Do they pay you based on amount saved?
Undersizing engineer designated wire
- Thread starter Pinnie
- Start date
NEC Inspector
Member
- Location
- Kansas
- Occupation
- Inspector
Inspectors are supposed to inspect to the code and to the construction documents submitted per the administrative provisions of the building code. If there is a conflict, the stricter applies.
If an electrical engineer specifies a 3/0 wire to be exothermically welded to the concrete encased electrode, and I show up to a #4 clamped to the rebar with a normal grounding clamp, I will fail the inspection even though it meets the normal NEC sizing. I tell the EC that they meet code, but the engineered construction documents specified 3/0 wire to be exothermically welded, so they can either do what was specified, or have the engineer email me and admit he has been copy/pasting someone else's detail for 30 years and never expected anyone to actually read what he drew. Happens all the time.
Many times engineers do sign off on those things. Sometimes they don't. And sometimes, the engineer had a really good reason to go past standard code that none of us thought of.
If an electrical engineer specifies a 3/0 wire to be exothermically welded to the concrete encased electrode, and I show up to a #4 clamped to the rebar with a normal grounding clamp, I will fail the inspection even though it meets the normal NEC sizing. I tell the EC that they meet code, but the engineered construction documents specified 3/0 wire to be exothermically welded, so they can either do what was specified, or have the engineer email me and admit he has been copy/pasting someone else's detail for 30 years and never expected anyone to actually read what he drew. Happens all the time.
Many times engineers do sign off on those things. Sometimes they don't. And sometimes, the engineer had a really good reason to go past standard code that none of us thought of.
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
Yes, we give them a credit probably 50 cents on the dollar so everyone is happy.
This sounds completely correct. Do I understand these authority hierarchy correctly? (Which is always tricky)
The engineer supplies stamped drawings, absorbing some liability for the installation (the scope of the liability absorbed by the engineer/firm seems unclear and situational to me, a layman).
The electrician completes the installation, (bound to some degree by the drawing specification per liability sake) but overarchingly, the code.
Then the inspector comes to verify the installation compliance with code. The inspector/firm adopts some liability, but not much. You stated your industry practice is to approve the stricter of the two. Obviously the safe bet. I would assume you are more strictly bound to the code, but apply the stricter of the two on the chance the engineer, a NEC professional, caught something technical both the inspector and electrician don’t see.
NEC Inspector
Member
- Location
- Kansas
- Occupation
- Inspector
It's not industry practice, it's code:
The engineer/architect/design professionals submit their plans for construction to be reviewed by the city plan review team before anything gets built. Once the plan review team approves the plans, all of the details in those plans now must be followed unless they are revised and go back through the approval process. If a code violation was snuck past the review guys, you would still have to follow code even if the plans were approved wrong. Of course, in the real world, any plan revision that can be snuck past without anyone noticing is not likely to be sent back through plan review unless the inspector catches it.
As for taking liability, the way the law is written, inspectors and AHJs actually take no liability whatsoever. They are pretty much completely immune unless you can prove they deliberately and intentionally went outside the scope of their job to hurt someone. Even extremely gross negligence is pretty difficult to get past qualified immunity. Most cases and lawsuits are dismissed outright.
As far as authority, an engineer cannot overrule an inspector or an AHJ, but an AHJ can overrule the engineer. Whether the AHJ is qualified or correct when they do that is another story... as is the case when the engineer is politically connected... but both the engineer and the AHJ can basically tell contractors what to do for the most part. The caveat is that the contractor or engineer does have leverage against the AHJ when they can prove what they are talking about by the code.
If they did take liability, AHJ's would have to raise the qualifications for their inspectors, and of course raise the pay scale with it, and they would have to get liability insurance like contractors and engineers and doctors have to have. Which would not be a bad deal for me... but the majority of contractors don't really want inspectors that inspect like they might be in court some day, because they will know their stuff and will take no prisoners. They have that system in Europe, and the inspectors usually have engineering degrees and usually spend a lot more time on each jobsite going over things with a fine-toothed comb. I also would hazard a guess that a majority of inspectors currently employed in the US would not last long under that level of responsibility.
It sure would elevate the competence of the whole construction industry though...
2024 International Building Code
107.4 Amended construction documents.
Work shall be installed in accordance with the approved construction documents, and any changes made during construction that are not in compliance with the approved construction documents shall be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of construction documents.The engineer/architect/design professionals submit their plans for construction to be reviewed by the city plan review team before anything gets built. Once the plan review team approves the plans, all of the details in those plans now must be followed unless they are revised and go back through the approval process. If a code violation was snuck past the review guys, you would still have to follow code even if the plans were approved wrong. Of course, in the real world, any plan revision that can be snuck past without anyone noticing is not likely to be sent back through plan review unless the inspector catches it.
As for taking liability, the way the law is written, inspectors and AHJs actually take no liability whatsoever. They are pretty much completely immune unless you can prove they deliberately and intentionally went outside the scope of their job to hurt someone. Even extremely gross negligence is pretty difficult to get past qualified immunity. Most cases and lawsuits are dismissed outright.
