It's true that the owner will ultimately pay for the testing either way. However, by paying the inspectors directly, there is less of a chance for the contractor to influence the outcome of the tests by invoking the "golden rule". That's why UBC 1701.1 requires special inspectors to be hired by the owner or owner's agent.
It's also true that things are done differently in the Republic of Texas.
>>> "Bill Polhemus" <bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc> 04/06/01 03:43PM >>>
It isn't unusual for public agencies and entities here in Texas to engage
the testing agency and have the contractor pay for it. I'm not sure why. The
cost gets passed to the city/county/whatever anyway.
You have to remember that here in Texas at least, heavy construction is very
much run by the contractors, particularly the AGC. I wonder if that doesn't
have something to do with it.
William L. Polhemus, Jr., P.E.
Polhemus Engineering Company
From: Jason Emoto [mailto:jemoto(--nospam--at)reidmidd.com]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: QUERY: Field Quality Assurance for Concrete Coatings
<<<I want to require that the Contractor "retain a testing agency at
Contractor's expense to perform periodic inspection of concrete coating
Doesn't this create a conflict of interest for the testing agency? I
believe standard practice is to have the owner or designer pay the inspector
(unless it's part of the contractor's internal QC program).