Special Inspections

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

Author Message Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 835 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, May 05, 2008 - 01:55 pm:    Do you include a copy of the Special Inspections form required by the building code agency, in your Project Manual, to illustrate what testing will be done? If so, where do you locate it, for visibility purposes-- Division 00, as information for bidders? Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 44 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, May 05, 2008 - 02:10 pm:    Ralph, My experience in Seattle, they are listed with check boxes on the Department of Planning and Development's plan coversheet or somewhere else in the A or S general information drawings. I only have Division 01 sections for deferred submittals. Seattle DPD is more interested in Drawings and will look there first. Specs are an afterthought notwithstanding what the IBC states. Seattle DPD and other AHJ's are requiring more and more administrative and procedural requirements be on the drawings including regurgitating the requirements of ICC/ANSI A117.1 complete with figures. Wayne Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 177 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Monday, May 05, 2008 - 02:17 pm:    We include copies of forms and special requirements of AHJ whenever we can. We have a spreadsheet for testing and special inspections that shows what is tested or inspected, the spec section covering the material, the criteria for acceptance, and the frequency required. We place it as an attachment to our Section 014000 "Quality Requirements." By making it a separate document it is listed in the Table of Contents. MasterFormat provides number 014533 for "Code-Required Special Inspections and Procedures," but we want to keep the information next to 014000, not Section 014200 "References." Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 157 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, May 05, 2008 - 02:39 pm:    I recently included a special inspections section following the 01 40 00 Quality Requirements. It had a "preamble" section explaining the parties involved and submittal requirements followed by the Special Inspections Form for the City of Norfolk prepared by the Structural Engineer. It's the first time I had included it, but I really liked this format, having been on the fringes of this discussion in my local area for a number of years. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 103 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, May 05, 2008 - 02:42 pm:    For California OSHPD hospital work, I always include the form during design phases as an incompleted reminder so that it remains on the action item aggenda. I put it right after the "Testing and Inspections" DIVISION 1 Section. After that as with all things OSHPD it gets weird. For Permit, half the OSHPD reviewers insist that it be bound in as we have done and the other half insist it absolutely must be removed. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 52 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, May 05, 2008 - 07:49 pm:    At the risk of confusing the requirements of the local jurisdictions with what the building code says you might want to check out Section 1705 of the 2006 IBC. The IBC requires that the registered design professional in responsible charge (typically the Architect) prepare a statement of special inspections which among other things contains a list of the required special inspections. The code states that the statement of special inspections is to be submitted by the permit applicant. I interpret this to mean that the document is separate and distinct from the project manual. Special inspections are now required for more Architectural and MEP systems than previously. In addition there are additional requirements for projects in high seismic and high wind regions. Special inspections are no longer just a structural concern. You might want to verify that your specifications reflect these new inspection requirements. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 836 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 - 06:47 am:    Thanks, all! Very helpful. We understand your point, Mr. Gilligan-- it is our position to include th SI form to show the contractors what litany of inspections will be done-- by others-- so they can anticipate the same. We are not trying to delegate or relegate the SI responsibility away. At least they can account for or accommodate the inspections in the project's progression and whatever impact they may have on the bidding. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 274 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 - 12:03 pm:    I don't feel comfortable specifying codes or requirements imposed by Federal, state, or local jurisdictions. Providing forms published by such entities is acceptable to me but only 'for informational purposes only.' Most specifier’s can’t keep up with all the various revisions, upgrades, local modifications, etc., for such documents from a each of the many jurisdictions one’s practice might cover. Construction contracts should clearly state that contractors need to comply with all applicable requirements imposed by AHJ’s. To repeat such requirements for the convenience of the contractor, is a make-up-work exercise, IMHO. Of course, there may be occasions when it is necessary. If a specification contains such documentation, as something other than ‘for information only,’ and there are changes by the AHJ in their requirements, I would expect a change order will be required, or are there other ways to circumvent change orders? Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 765 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 - 02:01 pm:    well, except for the fact that the typical AIA contract (and licensing requirements of various states) says that code compliance is one of the few things that is specifically relegated to the Architect, and not to the contractor. I don't think you can specify your way out of that requirement. the listing of the required tests helps the contractor allocate time and money to accommodate the inspectors, but it is our responsibilty to stay current with the inspections required by code for our projects -- that's not the contractor's responsibility to manage. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 53 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 - 10:08 pm:    Ralph and Anne are correct. It is the obligation of the design professional to clearly define the code requirements the contractor must comply with. I believe the BOCA or Standard Building code even stated that it was not acceptable to tell the contractor to “comply with the code”. Your contract documents should clearly define the tests and inspections since they effectively define the quality of the work. Since many of the testing and inspection requirements must be interpreted before they can be implemented, requiring the Contractor to “comply with the code” could be construed as delegating design decisions to him. I believe that AIA A201 addresses the contractor’s obligation regarding identifying code requirements. In California the Contractor’s State License Board takes the position that when a design professional is involved in a project the contractor is only responsible for compliance with the design professional’s requirements and is not independently responsible for code compliance. While it is sometimes difficult to identify all local regulations there should be little problem in identifying the requirements in the model building codes. If a design professional cannot make an effort to at least keep up with the model codes then he should not prepare contract documents. I believe that a lot of the problems with “unknown” local codes results from the failure of the design professional to enquire of the local jurisdiction. Special inspections are something that the Owner is responsible for, not the Contractor. The Contractors role is limited to notifying the Owner or his testing agency when work needs to be inspected and providing the inspectors access to the work. The Contractor is not allowed (2006 CBC Section 1704.1) to hire or pay for the inspectors. This cannot be delegated. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 386 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 - 10:09 pm:    It may be considered a nit-pick but there are provisions of the building code which are the responsibility of the architect (design) and provisions which are the responsibility of the contractor (construction). It's that old thing about the drawings and specifications describing WHAT to build (i.e., "work results") and the construction process being left to those who know how to build ("means, methods, techniques and sequences", to quote AIA A201). Conflicts occur when designers expect the constructors to do the design and when constructors expect designers to instruct and manage the constructing process.