Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Special Inspection

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I guess that's the reason for the UBC requiring an Inspection Program.  For an example of this go to the Seaint home page
and download a copy of it.  It's on the home page listed under "New".  It's very specific as to what must be done when Special Inspection is required.
Jim Persing, PE
-----Original Message-----
From: GSKWY(--nospam--at) [mailto:GSKWY(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 9:58 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: Special Inspection

My questions on special inspection actually stem from a litigation where the testing company is saying that they did not do special inspection.
They were hired by the design engineer (who was also doing construction administration) to perform certain functions, i.e. test the concrete, check the rebar placement, record the post-tensioning elongations.
But the project specifications say "The owner will hire as a special inspector as required by the Code".  Since this was a Seimic Performance Category "B" building,  special inspection was not required; thus the testing company is saying they did not do special inspection.  (Their contract just lists the things they will do,  it doesn't call the work special inspection.)
To the lawyers involved (of which there are many), this seems to a very key point.    Personally, I do not see that having the inspection agency agree that they did special inspection  makes them liable for the work that has now (post-construction) been found faulty; they filed reports all the way along recording the problems they observed.
And although this appears to be quibbling,  I think a great many law suits have hinged on who quibbled better.