Specifying Special Inspections

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

Author Message Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 175 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 05:47 pm:    I would be interested in how architects have been dealing with the requirement (2006 IBC Section 1705) that the design professional in responsible charge (Architect) prepare a "Statement of Special Inspections". Who generates this document? What information is included? Is this statement incorporated in the specifications or presented as a seperate document? What format is followed? What sort of difficulties are occuring when the structural inspections are coordinated with provisions for MEP and architectural systems? Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 469 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 06:23 pm:    Typically, the jurisdiction has standard forms that each of the special inspectors are required to complete before a permit will be issued. The forms include the information required by Section 1705.2. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 725 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, May 28, 2007 - 01:11 pm:    Our office (which includes structural engineering as well as architecture) frequently generates the list of special inspections for the project. (Our state code is based on 1993 BOCA and includes special inpspection requirements.) We often assist the owner in soliciting proposals from testing agencies to perform the required work. This would not appear in the specifications, except insofar as it impacts the contractors work, such as providing access for steel inspection, coordinating and scheduling the required inspections and the like. I'm not sure I see what difficulties would come into play. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 176 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 11:27 am:    Since California has adopted and will shortly enforce the 2006 IBC with ammendments we are trying to understand how to deal with the new testing and inspection provisions. These provisions require the design professional in responsible charge to submit a Statement of Special Inspection which implies more than a list of secial inspections. Note that special inspections are no longer limited to structura issues. I am trying to understand what form this document should/will take. In the 2003 IBC this document was refered to as a Quality Assurance Plan. These changes will need to be coordinated with the Quality Assurance and Quality control sections in Division 1 as well as with the individual technical specification spections. As I have been looking on the web it seems that a few jurisdictions have developed special forms while the majority seem to ignore the changes. Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 01:07 pm:    BCOM in Virginia has excel spreadsheets that have been useful in organizing special inspection sections. They have them for 1996, 2000, and 2003. Try the following link. Use IE, it doesn't seem to like Firefox. The last document on this page is 2000. Hit next page for 2003. Special Inspections XLS Dave Newman (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 02:46 pm:    The "Council of American Structural Engineers" has alot of information on Special Inspections. Go to http://www.acec.org/coalitions/CASE/case-committees.cfm#si Tobin Oruch, CDT Senior Member Username: oruch Post Number: 44 Registered: 04-2003 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 06:00 pm:    Here's the form we're moving to. http://engstandards.lanl.gov/engrman/review%20docs/Ch16_IBC-IP-AppB-R1a%20draft.doc Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 177 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 02:05 am:    Thanks for the references. I am struggling with the relationship between the Statement of Special Inspections (SSI) and the technical specification sections and how the SSI will be used. The technical specifications historically have included testing and inspection requirements. With this new system I believe we run the risk of the technical sections and the SSI duplicating information and saying things somewhat differently. I am also concerned that if we put too much detail in the SSI that inspectors and testing laboratories will tend to only refer to the SSI and ignore the provisions in the specifications. This would especially be a problem if the SSI listed only the tests and inspections required by the agency having jurisdiction and not including the special provisions in the technical specifications. I prefer a system whereby the SSI lists a reference to the code section requiring the test or inspection and a reference to the location in the contract documents where the detailed testing and inspection requirements are located. This would give the building official a check list whereby he could verify compliance while forcing the inspectors and testing laboratories to look in the specs. The document used by DGS in Virginia. I believe listing the section in the code requiring the tests and inspections will help minimize the number of times where the Plan Checker makes a requirement that is no justified by the code. If we were to take the testing and inspection provisions out of the technical specifications and move them to the SSI it would make it more difficult to coordinate the T&I provisions with the rest of the section. In addition this would also make the generation of the SSI more complex on each project. In addition I see the SSI as a permit document but not a contract document. Thus the specifications need to explain the relationship of the SSI and tell the Contractor how to obtain a copy. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 727 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 09:08 am:    I don't believe that the details of special inspections belong in the project manual at all. These are contracted separately between the owner and an inspection agency, and are not part of the contractor's work. The project manual should have only the testing that the contractor is responsible to complete, and those are generally quality control procedures, not public safety mandates. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 471 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 10:30 am:    I agree with John. You may indicate in the specifications that the Owner will hire a special inspector for the required inspections and establish general ground rules for the contractor to follow, such as making the site accessible to the SI, contacting the SI a <blank> number of days/hours beforehand to schedule the inspection, etc. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 265 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 11:21 am:    I also agree with John, that the details do not belong in the project manual, but because the contractor is responsible for those things mentioned by Ron, I include a table of inspections. That tells the contractor how often inspections will be required, which can affect schedule and cost. