# Is a "final" inspection final?



## MRRPM (Jul 13, 2015)

Hi all,

  I'm a building owner, had a contractor add an addition to my building, he contracted everything turn key, but electrical, (we have our own electrician).

The building is a commercial building, 60,000 sq/ft, lights only, no equipment yet. Our electrician installed all lighting, and called for a final inspection, the inspector came out, inspected, left a "final" inspection approval. All is good, until we find out that since our electrician didn't call for a rough in, that our "final" is not "final" any more. All that's needed is a rough inspection, but the top few rows of lights are over 40ft in the air, we turned our man lift in (rented), since we had a "final", and Co wants us to open up all junction boxes for them to inspect. Question is, is a "final" electrical inspection actually "final"?

  My point of view, is that we should have never had a "final" without a rough in. The Co's excuse is that the inspector didn't have cell service to check for a rough in, on his laptop. My view is that no cell service is no excuse to approve, then disapprove a "final" inspection. No cell service, no final.


----------



## fatboy (Jul 13, 2015)

Well, it is not a good situation, but if the inspector approved it based on certain information, assuming there has been a rough, and subsequently finds out that in fact there had not been a rough inspection, he is within his rights to ask for the rough in.

I  would, but I would have also checked for the rough prior to leaving out for the day. JMHO

Looks like you have been registered with us for a while, glad you posted. Sorry my answer probably isn't what you hoped for.


----------



## mjesse (Jul 13, 2015)

I agree with FB above.

Who's to blame for not scheduling the rough? If you hired and electrician to handle it, and he didn't....well, he can pay to get the lift back on-site.

If it was your responsibility (_ultimately,_ it's yours regardless) to schedule the inspection, consider it a learning experience, suck it up and get it done.


----------



## MRRPM (Jul 13, 2015)

fatboy said:
			
		

> Well, it is not a good situation, but if the inspector approved it based on certain information, assuming there has been a rough, and subsequently finds out that in fact there had not been a rough inspection, he is within his rights to ask for the rough in. I  would, but I would have also checked for the rough prior to leaving out for the day. JMHO
> 
> Looks like you have been registered with us for a while, glad you posted. Sorry my answer probably isn't what you hoped for.


  Yes, it's not good. I don't mind having them go back, but honestly I think they are covering up for their employee screw up. The main problem is I'm gonna have to rent another lift for them to come back & reinspect.

  The real question is: Is a "final" inspection actually "final"? If I get a "final" on my building, with a CO, can they come back on me, like they are doing on this electrical "final"? If so, can I be thrown out? Will my power be turned off, and employees sent home?


----------



## Frank (Jul 13, 2015)

It depends on jurisdiction's statues of limitations--in Virginia there is 2 years after CO (final inspections can count for CO for certain renovations etc.) or first occupancy whichever is later for missed violations to be prosecutable,  after that there can be a letter stating the violations exist, but prosecution is unlikely.

If no CO or no permit--the clock never starts and violations can be made to be corrected decades later (one case was a garage that had the permit application rejected due to sewer easement conflicts and they built it anyway without permits in the late 1970s--  in 2005 the violation was discovered and eventually they had to take down half the garage--several owners later)

New information can make a final inspection and even a CO go poof.

From Virginia Construction Code

115.2.1 Notice not to be issued under certain circumstances. When violations are discovered more than two years after the certificate of occupancy is issued or the date of initial occupancy, whichever occurred later, or more than two years after the approved final inspection for an alteration or renovation, a notice of violation shall only be issued upon advice from the legal counsel of the locality that action may be taken to compel correction of the violation. When compliance can no longer be compelled by prosecution under Section 36-106 of the Code of Virginia, the building official, when requested by the building owner, shall document in writing the existence of the violation noting the edition of the USBC the violation is under.


----------



## cda (Jul 13, 2015)

O



			
				MRRPM said:
			
		

> Yes, it's not good. I don't mind having them go back, but honestly I think they are covering up for their employee screw up. The main problem is I'm gonna have to rent another lift for them to come back & reinspect.  The real question is: Is a "final" inspection actually "final"? If I get a "final" on my building, with a CO, can they come back on me, like they are doing on this electrical "final"? If so, can I be thrown out? Will my power be turned off, and employees sent home?


