Owner- vs. Contractor-engaged testing

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Tom Gilmore, NCARB, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: tgilmore Post Number: 45 Registered: 04-2007 Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2015 - 12:23 pm:    Does anyone have breakthrough ideas on how best to slice & dice which tests are done by a testing agency engaged by Owner vs. which are done by an agency engaged by Contractor? Testing required by AHJ vs testing to assure the Owner that, for instance, the windows won't leak might be one way to assign it. Some savvy Owners prefer not to have the testing agency beholden to the Contractor while others don't want to deal with that level of management. We're looking for how to deal with those that fall between. Brett Scarfino (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2015 - 06:07 pm:    For the testing we typically see on exterior envelopes, my guidance is that contractor takes on test/hire lab responsibilities. Design team/architect/owner select test areas, and shall be notified when tests will occur (i.e. so they, or their consultants can observe). I see it specified both ways. After making owner think about logistic/coordination, stages/lifts, hoses and sufficient water pressure (big issue on taller buildings), it is commonly moved to the contractors scope of work. These are involved, and far more complicated than retreiving concrete cylinders and breaking back at the lab. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 524 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2015 - 08:08 pm:    In California, the California Building Code (CBC), Chapter 17 - Structural Tests and Special Inspections, defines the tests that are required to be provided by the Owner or the authorized Architect or Engineer working in the Owner's behalf. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 887 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2015 - 09:22 pm:    I have been successful in getting virtually all testing assigned to the independent testing agency (ITA), who takes care of all the code-required testing and inspection. The owner already has one testing agency, so why mess things up by engaging others? IBC Chapter 17 defines which tests must be done by the owner or the engineer of record (do any architects take on that responsibility?). Each state has its own way of doing things, so make sure you don't stop with the IBC. At least one state has excluded part of the testing in Chapter 17. When we work there, we have our engineer work as if all of Chapter 17 applies, and have the owner engage an ITA. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 772 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2015 - 09:59 pm:    The language in the IBC is that the special inspections and related tests required by Chapter 17 shall be done by a inspectors and laboratories hired directly by the owner not the contractor. This is not just a California requirement. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1660 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Saturday, December 19, 2015 - 03:17 pm:    Yes, Chapter 17 defines tests that must be done by the owner. But that misses the point of the original question: what about testing that goes beyond that required in Chapter 17, but which is beneficial to the owner's interests? Exterior envelope is cited as a good example. If this in the hands of the contractor, then you have to define exactly how many tests, where and when to do them. That's not impossible and I've done it. In the hands of the owner, they have to budget for it, and they often need help from the architect to manage this. The contractor still needs to know how much testing will be done because they have to provide access to the test surfaces (usually) and may need to cooperate with observing the tests for their own benefit. If you have envelope commissioning, then such testing becomes the owner's responsibility through the commissioning agent. Some types of testing, other than envelope, may be fairly simple, and easily done by the contractor. For the more complex testing, I thank either way there needs to be a lot of pre-construction planning especially with design/bid/build projects. There's not a realistic way to engage the contractor's cooperation either way. Once you've gotten the test protocols buttoned-up, maybe it's not as important whether the contractor covers the tests or not. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 773 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, December 20, 2015 - 01:22 pm:    In any case the owners consultant needs to define the required tests. The reason for placing the contractor in charge of testing and inspections required by the owners consultants is that the owner does not really care about these tests and inspections and does not want to be inconvenienced by having to administer this testing program. I think that at times the problem is made worse because the Architect does not advocate for the Owner performing the tests and inspections. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 105 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Sunday, December 20, 2015 - 02:54 pm:    Assigning testing to the contractor is simplified if there is an independent third-party certification. For example, lightning protection systems can be tested and certified by the Lightning Protection Institute - Inspection Program. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Vivian Volz, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 161 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Monday, October 17, 2016 - 07:20 pm:    I'm posting my question here because so many of my go-to experts have responded here in the past and may still have email alerts to this topic! I've got a couple of owner-build projects on the boards right now, and I'm wondering how best to handle tests and inspections. Both the owner-builders are experienced developers; one has always been a contractor-led business and the other is newer to serving as its own contractor. To my knowledge, neither has a separate business entity doing the contracting work. The projects are in California. My questions: Does the law requiring Owners to engage special inspectors address the condition of the owner-builder? (I will check Chapter 17!) If not, or if it's vague, what's a common practice for ensuring independence of the inspectors and test agencies? Is there a qualification we can require of the agency that increases its likelihood to be impartial? If I need to ask the owners to engage their legal counsel on the issue, that's a legitimate answer. But I'd like a little direction from any among you who has dealt with these types of questions before. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1425 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, October 17, 2016 - 07:35 pm:    Envision the Owner-Build situation as a multiple prime contract. The owner is still concerned about quality and compliance rather than cutting cost to improve profit (we hope), so the owner-engaged special inspector is still hired by the owner. If there's a failure in passing, then the owner works directly with the applicable contractor to have it corrected, and may withhold payment until it is corrected, pretty much like the owner would with a GC in a single prime contract. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Vivian Volz, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 162 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Monday, October 17, 2016 - 07:41 pm:    Update: I've been reading the code. Please comment if your experience differs from my interpretation. Special inspectors required per 1704 may be hired by contractor if contractor is also owner, per exception 4 of 1704.2. (That's a yes to my first question. Hooray!) And the concept of approved agencies per 1703 suggests that seeking the AHJ's approval of the agency for the project before commencing construction would be a good idea, especially if this is the first time the Owner-Builder has worked in that jurisdiction. So I'm thinking I'll declare that the field inspection agency is engaged by the owner, and that I'll suggest to the owner and architect that the agency and its qualifications be made part of the conference between the AHJ and the team prior to submitting for permit. Good idea? Overkill? Vivian Volz, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 163 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Monday, October 17, 2016 - 07:42 pm:    Thanks, Ron! That makes sense. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 806 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2016 - 01:48 pm:    The code is silent on the issue of a contractor who is also the owner. The intent would be for the special inspectors to be selected and retained by the owner and not by the project superintendent. Section 1704.2 has to do with whether special inspections are required. If special inspections are required the testing and inspection agency must be hired by the owner. Exception 4 applies only to factory-built housing and not to work performed on the construction site. In the case of factory-built housing in California HCD takes jurisdiction of the work done in the factory. They have special rules for inspecting this work. This is different from subassemblies that may be manufactured in a factory. If this applies talk to HCD. When submitting the project for approval you must also submit the statement of special inspection described in Chapter 17. Most jurisdictions require that you list the special inspection agency or independent special inspectors on the statement of special inspection. The testing and inspection agency retained should be able to tell you whether they are approved by the relevant jurisdiction. Be aware that special inspections may impact multiple disciplines.