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

Re: Test and Inspection Reports Catch 22

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I am glad to see that you copy many people on your reports.  But that is not
the industry standard.

Are you referring to this document (City of Kansas City):
http://www.kcmo.org/codes.nsf/web/spinsp?opendocument

So how does this City handle its inspection - I am curious to know.

Unless an item is codified, it is very tough to enforce.  I am referring to
the recent addition to the code called "structural observations",  now
required by many jurisdictions.  When it came out many people were
skeptical, but now this is normal.  The EOR does not have to justify to get
to the field but the owner/architect now will want the EOR on field since
the city inspector now mandates it.

- Aswin
------------------------------------
Aswin Rangswamy, P.E.
Los Angeles, California
------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Arvel L. Williams, P.E." <awilliams(--nospam--at)gwsquared.com>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:25 PM
Subject: RE: Test and Inspection Reports Catch 22


> Aswin,
>
> There is a limit to the amount of money the Architects want in the
"Design"
> side of the equation.  That's part of the reason that inspection and
testing
> have been moved to the "Construction" budget on the project.  It looks
small
> and gets treated that way.
>
> Check out the City of Kansas City for what I consider a proper way to
handle
> Special Inspection and inspection reports.
>
> Also, if the testing and inspection labs are saying "only to who the
client
> says" then their being silly and the EOR (Sorry Mr. Allen) is being
ignored.
> I prefer to copy as many people as possible on the design team and
material
> suppliers if for no other reason than to keep our name in front of them.
We
> also publish in color.  Lots of fun. Initially, most of the contractors
> would call about the use of "red" ink for non conforming test results etc.
>
> Heck, this has been discussed ad nauseum since the early 90's.  Long and
> short is that you cannot codify every little detail.  That's why we get
paid
> the big bucks don't you know.
>
> Arvel
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********