Once the c of o is issued unless there is something real bad, that should be it,

In defense of the inspector, the city may have more than one inspector, and he assumed since the building was up, that another inspector did the rough in.

Sounds like there is enough FAULT to make everyone happy


----------



## mjesse (Jul 13, 2015)

MRRPM said:
			
		

> The real question is: Is a "final" inspection actually "final"? If I get a "final" on my building, with a CO, can they come back on me, like they are doing on this electrical "final"?


The real, real question is: if a rough is required, why didn't you schedule one?

If you didn't schedule or forgot to schedule the inspection, and you erroneously told the AHJ you were ready for a final, how is it "their employee's screw up"? You shouldn't have moved forward without an approved rough.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jul 13, 2015)

Since nothing had a cover, there was no reason for the inspector to note "OK to cover". It is usually a line item on the inspection card. He could have done, say, plumbing rough, but since rough electrical was never called, it got passed over. I personally would lay most the blame on you and your electrician, and assume a portion for myself for lack of oversight, like maybe 25% of the equipment rental.

But if you look at it objectively, you took responsibility through your guy to complete that task. Part of the fun of being your own manager.

I would feel ok as the contractor to kick a hundred bucks your way.

Brent.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 13, 2015)

> The real question is: Is a "final" inspection actually "final"?


Short answer: Never

[A] 110.5 Inspection requests.

It shall be the duty of the holder of the building permit or their duly authorized agent to notify the building official when work is ready for inspection. It shall be the duty of the permit holder to provide access to and means for inspections of such work that are required by this code.



> If I get a "final" on my building, with a CO, can they come back on me, like they are doing on this electrical "final"? If so, can I be thrown out?


Short answers:Yes and Yes however they will probably have to go through the courts and get an order

[A] 110.6 Approval required.

Work shall not be done beyond the point indicated in each successive inspection without first obtaining the approval of the building official. The building official, upon notification, shall make the requested inspections and shall either indicate the portion of the construction that is satisfactory as completed, or notify the permit holder or his or her agent wherein the same fails to comply with this code. Any portions that do not comply shall be corrected and such portion shall not be covered or concealed until authorized by the building official.



> Will my power be turned off


Yes it could happen.

[A] 111.4 Revocation.

The building official is authorized to, in writing, suspend or revoke a certificate of occupancy or completion issued under the provisions of this code wherever the certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or where it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code.

Since it is "your" electrician you where ultimately responsible for making sure all inspections where complete. This seems a little harsh in my opinion to require a lift be brought in to look in all the junction boxes if all they are running are lights. I am not sure what the think they may find. Have your electrician talk it over with the county and maybe you can work something out


----------



## MtnArch (Jul 13, 2015)

Not to throw gas on a fire (just asking for my own knowledge), but isn't there a record kept current at the city/county for the inspectors of what has or hasn't been signed off?  Obviously if there are corrections that gets thrown in the file for the re-inspection - but wouldn't there be a note added (or, in this case, NOT added) to indicate what's been signed off?


----------



## MRRPM (Jul 13, 2015)

Well, as far as what they're gonna inspect, all they can inspect is under the covers, in junction boxes, and one 400 amp service, since that's all there is.

  I understand that it is my responsibility to call for a rough in inspection, but, according to what they told me, this is a common problem, like in houses where they cover elec, hvac, plbg, etc with sheetrock. One supervisor went on to explain to me that they were working on software that wouldn't allow a final, without a rough. Surely they have discussed the inspectors having a look, to make sure the rough has been done, as opposed to just inspecting whatever is called in? Maybe not? If I was a supervisor over a group of inspectors, I would be bringing this up daily, to keep guys outta my ear, when things get mixed up. I have employees, and know how people are, I also know how gov't employees are, and they will NEVER admit fault, and will cover for one another, until the end.

