Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Special inspection abuses, was (structuralobservation-history?)[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: Special inspection abuses, was (structuralobservation-history?)
- From: Mlcse(--nospam--at)aol.com
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 00:29:02 EDT
I would agree with the intent of the Special Inspector, and with what Mark said in the end of his e-mail which is that the SEOR has little control over what happens on the project.
The building owners typically do not want to pay for the deputy inspection, they wouldn't if it was required by the building code (or local admendments) for various items (Continuous inspection for Masonry, Field Welding, epoxy placement, 3000 psi concrete and higher placement, etc). The building owners see this as an added cost, not a benefit that someone is making sure that the contractor is doing his job correctly. The contractor has the ear of the building owner whom he tells that the deputy inspector is often slowing down the job (Possible added costs for job delays) and they need to find an inspector thats willing to work with the contractor, not necessarily make him build per plans and specifications. Deputy inspectors are periodically removed from jobs at the building owners request as being unreasonsable. As far as the owner is concerned, thats what the city inspector is suppose to do, verify that the building is being built per the plans.
I can see the City of Santa Monica wanting to have more control over the Deputy inspection program. As mentioned in recent e-mails on the list server, many of the deputy inspectors are not doing what they are suppose to, and are often scheduled by their company's to be at two jobs at the same time. So the inspector is only on the job 1/2 the time when he/she is suppose to be providing continuous inspection. Since the SEOR is disconnected from many of the projects, its hard to tell if the plans are actually being followed.
In a message dated 5/10/2004 9:05:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, MarkKGilligan(--nospam--at)compuserve.com writes:
I agree with Paul that the Special inspector is there to look after the
- Prev by Subject: Re: Special inspection abuses, was (structuralobservation-history?)
- Next by Subject: Re: Spreadsheet Password Protection Removal
- Previous by thread: Re: Special inspection abuses, was (structuralobservation-history?)
- Next by thread: FW: Notice to Candidates of the SE Exam