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 178 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 11:33 am:    From a formal legal perspective I also agree that the testing and inspection provisions are between the Owner and his Inspectors/Testing laboratories. Still I have come to the opinion that life is easier if the technical aspects of T&I are kept in the technical sections. I would have no objection to moving the administrative provisions to another document not a part of the project manual. Then this raises the question of what form this document should take since the PRM makes no provisions for it. A seperate T&I document that is a permit document but not a Contract Document would likely result in resistance from plan checkers who all too often want the structural tests and inspections located on the drawings. Keeping the technical T&I provisions in the specification section can be rationalized since the testing and inspection provisions indirectly define the quality expected. Courts have heald that significant changes in the T&I program can constitute a change in scope for the Contractor. Because the T&I provisions need to be closely coordinated with the technical specifications it would cause difficulties if they were to be located in another document. Has anybody placed the technical T&I provisions in another document and if so what form has it taken? The currently proposed Statement of Special Inspection forms definately are not able to deal with the detail needed to specify the various structural tests and inspections. The building officials have taken ownership of this document. Thus if we were to be pure, what should the docuements look like? Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 139 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 11:38 am:    I also agree that the Special Inspections, along with many other code issues, do not belong in the Spec. However, on state projects in Virginia and South Carolina, the code officials were adamant that there would be no permit without a Special Inspections Section included in Division 01. But, that's fodder for a different thread. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 472 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 12:13 pm:    Mark: I believe we're all going in the right direction; it's just that we're on different tracks. Special inspections, which are a part of the overall testing and inspection of a project, can be covered in each of the applicable technical sections if the specifier so chooses, and leave the general requirements in either Section 01 40 00 "Quality Requirements" for MasterSpec users, or Section 01 45 33 "Code-Required Special Inspections and Procedures" for the truly anal, such as that mentioned by Don. Placing SI information in each section may include the particulars of what will be inspected; however, the language should be nonmandatory since the contractor isn't required to perform the inspections. Only those actions required by the contractor to properly prepare for the SI should be in mandatory language. Additionally, the requirements of the specification (tolerances, performance criteria, materials, etc.) should be aligned with what the SI will be looking for. For example, the SI is to check periodically that the masonry starting course has a bed joint between 1/4" and 3/4" thick per ACI 530.1/ASCE 6/TMS 602. If the specifications don't spell this out in PART 3, then some masonry rework may be required when the SI checks for this and finds noncompliant masonry. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 179 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 12:39 pm:    There seems to be a concensus that the administrative provisions regarding T&I is between the Owner and his inspectors and is not a part of the Contract with the Contractor. If this is the case where do we document these provisions? What have others done? Sheldon since the inspections are likely defined in the technical sections, which is consistently done for structural inspections, why prepare a list of inspections? I have been involved with many projects where there were Division 1 sections dealing with testing and inspection, much of this structural, and I have never been asked for input. I am lucky to even be provided with a copy of the Division 1 sections prior to their being published. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 728 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 04:12 pm:    From the discussion, it seems that the documentation is a particular issue when inspectional services wants to see the plan as part of the contract documents. In our area, this has not been a concern, and we have used a separate document for this purpose. It is in the form of a series of tables, organized by type of element. If necessary to include in the contract documents, I would be tempted to create a separate section for these. MF includes section 014533 Code-Required Special Inspections and Procedures. This could include language that essentially says "here's the stuff the owner will do, and the contractor needs to cooperate to do it." The remaining Contractor's QC testing could be in another section. Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 190 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 04:44 pm:    IMNSHO, special inspections are a lot like (or just a different category of) the typical independent quality testing usually specified in general in 01400, along with specific testing requirements in various sections. So they could be similarly specified, and in the same documents. On the other hand, since they are a lot like the Commissioning specified in 01810, they could also be specified in a section of their own (with or without specific test requirements in various other sections). What all three have in common is that, if the Contractor's work doesn't meet the requirements, the resulting remedial work presumably is the Contractor's responsibility, so this is not as similar to other separate-contract work, which just requires site sharing and coordination. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 266 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 04:50 pm:    Mark, we do most of our work in Minnesota. The State has a required submittal form that lists the type of inspection, who is responsible, and frequency for code-required inspection; that form is used pretty much everywhere here, and also has been accepted for most work we do in neighboring states. Information in the specifications is coordinated with that in the form to avoid redundancy. Our structural consultants fill in the form and give it to us; we add any other required testing or inspection, e.g., fireproofing. We help our clients find independent testing agencies, but are not directly involved in their agreement. I believe most of our engineers are CASE members, and use guidelines prepared by CASE MN. In general, I prefer that all inspection and testing be done by an independent agency, and encourage our clients to have all of it done by a single testing agency. