in pipe. Remember, the code does not ordinarily require a ground wire in pipe ... while the pipe is a recognized ground path, he wanted to go 'beyond' the code.

Now ... here's another approach to take .....
I would guess his position, his specification, was driven by a desire to avoid the use of AC, or 'armored cable.' To his eyes, the new product sure looks like AC.
You need to get him to understand that the product was, in fact, listed as MC, and not as AC, even though the code definitions of the products would lead you to think otherwise. The same situation arises with the use of "Health care MC."

The key is getting the engineer to recognize that the market is changing, that AC is (according to my rep) no longer being produced, and that much of this will likely be reflected in the next code cycle.

Otherwise .... consider your loss as 'tuition.' You've just had a lesson in the need to read the specs, and to clarify any gray areas before you pass the point of no return.
 
kengod said:
I was NOT trying to save money, MC and MCap cost the same. Yes it saves labor time, but more so I am giving the client a SAFER product then what they are spec'n out. As I understand it MC will be phased out over the next 5 years anyway, so sooner or later he will have to accept the MC ap

Bottom line the product I am using is safer, the engineer doesn't know anything about the product, so I emailed tons of literature trying to educate him and show him that I am installing a product that is safer then what he has in his spec's.
He is ok with mc runs, We didn't run mc from panel out, we ran our emt to local j box's then used mc ap, Its not how we wired the store its he is not sure what MC ap is and he is concerned about it not being safe.
I will also try to relieve any concerns he might have tomorrow by talking with him and letting him know the local Southwire rep is willing to stop by there office and further explain the product to him.

Ken
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to beat you up or make any accusations.
I was just trying to point out some common problems with specs.
Your not the only guy that's been tangled up in the spider web of job specs.

Based on the info(excerts of the spec) you provided, it appears that they wanted you to use conduit with a green EGC...not cable.

If you had submitted your substitution, backed by supporting data, to the engineer up front before taking it upon yourself to make the change, they may have approved your proposal and you would not have to be dealing with this headache.
 
R Bob,
that much is true,

In my 20 years of doing electrical work I have never been told I couldn't use a better product then what is being spec'd out. Just seems to be a backward way of thinking, and very frustrating. IF I cant help him understand that MC ap is safe then I'll have to just rip out the 3k of MC ap I have in there and replace it with MC. I can reuse most of what I rip out for light whips on anther job we are on so for the most part Ill loose the days labor pay for my guys, Not the end of the world by any means, but still piss's me off that I have to deal with old mind sets and old ways of thinking.
 
It will be interesting whether the MCap will replace regular MC as many will not accept an AL EGC because it is AL.
Other than the manufacturer, there is no documentation that MCap is as good regarding EGC performance as compared to MC cable with an insulated EGC.
I've avoided AC cable in the past because of its AL EGC in conjunction with the jacket, so this product probably will not be different for me until I see unbiased testing.
 
Back when I used to occasionally write installation specs for equipment, I always had a paragraph up front that required bidders to bid the spec, but encouraged them to supply alternate bids using different materials or techniques that would result in a lower cost than bidding the spec. I can't recall ever having a bidder bid an alternate. I had a few come back after they won the bid and ask about it then.

If this was me, I might have some sympathy, based on the fact that I would not want to put the job schedule at risk by removal of the non-compliant material. OTOH, it is unfair to the other bidders who probably bid what was actually spec'd that the winning bidder gets to change material after the fact. But the schedule comes before fairness.
 
petersonra said:
OTOH, it is unfair to the other bidders who probably bid what was actually spec'd that the winning bidder gets to change material after the fact. But the schedule comes before fairness.
Click to expand...

Unfair? Why, there is not so much as a penny difference in price.

Anyway they want me to remove ALL the MCap.
The Engineer said, Yes its Ul listed, Yes it meets NEC. BUT
and I QUOTE, WE DONT LIKE CHANGE, MCAP WILL FAIL AFTER YEARS OF USE EITHER BY WATER CORROSION OR THE WIRE COMING LOOSE FROM THE CONNECTOR.

That reason Piss's me off so bad I could Kill something.
It would have been ok if he said no green ground, because its in the spec that way. But not that Bull Crap one sided, Ignorant reason. I guess this guy knows more then the people at the UL labs.

OK deep breath, I going down Monday with a couple of my guys to get that swapped out by the end of the day, should only take 5-6 hours
 
kengod

it is the engineers design & specs, in the future i would get that worked out before you pull one wire or make any changes to a design or spec
 
According to Southwires website you Might save 2 minutes per outlet (or light)

So this job has, (aprox)
30 receptacles
3 switches
70 lights

aprox total= 103

103 x 2 min. = a savings of 206 minutes or 3 hours 43 minutes

round it up to 4 hours of savings

4 hours x $50.00 (labor Rate) =$200. savings

$200.00 savings does not give anyone an unfair advantage. $2000.00 savings, yes. Not $200.00
There are way to many variables involved in bid pricing between subs.
such as:
Labor rate differances
Material prices vary Allot depending on who you buy from
Over head costs.

In the retail world $200.00 is $2.00

O ya, wire nuts and pigs tails, whats that cost, maybe $30.

Ken
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top