  One other thing, we have a very business friendly board of Co Commisioners, and if they were to turn off my power, b/c of a missed rough, that would be political suicide, on the part of the Co. employee. There is no need in disconnecting my power, to an existing bldg, when this new addition is all that is in question, my existing is fine.

  There has been mention of violations, are missed inspections a violation? How can they be, if the bldg has no CO? It's no different than flat land sitting there. No CO, no violation.

  Also, if a Co. employee was to violate law, and turn my power off illegally, I would assume they are out from under the Gov't's umbrella of protection, same as OSHA is, correct? I would think a Co. employee would think twice, before shutting down a business illegally, no? Maybe not, as they have no problem moving forward with final inspections, when roughins have not been done. Are Co. employees trained to know that they are liable, when doing things that are illegal? I would think the Co. would train them that, but who knows.


----------



## cda (Jul 13, 2015)

MRRPM said:
			
		

> Well, as far as what they're gonna inspect, all they can inspect is under the covers, in junction boxes, and one 400 amp service, since that's all there is.  I understand that it is my responsibility to call for a rough in inspection, but, according to what they told me, this is a common problem, like in houses where they cover elec, hvac, plbg, etc with sheetrock. One supervisor went on to explain to me that they were working on software that wouldn't allow a final, without a rough. Surely they have discussed the inspectors having a look, to make sure the rough has been done, as opposed to just inspecting whatever is called in? Maybe not? If I was a supervisor over a group of inspectors, I would be bringing this up daily, to keep guys outta my ear, when things get mixed up. I have employees, and know how people are, I also know how gov't employees are, and they will NEVER admit fault, and will cover for one another, until the end.
> 
> One other thing, we have a very business friendly board of Co Commisioners, and if they were to turn off my power, b/c of a missed rough, that would be political suicide, on the part of the Co. employee. There is no need in disconnecting my power, to an existing bldg, when this new addition is all that is in question, my existing is fine.
> 
> ...


More than likely power will not be shut off

It can be done legally

An inspector should be able to admit he is wrong

In your situation

It sounds like blame can be spread out

Get the inspection done and move on


----------



## JBI (Jul 13, 2015)

MRRPM, Deep breaths... in through the nose, out through the mouth. It is highly unlikely anyone will try to have the power turned off. As pretty much everyone has said, there is a limited amount of 'blame' to be placed on the Inspectors' shoulders. The majority of the fault lies with you and your Electrician. Before you go off half-cocked and say something you may come to regret, like threatening a County Employee with political pressure, why not just chalk this up to the learning experience it is and see how the inspection goes. The one day rental for the lift is a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things. (by the way, have your Electrician there just in case...)


----------



## north star (Jul 13, 2015)

*= & = & =*





> "I also know how gov't employees are, and they will NEVER admit fault,and will cover for one another, until the end."


Really !......Sounds like you only have one thing on your mind.....I too agreewith the other Forum members & advisors.........IMO, it sounds as though

you need a large helping of Humble Pie.......The good people on here are

trying to help you and advise you in the best way in which to proceed.

Also, ...this Forum is not the best place to sling mud at government

employees.      



*= & = & =*


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jul 13, 2015)

north star said:
			
		

> *= & = & =*Really !......Sounds like you only have one thing on your mind.....I too agree
> 
> with the other Forum members & advisors.........IMO, it sounds as though
> 
> ...


Well, technically, it's a great place to do it.  

Brent


----------



## cda (Jul 13, 2015)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Well, technically, it's a great place to do it.   Brent


Surprised that putting contractors on the slow response list has not come up


----------



## cda (Jul 13, 2015)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Well, technically, it's a great place to do it.   Brent


Surprised that putting contractors on the slow response list has not come up


----------



## conarb (Jul 14, 2015)

In the areas I have been building inspectors are no-longer allowed on ladders, lifts, or roofs, everything is inspected from the ground.  If the city does require a lift to inspect those boxes I'd require both certificates of liability insurance and Workers Compensation certificates from the city naming you as additionally insured with a hold harmless and indemnification agreement.  Talk to your insurance agent about what I just said using the same language, rather than go through all the legalities the city may just go away and leave you alone.


