The word "Inspect"?

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 697 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 04:24 pm:    We have been asked by a client to eliminate the word "inspect" in relation to the architect or engineer in the specifications. Has anyone else received this request and how did you proceed on it? Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 300 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 04:31 pm:    I am assuming the client in this case is an architectural firm? There are many types projects that do not use the A201. If that is the case, then it is quite possible the architect does not perform the A201's Substantial Completion and Final Completion inspections. Many of my Owner-Builder multifamily projects did not require such Inspections from the architect. It's not that uncommon. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 776 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 04:34 pm:    Generally, the A/E doesn't "inspect" until the substantial completion and final acceptance inspections in accordance with AIA Documents. However, the A/E may be required to perform special inspections that are required by the building code, in which case the A/E will "inspect." Other than those instances, the A/E should not be performing any inspections. If this is what they referring to, then I agree with your client. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 306 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 04:37 pm:    Nathan alluded to it above - What is the definition of "inspect"? And in what context is it being used? (i.e. what is being inspected?) Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 179 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 05:38 pm:    I agree with David in that we need to understand what inspect means. The code has provisions for special inspection but those are typically provided by a seperate organization hired by the Owner. There is nothing in the code that requires the A/E to perform inspections. In some cases the engineer may perform those but this is not the default and most consultants do not want to perform this role for liability reasons. The qualifications to perform the special inspections listed in the building code will typically preclude the A/E performing these inspections. Even when qualified some jurisdictions do not want to allow the A/E to perform these inspections. Some jurisdictions have required the structural engineer to perform inspections and sign a document indicating that the project is in conformance prior to the jurisdiction performing their inspections. These requirements are illegal, since the building code does not require them, and this typically occurs only for small projects. chapter 17 has provisions for structural observation which are different from inspections. Structural observations are performed to determine if the project is in general conformance with the construction documents. Structural Observations must be performed by the structural engineer. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 777 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 05:56 pm:    Mark: I didn't mean to indicate that the A/E is required to perform the inspections, just that they "may" be required (by agreement with the owner) to perform the required special inspections. Special inspections could very likely be performed by firms other than those hired to design the project. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com David E Lorenzini Senior Member Username: deloren Post Number: 84 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 06:48 pm:    Jerome It may be the word Inspect that is offending the Architect and not the action. In their insurance seminars for design Professionals, DPIC used to warn against using words that could be misconstrued by a lay jury and lead to unnecessry claims. The word Inspect was one of them since it meant "examine carefully and critically, especially for flaws, with the intent of verification". I think the word "observation" the recommended term. See if your client would accept that. David Lorenzini, FCSI, CCS Architectural Resources Co. Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 152 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 07:57 pm:    Because the role of the A/E is to observe construction and Inspect is generally held to a higher level of duty, my former employer had me revise the language in our AIA agreements and in the Supplemental Conditions to change "shall inspect" to "shall conduct reviews". It was clumsy at times, and a very conservative approach... In my mind, if you met the standard of care and your attorney really knows construction law, this shouldn't be necessary. Ex: The Architect will conduct reviews to determine the date or dates of Substantial Completion and the date of final completion, will receive and forward to the Owner, for the Owner’s review and records, written warranties and related documents required by the Contract and assembled by the Contractor, and will issue a final Certificate for Payment upon compliance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. The Architect’s review will be conducted with the Owner’s Designated Representative to check conformance of the visible Work with the requirements of the Contract Documents and to verify the accuracy and completeness of the list submitted by the Contractor of Work to be completed or corrected. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 347 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, July 24, 2009 - 10:13 am:    Consistency is also an issue here. I do agree with the views expressed by others, but the specifications should be consistent with construction contract conditions as well as with the terms of the design contract. Incidentally, I would suggest that the construction contract cannot expand the duties agreed upon in the design contract. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 180 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, July 24, 2009 - 11:19 am:    Given that we can increase our liability exposure by performing some act that we were not contractually obligated to perform, I believe that we can expand our contractual duties by what we place in the specifications. This may be different if somebody else wrote the specifications and we had no knowlege of what was in them. Even if the design contract does not obligate us to inspect but the construction contract says that we will, the contractor might argue that we had a duty to him to perform those inspections. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 26 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Friday, July 24, 2009 - 11:42 am:    This issue is similar to the one of approving or accepting submittals - everyone talks about the wording on submittal stamps while ignoring what their service agreement and the Conditions of the Contract state. The place to start the discussion is what you have contracted to do in your agreement with the client - if you don't want to do any "inspections," you need to have your agreement say what you will and will not do. Then make sure that the Conditions of the Contract are in agreement with that - what you tell the Contractor you are going to do. Then finally make sure that the specifications are in agreement with the other two and in this case make sure your contract administration actions are in agreement with the other two.