Overkill

[xformer]

Lots of good posts and viewpoints here. I concur that from the labor point of view some of the specifications seem ludicrous. I would bid the job as per the specifications. The customer is entitled to receive what they want and also pay for such. If they want pink conduit with purple polka dots then, if it is not against code, that's what they get at a premium price. Code is written so design choices can be made without compromising safety. Just my $.02

 

[infinity]

Lots of good posts and viewpoints here. I concur that from the labor point of view some of the specifications seem ludicrous. I would bid the job as per the specifications. The customer is entitled to receive what they want and also pay for such. If they want pink conduit with purple polka dots then, if it is not against code, that's what they get at a premium price. Code is written so design choices can be made without compromising safety. Just my $.02

I agree. It's just that often designers chose the lazy copy and paste boiler plate method of design which costs someone money with no added benefit. Many of our contracts require us as the EC make value engineering recommendations to the customer to save money.

 

[electrofelon]

How is that a problem?

I have said this before. The contract can specify anything. It can specify the conduit has to be painted pink. If you don't want to do something in the spec, call it out in your proposal as something you can remove from your scope for whatever the deletion is worth to you.

You have all kinds of crazy stuff electricians do that serve no real purpose like using rigid over EMT, copper over aluminum, adding ground wires where metallic raceways already exist, etc. none of these things adds value. Just cost

I think it's a problem because you frequently have an engineer or designer doing this masturbatory thing with someone else's money . Sure we all have certain ways we like to do things and it's not like electricians are immune to this when they are designing, but I don't think it is typically nearly as bad when EC's are designing. I am design build so I almost never have to install from plans fortunately.

 

[petersonra]

I agree. It's just that often designers chose the lazy copy and paste boiler plate method of design which costs someone money with no added benefit. Many of our contracts require us as the EC make value engineering recommendations to the customer to save money.

The reason for copy and paste is often because owners don't want to pay for design costs. So they get boiler plate.

 

[electrofelon]

The reason for copy and paste is often because owners don't want to pay for design costs. So they get boiler plate.

Not sure why you seem to be determined to defend these stupid designs. Isn't it LESS work for the designer to just leave out all this stupid stuff?

 

[Alwayslearningelec]

How is that a problem?

I have said this before. The contract can specify anything. It can specify the conduit has to be painted pink. If you don't want to do something in the spec, call it out in your proposal as something you can remove from your scope for whatever the deletion is worth to you.

You have all kinds of crazy stuff electricians do that serve no real purpose like using rigid over EMT, copper over aluminum, adding ground wires where metallic raceways already exist, etc. none of these things adds value. Just cost

You can't just exclude things on your proposal that are in the spec. Well you can but that won't fly. If it's in the spec you have to price it that way or write and RFI during the bid stage and get relief.

I'm not an electrican but I doubt electricians are making the choice to do the "crazy stuff" you say but following the drawings/specs.
I do think your correct in saying that this stuff adds no value but that's the arch/eng fault.

BTW there was actually an RFI written about the pull box for every (2) 90's and the engineer responded saying NEC code could be followed.

 

[Alwayslearningelec]

The reason for copy and paste is often because owners don't want to pay for design costs. So they get boiler plate.

That makes no sense and more often then not costs them more later.

 

[infinity]

BTW there was actually an RFI written about the pull box for every (2) 90's and the engineer responded saying NEC code could be followed.

So if you just blindly followed the spec and included that nonsense in your bid you probably wouldn't get the job because your competition would have asked the question and bid accordingly. Same goes for the box every 100', that's not a code rule neither is a pull point every 2-90° bends.

 

[Alwayslearningelec]

So if you just blindly followed the spec and included that nonsense in your bid you probably wouldn't get the job because your competition would have asked the question and bid accordingly. Same goes for the box every 100', that's not a code rule neither is a pull point every 2-90° bends.

RFI responses get sent out to all bidders.

 

[petersonra]

That makes no sense and more often then not costs them more later.

Owners don't see it that way though. People can be real cheap about some things and piss away money like a drunken sailor about others.

 

[electrofelon]

Owners don't see it that way though. People can be real cheap about some things and piss away money like a drunken sailor about others.

Again I think 99% of the time the owner isn't in the loop - it's some engineer/designer getting off adding in stuff that he thinks make an awesome kick ass electrical system.

 

[Charged]

I think some of the matter of fact assumptions about how drawings and specs are put together are as ridiculous as an engineer commenting on labor costs or how much effort something should take….bid the drawings as submitted and submit an RFI with anticipated credit change order to install something code minimum if you would like. ….in regards to the OP that looks more like a way to cover the cost of a couple pullboxes on long runs, they probably too don’t think there needed but don’t want the change order if a contractor feels a different way about the pull. I’m sure all of you would indicate the need during the bidding phase and not back pocket those pullboxes for CO later but not everyone rolls that way.

 

[Alwayslearningelec]

I think some of the matter of fact assumptions about how drawings and specs are put together are as ridiculous as an engineer commenting on labor costs or how much effort something should take….bid the drawings as submitted and submit an RFI with anticipated credit change order to install something code minimum if you would like. ….in regards to the OP that looks more like a way to cover the cost of a couple pullboxes on long runs, they probably too don’t think there needed but don’t want the change order if a contractor feels a different way about the pull. I’m sure all of you would indicate the need during the bidding phase and not back pocket those pullboxes for CO later but not everyone rolls that way.

Engineer came back and said that requirement is NOT needed.

 

[petersonra]

Then why not permit #8 or #6 solid in raceways? The issue is that solid conductors are more likely to be damaged when installed in a raceway. Having installed miles of both #10 solid and #10 stranded I'll keep with my opinion regarding #10 solid.

No one is forcing you to run #10 solid. It is a choice.

 

[Alwayslearningelec]

No one is forcing you to run #10 solid. It is a choice.

You can't be serious!!??

 

[infinity]

No one is forcing you to run #10 solid. It is a choice.

What? If it's in the spec (which is often is) then you have to use it or ask for permission to use stranded.

 

[Alwayslearningelec]

What? If it's in the spec (which is often is) then you have to use it or ask for permission to use stranded.

Exactly.