Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Standard Practice?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
A good deal of this depends on exactly how your specs are written, but in
general...

First, quick 2 cents worth, the general contractor should not be responsible
for hiring someone to inspect his/her own work.  An independent "Special
Inspector" or quality assurance type person should be paid for by the owner.

>Who is responsible when the contractor doesn't meet the projects
specifications?
The contractor

>Is the Engineer/Architect responsible to come up w/ a fix?
No, but it is the A/E's responsibility to approve of the contractor's
proposed fix - which means that you may wind up doing a fair share of the
design anyway.  Our specs make the contractor financially responsible for
additional service fees that are the result of their screw ups.

>Is it up to the Contractor and his subs to find a solution?
To propose one, if you make them.

>What happens if the GC continues w/ construction when he knows that there
are noncompliant situations that he is covering up?
The "Special Inspector" or the design professional is responsible for
informing the Code Official if they know of a discrepancy that isn't getting
resolved.  Then the code official can decide whether to stop the job, or
hold up a CO, or whatever they want to do.

>How do you deal w/ the frustrations?
Don't take it personally.

>Aren't the codes (ASCE, AISC, SJI) Law?
AISC by itself, for example, is not law.  It is a design standard that is
referenced by the state's adopted building code.  The local building code
may amend the referenced design standard.  I'm not quite sure of the
technical difference between "code" and "law," but there is one.

>Am i being whiny little baby?
I don't think so.

>Should i just shut up?
No. Keep asking questions.

>Why can't we all just get along?
Because there's too much money to be lost by going back and doing it right.

-----Original Message-----
From: Alden Manipula, E.I.T. [mailto:amanipula(--nospam--at)novagroupinc.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 12:10 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Standard Practice?


I've only worked in one architectural/engineering company so far in my short
career as a structural EIT.  My question relates to how other offices deal
w/ field problems, how the code of standard practice tell us to handle
problems, and what the correct path for resolution of any field problems is.

For this hypothetical situation, who's responsible for what etc. etc.

The hypothetical situation:  Several non-code compliant erection
deficiencies are found by the General Contractors inspector.  For example;
less then SJI specified joist bearings, a WT added to the bottom of a roof
beam to make up for bearing plate installed to low, short anchor bolts...

Who is responsible when the contractor doesn't meet the projects
specifications?
Is the Engineer/Architect responsible to come up w/ a fix?
Is it up to the Contractor and his subs to find a solution?
What happens if the GC continues w/ construction when he knows that there
are noncompliant situations that he is covering up?
How do you deal w/ the frustrations?
Aren't the codes (ASCE, AISC, SJI) Law?
Am i being whiny little baby?
Why can't we all just get along?

Thanks.

Alden Manipula, EIT




******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********