Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

[apauling]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

Charlie B: I guess i don't understand your disagreement. I was trying to point out the difference in the language used to fail a job. The inspector cannot demand a change in design, but he can say that the design will fail as installed.

In a situation where a design calls for a lesser rated wire than the code requires, and the inspector calls it, that call can be looked at from several points of view.

I assume that you have no problem with the inspector waiting until the job was completed to fail it, wasting both the time and materials and labor to change it. I assume that you agree because any of the following statements made by an inspector could be construed as requiring a design change: "the number 14 wire needs to be #12."; "the #14 wire needs to be #12 to pass and if you change it, i will accept it."; "the code calls for #12 wire in this situation and i won't accept #14 wire".

I worked on a gov't job for a bit and the contractor was trying to do complex rewiring with carpenters from the Western Pacific. it was a minority contract and a rush job at the same time. We were told to work it out for the most part, but whenever it was out of their pocket, they complained that i was telling them what to do, de facto design, every time i did the up to code dance. So my boss told me to start failing them later in the process. they finally sub-contracted with real electrical and HVAC contractors. cost them most of their once large profit margin.

And it was all based on the ambiguity of how and when you say that it is not up to code.

And i didn't say that it was okay for an inspector to make designchanges.

paul

 

[charlie b]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

Originally posted by apauling: Charlie B: I guess I don't understand your disagreement. I was trying to point out the difference in the language used to fail a job. The inspector cannot demand a change in design, but he can say that the design will fail as installed. . . . And I didn't say that it was okay for an inspector to make design changes.

I guess we are not disagreeing. I was just splitting a hair, by making it clear that the Inspector's role does not include making design decisions. Any of the three statements that you suggest an Inspector might make are all within the proper role and scope of an Inspector. What caught my attention in your earlier post was the suggestion of the possibility that an Inspector might take on liability for the design. I don't think that is possible, and I think you would agree.

I assume that you have no problem with the inspector waiting until the job was completed to fail it, wasting both the time and materials and labor to change it.

You assume incorrectly, as I never said anything along those lines.

 

[apauling]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

CB: what I am saying is that in the project where I worked for uncle sam, my supervisor kept getting complaints that i was requiring design changes when i used those exact three phrases. He explained that even using those phrases it could be argued in court that the governmeent was liable for the cost of the change. it was better to just fail them when that phase of the job was due for inspection. When the contractor subbed to another contractor that specialized in electrical and HVAC, the complaints stopped, as they were not as interested in trying to "get" extras from the gov, as the original contractor was on their hook.

This is why I said that especially on larger projects, inspectors tend to be less helpfull, more remote, and some times unconcerned with project costs. Forms of this type of twisting the truth happen at the lower levels as well. When i worked for one county i asked if i could wear a shoulder mike that was on the whole time I was on duty. This was to dispute and CYA, and show what actually was said on the few sites that had problematic contractors. The BO and two top inspectors grew up with these boys and didn't believe me, but wouldn't let me wear the mike either. but I think that was just a fake job to get around the hiring process mandates.

paul

 

[charlie b]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

Originally posted by apauling:. . . in the project where I worked for uncle sam, my supervisor kept getting complaints that i was requiring design changes when i used those exact three phrases. He explained that even using those phrases it could be argued in court that the government was liable for the cost of the change.

Are you saying that you had been trying to help during the installation process (before the inspection was scheduled to take place), and that they complained about your helpful comments? That is regrettable. It sounds like they are looking to make more money on change orders by first finishing the incorrect installation, as opposed to making it right before they finished installing it wrong. Anyone who works that way, who does not care that they are doing something that violates code, and are just waiting to get paid for doing it right the second time around, is unprofessional, and not to be trusted on any other project.

I can see why you might be compelled to merely wait until the time comes for you to do your thing, and then fail the installation. That does not serve the best interests of the owner or the public, but that fact is beyond your control. That too, is regrettable.

 

[apauling]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

that's gov. work. both jobs are over

paul