Reference to OSHA

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

Author Message Bill Morley Senior Member Username: billm Post Number: 17 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 12:07 pm:    It is our policy not to specify that conformance with OSHA safety regs is a Contract requirement. I have tried to convince our electrical engineer to adopt the same policy. Their polite reply was "We thought about it, but we like "safety...per OSHA" in our specs." I suppose if the added liability for that inclusion fell solely on the electrical engineer, I'd let it go. But since it doesn't work that way, I am still worried (somewhat) about this position. Do you have a position, or policy about referencess in the contract documents to OSHA regulations? If you avoid those references, what about your consultants? John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 323 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 12:19 pm:    If jobsite safety could be summed up in "safety ... per OSHA" then perhaps the statement would be adequate. But there's more to it than that, and apparently limiting safety to only OSHA is not adequate in my mind. What does "per OSHA" mean? Does it mean only OSHA regulations apply? No State industrial safety regulations apply? No work rules of trade unions apply? No safety regulations from applicable building codes apply? Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 193 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 12:30 am:    We avoid these references. Enginers have been brought into litigation because of involvement in safety issues. If it is not in our scope of work and we do not gratuitously interject ourselves into such activities we are reasonably safe. I do not know why they have to mention compliance with OSHA since the contractor has to comply with it in any case. You might suggest that your engineer talk to his E&O carrier. Another option is to find another Electrical Engineer and let your current engineer kow that he has lost a project or two because of his attitude. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 09:29 pm:    I advise our architect clients to insist that their consultants remove such requirements from their specifications. Neither the architect nor the engineer are adequately trained to enforce such requirements as part of their contract administration services, therefore these vague "safety requirements" do not belong in the architect's documents. Yes, I meant "architect's documents." Everyone involved needs a reminder from time to time that consultants are under the employ of the prime design professional, who has first line contractual responsibility for the content of the consultants' documents. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 65 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, July 23, 2007 - 01:52 pm:    I Totally agree in regards to construction phase safety issues, but... Cal-OSHA gets involved in the review of exterior building maintenance (window washing)designs and we do reference them in that specific Section. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 763 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 09:06 am:    Steven raises an interesting point, because sometimes we are specifying products or systems that must meet OSHA requirements that come into play during the operation of the building. We need to make sure that those products satisfy those requirements. (I recently specified a flamable liquids storage cabinet that way.) However, that's quite different from the OSHA requirements that come into play during the construction of the building. OSHA requirements are regulations, and there are heaps of them that contractors must comply with in addition to OSHA's safety requirements. The need to withhold taxes from their employees, they need to have their trucks inspected by Dept. of Motor Vehicles, here in Massachusetts they need to provide health insurance to their employees, they need to buy worker's compensation insurance, they need to have a Mass. license to operate power-actuated fastening equipment, etc, etc. We don't specify any of that, we don't need to, and we shouldn't. Tim Werbstein, AIA, CSI, CCS Advanced Member Username: tim_werbstein Post Number: 5 Registered: 09-2006 Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2008 - 07:47 am:    I'm sure OSHA would have a few problems with this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV-iP1jSMlI&eurl=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/&feature=player_embedded Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 714 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2008 - 09:56 am:    Tim: As a MARC member, I suggest you revise Section 04 21 13 "Brick Mansonry" to include the following: PART 1 - GENERAL 1.4 DELIVERY, STORAGE, AND HANDLING F. Deliver bricks to work location using approved methods. 1. Head Delivery: Limit load to no more than 20 bricks. Bill Morley Senior Member Username: billm Post Number: 19 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2008 - 11:57 am:    I am not concerned about eliminating reference to OSHA regs altogether (ref. Steven's and John's point above). e.g., Our roof hatch spec calls for the OSHA railing. My concern is reducing the refs to OSHA job site safety regs (trenches, temporary lighting, etc.) - for the same reasons you guys have so eloquently expressed. Enjoyed the vid on the 'hod carrier'. How can they call that "unskilled" labor? Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 356 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2008 - 06:42 pm:    Bill, In the conversation in which you direct your consultant to remove their "safety" language, ask them what particular knowledge and training they possess that they intend to bring to their site observation services when enforcing that particular requirement in their specifications. If they aren't equipped to enforce it, they'd better not say it.