----------



## MRRPM (Jul 14, 2015)

north star said:
			
		

> *= & = & =*Really !......Sounds like you only have one thing on your mind.....I too agree
> 
> with the other Forum members & advisors.........IMO, it sounds as though
> 
> ...


So you disagree? You would out a colleague doing wrong, or making mistakes?

If so, you're a ray of hope in the darkness of gov't employees that are so common these days.

 The way I see gov't employees, is either you are part of the problem, or part of the solution, which are you?


----------



## MRRPM (Jul 14, 2015)

conarb said:
			
		

> In the areas I have been building inspectors are no-longer allowed on ladders, lifts, or roofs, everything is inspected from the ground.  If the city does require a lift to inspect those boxes I'd require both certificates of liability insurance and Workers Compensation certificates from the city naming you as additionally insured with a hold harmless and indemnification agreement.  Talk to your insurance agent about what I just said using the same language, rather than go through all the legalities the city may just go away and leave you alone.


Great idea, never thought about that angle. I will call for an inspection, & see if they will provide ins certs, same as my contractor must do to work for me. Really don't know how they inspect junction boxes 40ft in the air, in the first place, or in arrears anyway. They really are making a mountain out of a molehill, they just need to do the inspection, and check the box, as they should have done in the first place.

  This whole project has been an experience in gov't incompetence. I will make a short list.

 When we applied for a permit, the Co. said we needed an erosion control plan from the state, we paid an engineer $3000. to draw up an erosion control plan, submitted it to the state, got it approved by the state, no problem. The state came out, by chance before we even started putting in the erosion control, said we didn't need ANY erosion control at all! Signed a paper saying so. So now we have a worthless erosion control plan, that was a waste of $3000. The Co. has no business saying that we need to comply with any regulations, that it does not oversee, as they are not qualified to do so.

  Second thing, we paid for a permit, don't remember what it costed, but as normal, a % of est construction cost. When the contractor tried to call in for a footer inspection, they told him that they require a third party to inspect commercial footers. (This is one time they have admitted their incompetence) They aren't smart enough to inspect them! Ok, they know not how to inspect commercial footers, (even though they are drawn on the plan, they approved) and have no problem admitting it, I can see that, but to charge us full price for a permit, then require me to pay again for the work they were paid to do, is not right. They don't know that the excuse for the cost of a permit is in part, to cover the cost of inspections, which, in this case, they do not do. Add to the frustration of dealing with these clowns, they are able to approve the plan, as drawn, with footers, on paper, and approve a permit, but they can't inspect what is drawn on the plan, after built? How can they say that the drawing looks good, but on the other hand, can't say if the actual work, as performed is good or not?

  The more I think about this, makes me wonder why we as a society even need code inspectors? In my case, I hired an engineer to design the building, from top to bottom, it was approved for construction, by all gov't parties. Then, I had to pay for my own inspection, on the footers. Why do I, or we, even need gov't paid inspectors? I can hire my own. Co is not liable if they miss anything during inspection, engineers & outside inspectors are.


----------



## cda (Jul 14, 2015)

MRRPM said:
			
		

> Great idea, never thought about that angle. I will call for an inspection, & see if they will provide ins certs, same as my contractor must do to work for me. Really don't know how they inspect junction boxes 40ft in the air, in the first place, or in arrears anyway. They really are making a mountain out of a molehill, they just need to do the inspection, and check the box, as they should have done in the first place.  This whole project has been an experience in gov't incompetence. I will make a short list.
> 
> When we applied for a permit, the Co. said we needed an erosion control plan from the state, we paid an engineer $3000. to draw up an erosion control plan, submitted it to the state, got it approved by the state, no problem. The state came out, by chance before we even started putting in the erosion control, said we didn't need ANY erosion control at all! Signed a paper saying so. So now we have a worthless erosion control plan, that was a waste of $3000. The Co. has no business saying that we need to comply with any regulations, that it does not oversee, as they are not qualified to do so.
> 
> ...