As far as authority, an engineer cannot overrule an inspector or an AHJ, but an AHJ can overrule the engineer. Whether the AHJ is qualified or correct when they do that is another story... as is the case when the engineer is politically connected... but both the engineer and the AHJ can basically tell contractors what to do for the most part. The caveat is that the contractor or engineer does have leverage against the AHJ when they can prove what they are talking about by the code.
If they did take liability, AHJ's would have to raise the qualifications for their inspectors, and of course raise the pay scale with it, and they would have to get liability insurance like contractors and engineers and doctors have to have. Which would not be a bad deal for me... but the majority of contractors don't really want inspectors that inspect like they might be in court some day, because they will know their stuff and will take no prisoners. They have that system in Europe, and the inspectors usually have engineering degrees and usually spend a lot more time on each jobsite going over things with a fine-toothed comb. I also would hazard a guess that a majority of inspectors currently employed in the US would not last long under that level of responsibility.
It sure would elevate the competence of the whole construction industry though...
Last edited:
I did not know this, thank you. My building code knowledge is minute.
Ah that makes sense. I guess even though it’s much less strict of an inspection, (compared to other countries standards as you mention) it’s still worth the money to catch and gross violations. Are there laws ,depending on locality, dictating if an inspection is even required?
If only this was the priority. The real priority is doing things cheaply. For example, an electrician trying to undersize conductors per an engineers specs. Disgusting.
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
An engineer/designer assumes responsibility and liability for the design meeting codes.
The electrician assumes responsibility and liability for the complete installation meeting codes. While the design may include some installation details, most NEC installation requirements are not spelled out in the design.
The governmental inspector assumes no liability. Private inspectors may have some liabilty especially when acting as an agent of the owner.
The electrician assumes responsibility and liability for the complete installation meeting codes. While the design may include some installation details, most NEC installation requirements are not spelled out in the design.
The governmental inspector assumes no liability. Private inspectors may have some liabilty especially when acting as an agent of the owner.
NEC Inspector
Member
- Location
- Kansas
- Occupation
- Inspector
Yeah, there is no federal law that requires inspection, it's up to each state how they want to handle it. Some states have a state code and a very organized approach. Others (like Kansas) allow each individual city to decide what codes to adopt and how/whether to enforce them. This goes for licensing too. Out in the county near the city I work in, there are no code inspections at all. You're lucky if you get a smoke alarm, much less a licensed electrician performing an NEC compliant installation.
Houses are sold for the same prices out there though... almost like the code isn't what is driving up the cost of housing
Gotcha. Does that make it more difficult to make money as an inspector in those areas?
Value Engineering is common but it is done after the contract is awarded. What's in the bid documents is what the designer and owner is expecting and is a big part of the submittal process, not to mention that it's what the other bidders based their number on.
We were beat by another EC (a good outfit) on a project that specked steel compression fittings through out, they had been running EMT for a little over a week with steel set screw and got caught. They offered a credit but the design team and owner rejected it saying another EC (not us) would have been awarded the contract considering the amount of the credit would have brought it down to their number. They had to change all of them.
We were beat by another EC (a good outfit) on a project that specked steel compression fittings through out, they had been running EMT for a little over a week with steel set screw and got caught. They offered a credit but the design team and owner rejected it saying another EC (not us) would have been awarded the contract considering the amount of the credit would have brought it down to their number. They had to change all of them.
NEC Inspector
Member
- Location
- Kansas
- Occupation
- Inspector
Not if you are willing to also be the fire chief and the dog catcher. Or if you work at a city that has over 30,000 people, they normally have some kind of code enforcement regime and you can get paid ok.
If you aren't willing to move for a job though, you better have other skills in your back pocket in case the inspector job goes bad. The jobs are there, but there aren't a lot of them, and not all inspector jobs have a good work environment.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
I am aware of project engineers that would make you remove the MC and replace it with the product specified in the plans and specs. This would be at your expense.
I think that is nit-picky. Unless there’s a real issue with wiring methods on a particular job.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
It is not your choice to make a design change without written approval of the designer or owner. The engineer was hired to design the project and the contractor has agreed to build that project to the requirements of the contract documents. If you want to make a change like that, you do it as an "exception" to the plans and specs when you bid the job.
Wow. I guess that’s the risk you take when doing that. Risk vs reward.
We had a 10 story hotel that the engineer made us go through and remove all the zip ties securing mc (every branch circuit was mc). I think he was an industrial engineer or something that was a different wheelhouse. What they ended up getting was spreader bars and spaghetti.
We’ll yes I could’ve guessed that haha.
Gotcha. Thank you sir.
Fair. I don’t disagree. You should get what you pay for as an owner. We can debate whether mc poses and functional or aesthetic difference, but at the end of the day it’s irrelevant.
I wish they would tell us if we are wire monkeys or not. If I can take ZERO liberties as a professional installer, based on the technicalities aimed at pinning liability directly at the contractor, why make us learn code at all. So we can double check the designers work? I get it’s just the reality of ideas that sound good paper facing reality, it just stinks the ones that actually sweat and shed blood in the get shafted, pardon my french.
xformer
Senior Member
- Location
- Dallas, Tx
- Occupation
- Master Electrician
IMHO... An inspector should not fail an installation just because the engineer up-sized the conductors.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
You have a contractual obligation to install to the plans and specs, and in most cases you also have a contractual obligation to inform the designer of any code violations in the design.