Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Chapter 17- IBC

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
We had a similar situation where the client discussed with the AHJ and the AHJ agreed that certain code requirements were not necessary.  The reasons were convenience (we've never done that before, the rest of the building wasn't done that way, increase in cost with no perceived increase in quality, ...).
This was not a special inspection situation but a material (inappropriate) use situation.  Being the engineer of record, we maintained the drawings which complied with the code.  It ended up the owner did what they wanted with the AHJ's agreement.
We never did get as-built record drawings for the job.

On 2/20/08, Michelle Motchos <mmotchos(--nospam--at)> wrote:

How well, or not well, are special inspections being enforced out there?


We have a situation in which the Owners Rep and local Building Code Official are of the opinion that our requirements regarding tests and qualifications are "excessive" (i.e. they have probably never done them before, and they are tight on money). The SSI is directly based on the CASE documents which have been used as baselines for enforcement in other county building departments in the state. As reference, the project is in a rural county and is a 42,000sf 2story special concentric steel braced frame in a SDC D. In particular the CBO is allowing a local architect (actually the Owners Rep), who does not meet the qualifications in the SSI, to perform "inspections". Some of the inspections are simply not being done and others not done thoroughly.  We have been repeatedly documenting this to the owner and those involved to no avail other then raising tempers. The CBO believes he has the discretion to implement the SSI as he sees fit, but we are not of the same opinion. To further complicate a bad situation, the building is a county building, so they have a vested interest. We are clearly concerned for the quality of the project as well as fulfilling our own professional and legal obligations to the public.


Has any one come across this before? Any opinions on how to move forward? Is this really up to the CBO?