Ok

Well guess you will never build again

Do you want the list of problems with

Owners

Or

Contractors

First???

Have a nice day, please sign the pages of violations here _____________________


----------



## mjesse (Jul 14, 2015)

MRRPM said:
			
		

> So you disagree? You would out a colleague doing wrong, or making mistakes? If so, you're a ray of hope in the darkness of gov't employees that are so common these days.
> 
> The way I see gov't employees, is either you are part of the problem, or part of the solution, which are you?


I have, and will continue, to admit when I make a mistake. The lesson here is.....so should you.

When your only argument here is "The inspector made a mistake...I WIN, I WIN!" you're on weak ground.

Speaking to the point of how could it be missed? It's likely your inspector has multiple inspections each day, and many active permits. Your little job is probably an insignificant number on his list. Without a system to "HALT" any inspections without prior approval (we are looking to implement similar software later this year) there is no real way to track every single missed inspection.

My colleagues and I have tried to help you, but you're not listening. Where is it the problem lies??


----------



## Inspector 102 (Jul 14, 2015)

As a municipal inspector, I have admitted mistakes on more occasions than I care to admit. I have contractors that find it a game to challenge me on site with "situations". This is how we both learn from each other. If a rough inspection was missed, than it is the best interest of all parties involved to back up and get the required inspection. If the inspector is not qualified, then it is simply a power move to prove they can do it. I personally would look at as much as possible at ground level and if there is one box 40 feet in the air, if the rest were okay, I would note on the report "no access, approved based on inspected work" and move on. I have never try to cover for anyone or throw anyone else under the bus in 26 years as an inspector. Luckily the contractors know me personally and mutual respect is the normal here.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 14, 2015)

Your foundation design may have required a special inspector by design or code and may not be because the AHJ inspectors where not qualified.

Your project in my jurisdiction would not require a lift be brought in and we take a couple of box covers off to look at the amount of wire in the box and the connections. We can confirm the type and size of wire used from breaker panel. A note on the inspection report or the CO could indicate as stated above "no access, approved based on inspected work" and the AHJ moves on.

Perhaps you should calmly talk to someone up the ladder above the inspector. Is you electrician an employee or a licensed electrician you hired? How is his work and reputation known to the AHJ inspectors? We all develop different working relationships with different contractors. Some we know we can't trust and have to watch like a hawk and others we know are honorable and will always strive to do the work to code or better. How is your electricians work relationship with the AHJ?


----------



## MRRPM (Jul 14, 2015)

cda said:
			
		

> OkWell guess you will never build again
> 
> Do you want the list of problems with
> 
> ...


Oh yes, I will build again. Co. employees only have a job, they will most likely only last a few years, and be gone. I built my first building in 2000, totally different crowd to work with then, as it will be the next time I build. Speaking of my first build, I acted as contractor myself, hired & paid all subs, with no problems. We were working in my building one day, an inspector came up, said he was gonna give us a final inspection, I said have at it. He inspected the building, passed it, and went on his way. Thing is, this was three years after we finished the building!

  You are the inspector, it is your job to know the rules, not mine, so the public, (contractors & Owners) aren't supposed to know these rules, we pay you to know all this. These rules & regulations are for the state, or other gov't emtity, not me, I do not require all this red tape to get my building done. These requirements are for the gov't's needs, so I am just helping the Co employee get what the gov't wants from the Co. it's nothing to me if I have a final or not. It's amazing how many do not understand that, they seem to think that the rules are for me or something, they are not. Why would I need a CO? I have no need for such paperwork, I can walk into my own property, without asking anyone, as can my employees.


----------



## MRRPM (Jul 14, 2015)

Inspector 102 said:
			
		

> As a municipal inspector, I have admitted mistakes on more occasions than I care to admit. I have contractors that find it a game to challenge me on site with "situations". This is how we both learn from each other. If a rough inspection was missed, than it is the best interest of all parties involved to back up and get the required inspection. If the inspector is not qualified, then it is simply a power move to prove they can do it. I personally would look at as much as possible at ground level and if there is one box 40 feet in the air, if the rest were okay, I would note on the report "no access, approved based on inspected work" and move on. I have never try to cover for anyone or throw anyone else under the bus in 26 years as an inspector. Luckily the contractors know me personally and mutual respect is the normal here.