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 180 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 11:33 am:    Sheldon I find the CASE document interesting since 1) it need not be a part of the Contract Documents, 2) could be used to help define the scope of the Testing laboratories and Special Inspectors work, and 3) it is not a preprinted form provided by the building dept and thus can be customized. Bob The only difference between Special Inspections and the other quality testing is that the Special Inspections are specifically listed in the IBC. Note that the IBC requires that the special inspections be hired and paid for by the owner, not the contractor. From an administrative point of view it does not make sense for the contractor to hire and pay for any of the other specified structural tests and inspections. The Contractor would still be responsible for costs of all additional tests and inspections he chooses. John The question as to where the T&I information should be located is not directly mandated by those performing the inspections. What is driving this discussion is a desire not to duplicate information ,the perceived difficulties of tightly coordinating information in two separate documents, and the concern that if the inspectors have to be regularly referencing both documents they will make more mistakes. This discussion may be moot if the building officials mandate where the information will be located. I believe that the decision by CSI to use articles Source Quality Control and Field Quality Control causes confusion. The structural community in general uses quality assurance to refer to activities taken by the owner to provide him and the building department a level of assurance. Quality control is used to refer to activities undertaken by the Contractor to help him to meet the contractual requirements. Because of a desire not to be pulled in to Contractors means and methods, all specified structural tests and inspections are considered quality assurance activities. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 558 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 01:28 pm:    From out here in seismic land -- where special inspections have always been a way of life -- I was trained to include a special inspections section "for information only" in Division 1 of the project manual. the section (much like the information provided by CASE) was used as the Owner's RFP for an inspector, but it was included in the contract documents because the cost of coordination and access is a schedule and cost issue for the contractor and can be an expensive bit of coordination at that. the distinction I use now is that all code required testing is paid for directly by the contractor but the owner pays for all other inspections that "simply " insure quality control. (these typically are the waterproofing and roofing inspections that I require) the provision in the IBC seems pretty clear to me: as design professionals we are responsible for preparing a list of the required inspections on the project. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 60 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 02:23 pm:    Also out here in seismic land with a virtually total healthcare practice, we regularly include a form that lists required inspections provided by California OSHPD in our project deliverables. OSHPD is the permitting agency for I occupancy work in California. The record form is a stand alone wet signed document (OSHPD used carbons until a couple years ago and still LOVES wet signed documents) and we include a copy for information only in DIV 1 immediately after our testing and inspections Section, because as Anne notes, there are time and money issues involved. CBC 1701.5 requires that the Owner provide for special inspections. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 729 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Saturday, June 02, 2007 - 11:19 am:    Mark makes an important point that we have discused here in our office, and that is the definitions of quality assurance and quality control are not the same in the structural community as CSI has defined them. Of course, CSI's definition is not a new one (I don't know how long PEs have been using their definition.) I've found that this confuses engineers when editing structural specifications. I don't have a solution to that other than to be careful when reading and writing quality requirements in project manuals. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 135 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Monday, June 04, 2007 - 02:38 pm:    The National Institutes of Health have their own definitions of QC and QA that must be incorporated in project specs. "Quality Control Versus Quality Assurance: Quality Control is the responsibility of the construction contractor. Quality Assurance is the responsibility of the NIH." This parallels the interpretation cited above. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 61 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, June 04, 2007 - 03:43 pm:    Richard - mystery solved: We currently have a series of projects with a California County GSA as client that appear to also use the NIH model you cite (without explaining its provenance). I wondered about the source and the reasoning behind this terminology change. For the first client review of the first project to hit CD phase we were gifted with lengthy spreadsheets that listed every use of "quality assurance" in the specs with the requirement we change that to "quality control". As an article called "quality assurance" is part of every Section's "Part One", this was a tedious piece of work with no clear benefit. Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 191 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Monday, June 04, 2007 - 04:00 pm:    Would it make sense to change the article title in SectionFormat from "Quality Assurance" to "Quality Requirements" (match the Division 01 section title)? Would that sidestep the issue, or just add more confusion? Or should QA and QC be renamed to reflect who does it -- for example, "Contractor Quality Requirements" and "Independent Quality Verification"? David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 236 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, June 04, 2007 - 04:53 pm:    In the current draft of SectionFormat, the PART 1 Quality Assurance, PART 2 Source Quality Control, and PART 3 Field / Site Quality Control articles remain pretty much intact. This setup keeps it consistent with the Project Resource Manual, and MasterFormat 2004. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 62 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, June 04, 2007 - 05:25 pm:    Our interesting client had taken the term "quality assurance" and created different meanings to it in their front end documents. The simplest change for the specifications was to re-label the the PART 1 Article as "Quality Requirements" and move on. It has been interesting to watch this client in action as they try to redesign the world of project delivery. They have had their fingers burned to such an extent that they have needed to reissue new Front end documents and DIVISION 1 Sections several times per year as they react to the latest problem of their own creation. It is like watching someone try to steer on black ice. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 302 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 08:39 am:    I am confused. What are "special" about special inspections? Being from the Left Coast, in the State of "Kollyfonya", the requirements of the Division of the State Architect (DSA) for schools and the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Design (OSHPD) are big issues and specifications are routinely required to include a list of tests and inspections required by the building code and the AHJ. Does this make these tests and inspections "special"? Are additional tests and inspections a matter of quality assurance between the owner and the contractor and considered ordinary inspections not required to be listed? In California, the latest version of the IBC will be the basis of the new California Building Code written by ICC and due out in a few months. Will this mean that all projects, and not just those under the jurisdictions of DSA and OSPHD, will require lists of "special inspections?" Realize that with recent bond issues for educational facilities and mandates for seismic safety upgrades (reconstruction) of medical facilities, the value of projects under DSA and OSHPD are several billions of dollars. And private, non-residential construction is still substantial. New office buildings are being built again and new retail complexes just don't seem to quit. Where will all the inspectors come from? The local Home Depot parking lot? Can tests and inspections be outsourced to Bangalore through the Internet? Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 181 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 09:53 am:    My operating practice has been is that the DSA and OSHPD forms deal with those tests and inspections required by the code and do not have to address other tests and inspections. There is currently discussions in the structural engineering community regarding the form that special inspection lists will take in CA for non DSA and OSHPD projects. This was why this topic was started. Talk to your building official but also don't be suprised if the rules change. The difference is not so much in terms of the amount of testing and inspections but rather in the form that we will define and document them. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 478 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 10:00 am:    John: Special inspections are those required by the building code and are given the "special" title by the code. In CBC 2001/UBC 1997, Section 108.6 is titled "Special Inspections" and has a reference to Chapter 17, which covers all the special inspections. Unlike the other inspections listed in Section 108, special inspections are not performed by the building inspector. Special inspections are done by an inspector hired by the owner, and acceptable to the AHJ, that has training and experience in the area that requires special inspection. The majority of the special inspections are structural in nature, and, therefore, the owner retains the structural engineer-of-record to perform these inspections. In a lot of cases, the structural engineer has an employee specifically dedicated to special inspection. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 731 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 01:31 pm:    Ron, your knowledge of building codes is phenomenal! I don't know how you do it. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 304 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 02:20 pm:    Ron: Actually, it's Chapter 17A for schools (DSA) and hospitals (OSHPD). This chapter and its references get into the details of qualifications of inspectors ("Project Inspector" and "Special Inspector" and, by reference, the required inspections). I include the listing of tests and inspections ("special inspections") in Section 01450 - Quality Control (MF95). Keeping up with changes to the list from DSA and OSHPD is an ongoing challenge. How the new IBC-based California Building Code will address this (separate document required or ok to dedicate an article in the "Quality Control" spec section?) is something I'd like to find out soon after adoption of the new code. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 633 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 02:24 pm:    John B.-- come see Ron at his very best; CSI Show, Friday, 2:15, Room 338. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 479 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 07:26 pm:    John B.: Believe me, it's not a knowledge based on knowing the code, but a knowledge of where in the code to find it and how to apply it. People always ask me questions such as "What does the code say about <blank>?" My typically response is "I don't know, I'll have to look it up and get back to you." Codes constantly change and are frequently modified by jurisdictions. Trying to quote the building code from memory is dangerous, in my opinion. So, understanding the building code, knowing where things are generally located, and how to interpret the language, is more important that committing its content to memory. John R.: DSA and OSHPD may have their "special" special inspections, but the basic building code, unmodified, still has special inspections that may be required for any project, regardless of owner type, be it public or private. Not every project will require special inspections; it depends on the building, the type of construction, and types of materials. Chapter 17 of the IBC is similar to Chapter 17 of the UBC in regard to content, except for format and the fact that EIFS and mastic and intumescent fireproofing are now required to have special inspection. What California will do to that chapter is anybody's guess; they tend to do whatever they like and make things more complicated than it needs to be (if you don't believe me, read the current CBC and compare it to the '97 UBC). Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 182 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 01:25 am:    The practice of the structural engineer performing special inspections in California is not widespread. The structural community in California (SEAOC) disagrees with CASE on this. This is also influenced by the fact that we typically have capable testing and inspection firms and by the fact that many building departments will not let the design professional perform special inspections unless he has some certification as an inspector. In California the structural engineer monitors the project my means of Structural Observations (ref the IBC for a definition) Regarding the complexity of the CBC it should be noted that the vast majority of the changes are related to provisions for public schools and hospitals. When you take this into account you will find that we are currently very close to the 97 UBC. My impression is that this will continue with the adoption of the IBC. It is not uncommon for an engineer who does not do schools or hospitals, to use the UBC and not the CBC. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 307 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Sunday, June 10, 2007 - 08:48 pm:    Mark: Cities and counties in California are required to adopt the California Building Code (UBC with State of California Amendments, soon to be IBC with State of California Amendments). Notable exceptions are City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles and City and County of San Francisco, which have their unique amendments which further modify the California Building Code). From the newsletter of the State of California, Architects Registration Board, received a few days ago: "New California Building Standards Codes to Become Effective January 2008 "The California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) unanimously adopted the state agency amendment packages to the model codes on January 30, 2007. This action by the CBSC constitutes state adoption of the model 2006 International Building Code; the model 2006 International Fire Code; the model 2006 Uniform Mechanical Code; and the model 2006 Uniform Plumbing Code. With the adoption of the amendment packages to the model codes, the CBSC has authorized creation of the 2007 editions of the California Building, Fire, Mechanical, and Plumbing Codes. The International Code Council and the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, authors of the model codes, are on track for publication of the new codes in late July 2007. Local jurisdictions will then have 180 days to complete their local amendment process, for an effective date of all codes in late January 2008. Information on the code is available on the CBSC Web site at www.bsc.ca.gov. "California Building Officials is offering training classes for architects, builders, building department personnel, and engineers on the new California Building Code for the transition to the 2006 International Building Code. Information on the training classes is available on the California Building Officials Web site." Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 185 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 02:40 am:    In reality many cities and counties in California have local amendments it is just that most are relatively minor. These amendments are supposed to be limited to items that are unique to the location of the jurisdiction but some jurisdictions push this. Many jurisdictions have unique regulations dealing with administration of special inspections. LA has taken it to an extreme (from an Northern California viewpoint) with the creation of the Deputy special Inspectors. While the new CBC will be mandatory in 2008 once the code is published in July you will be able to follow it instead of the current CBC at your option. The qualifier is that all aspects of the project must use the 2007 CBC. I find it interesting that building officials are offering classes on the new CBC. From my perspective they will be struggling like everybody to learn the new code. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 308 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 02:56 am:    There is a prospect that a presentation on the 2007 CBC will be included in the education program at the West Region Conference in Pasadena. Expressions of interest in attending such a presentation could help it happen. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 123 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 01:58 pm:    When I read the requirements of the IBC, it is my interpretation/understanding that the Owner needs to hire and pay for the services of the testing agency to perform the testing required by code (AKA: Special Inspections). I frequently get comments from Architects and/or Owners who want the Contractor to hire and pay for the testing agency, or want the Contractor to hire and pay for it and have Owner reimburse them. Am I correct in telling them that the Owner needs to retain and pay for them? Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 487 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 02:26 pm:    Not all quality control tests and inspections are special inspections under the code. So, some testing and inspecting can be performed by an agency hired by the contractor. Only those tests and inspections specifically listed as a special inspection in the IBC are required to be hired and paid for by the owner. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 124 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 02:29 pm:    That's what i figured. I knew I could count on you Ron! Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 190 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 01:11 am:    The requirement that the Owner hire and pay for Special Inspections was placed in the code because a contractor in control of the special inspector can influence the results. A common problem is that Contractors asks for insectors who are not too inquisitive. If an Architect or Owner wants the Contractor to hire and pay for the special inspectors it gives a clear message that that individual is not interested in monitoring the quality of the constructed project. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 745 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 09:01 am:    I'm not so sure they don't care about quality, per se. Frequently the "reason" is that they want to funnel as many of the costs of the project as possible through the construction contract for a variety of reasons. Also, they want someone else to take care of things--the effort is too much of a nuisance. And, in a twisted sense of logic, they think that this makes the contractor more responsible if "something happens". Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 191 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 11:28 am:    I will conceed that if you ask them they will say they care about quality but their actions tell another story. By their actions they are not interested in quality since they are not interested in monitoring quality. The reality is that you get what you take the time to track and manage.