As have I. Their excuse is that the inspector had no cell service to log into the Co.'s system to check for a rough, which is an outright lie, we are in site of the Co.'s cellular carrier, which is the same as mine. I have no problem working with anyone, but when I am lied to, I have a problem with that individual, or organization that individual belongs to. The main problem here, is we are dealing with a lying gov't that takes our money, then lies to us, when they make mistakes.

  The proper response from the Co. should have been: We inspected the electrical, and did your final, but you didn't call us for a rough, we need to schedule you a rough asap, so you can move on with this project. I had an inspector that overlooked that fact, and we need to get this going, as we all know that the rough was done, or the final wouldn't have passed, and all that needs to be done is a rough inspection to get you going.

 How hard is that?


----------



## fatboy (Jul 14, 2015)

You need a CO because the adopted code, which makes it law, requires you obtain it. And, if you want to get in a pi$$ing match with the AHJ, they can write you a summons, and you can explain it to the judge. I have, contractor thought he could skip acquiring  a couple CO's for houses that had passed finals, but he didn't want to pay his deferred development fees, to the tune of about $55K. Well guess what, he paid, both ways.

I imagine your insurance carrier might have a different opinion on whether you need a CO.

And your assumption that there will be different staff? I have been in my jurisdiction in different positions for 19 years, least amount of time for any of my inspectors, 8 years.


----------



## Frank (Jul 14, 2015)

Another thought--

Would you prefer that with the uncertainty of if a rough electrical inspection was done due to not being able to check--

1.  The inspector rejected the final for no confirmation of an approved rough and comes back another day?

Or

2.  He did the final and when found out later the rough was missing came back and asked for it?

In the long run it saves owners, contractors, and the inspectors time and money to go with option 2.


----------



## Frank (Jul 14, 2015)

MRRPM said:
			
		

> The proper response from the Co. should have been: We inspected the electrical, and did your final, but you didn't call us for a rough, we need to schedule you a rough asap, so you can move on with this project. I had an inspector that overlooked that fact, and we need to get this going, as we all know that the rough was done, or the final wouldn't have passed, and all that needs to be done is a rough inspection to get you going.
> 
> How hard is that?


From your original post that looks like that is what the county did.


----------



## MRRPM (Jul 14, 2015)

mjesse said:
			
		

> I have, and will continue, to admit when I make a mistake. The lesson here is.....so should you.When your only argument here is "The inspector made a mistake...I WIN, I WIN!" you're on weak ground.
> 
> Speaking to the point of how could it be missed? It's likely your inspector has multiple inspections each day, and many active permits. Your little job is probably an insignificant number on his list. Without a system to "HALT" any inspections without prior approval (we are looking to implement similar software later this year) there is no real way to track every single missed inspection.
> 
> My colleagues and I have tried to help you, but you're not listening. Where is it the problem lies??


The inspector made a mistake, then his superiors lied about him not having cell service, to cover up for him, this is where the problem lies.

Never said anything about winning anything, didn't know we were in some type of competition. Are you saying I am supposed to compete with my local gov't?

His superiors are coming to inspect this time, we will see if they lie to my face this time. I do not have a lot of patience for a liar, does anyone here?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 14, 2015)

> I do not have a lot of patience for a liar, does anyone here?


I don't


----------



## MRRPM (Jul 14, 2015)

fatboy said:
			
		

> You need a CO because the adopted code, which makes it law, requires you obtain it. And, if you want to get in a pi$$ing match with the AHJ, they can write you a summons, and you can explain it to the judge. I have, contractor thought he could skip acquiring  a couple CO's for houses that had passed finals, but he didn't want to pay his deferred development fees, to the tune of about $55K. Well guess what, he paid, both ways.I imagine your insurance carrier might have a different opinion on whether you need a CO.
> 
> And your assumption that there will be different staff? I have been in my jurisdiction in different positions for 19 years, least amount of time for any of my inspectors, 8 years.


I have never been asked about a CO, in my life for anything, and am fully insured.

There will be a different staff, I have seen guys come in here, attempt to apply for a job here, take our pre-employment 8th grade math test, fail that, and get a job at the county. There will be more, always have been, their high turnover rate, most likely has something to do with their incompetence. Really, I wish they had longer lasting employees, that way, I could develop a working relationship with them, but alas, they're gone every time I call there.

  As far as them summoning me, all the judge would do is ask me to get a final, and tell the Co. to come out & get me finished up, as they should have in the first place. I can't issue myself a CO, so it will be on the Co. to do that. going to court would be a waste of time for all parties. There are no fees or anything like you're mentioning here, I have done paid what is required, when I bought the permit.


----------



## MRRPM (Jul 14, 2015)

Frank said:
			
		

> Another thought--Would you prefer that with the uncertainty of if a rough electrical inspection was done due to not being able to check--
> 
> 1.  The inspector rejected the final for no confirmation of an approved rough and comes back another day?
> 
> ...


The final shouldn't have even been scheduled, if there was not a rough done. Am I wrong, or does the gov't always do thing backwards?

 Number two, is what he did, number one is what he should have done, if he was on his game, that way, we wouldn't be here today.


----------



## steveray (Jul 14, 2015)

"Why do I, or we, even need gov't paid inspectors? I can hire my own. Co is not liable if they miss anything during inspection, engineers & outside inspectors are."

Have you seen ICE's pictures?.....I wish we weren't needed almost every day..And then I go to work and realize how much we are needed (competent inspectors that is)...


----------



## MRRPM (Jul 14, 2015)

steveray said:
			
		

> "Why do I, or we, even need gov't paid inspectors? I can hire my own. Co is not liable if they miss anything during inspection, engineers & outside inspectors are."Have you seen ICE's pictures?.....I wish we weren't needed almost every day..And then I go to work and realize how much we are needed (competent inspectors that is)...


I don't know ICE, so no, I haven't seen his pics.

  That's the thing, gov't always messes up things, they never help. Private inspectors must get it right, they have their reputation on the line, if they do bad work, they don't work. If the Co. does bad work, who cares? They have no competition, the Co. is the only game in town. The problem is incompetence, the Co. will hire anyone, since they can't go out of business, private inspection companies don't have that option. This is most likely what is happening; Counties are requiring inspections that are over their head, be done by outside inspectors, so outside inspectors have more work, and hire the good employees away from the Co.. Then, the Co. is left with bottom of the line employees, and high turnover.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 14, 2015)

Ice post a lot of photos of things he finds wrong

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/contractor-talk/6666-average-day-39.html


----------



## mjesse (Jul 14, 2015)

MRRPM said:
			
		

> I don't know ICE, so no, I haven't seen his pics.  That's the thing, gov't always messes up things, they never help. Private inspectors must get it right, they have their reputation on the line, if they do bad work, they don't work. If the Co. does bad work, who cares? They have no competition, the Co. is the only game in town. The problem is incompetence, the Co. will hire anyone, since they can't go out of business, private inspection companies don't have that option. This is most likely what is happening; Counties are requiring inspections that are over their head, be done by outside inspectors, so outside inspectors have more work, and hire the good employees away from the Co.. Then, the Co. is left with bottom of the line employees, and high turnover.


Is this JAR posting under a pseudonym??!


----------



## conarb (Jul 14, 2015)

MRRPM said:
			
		

> I don't know ICE, so no, I haven't seen his pics.  That's the thing, gov't always messes up things, they never help. Private inspectors must get it right, they have their reputation on the line, if they do bad work, they don't work. If the Co. does bad work, who cares? They have no competition, the Co. is the only game in town. The problem is incompetence, the Co. will hire anyone, since they can't go out of business, private inspection companies don't have that option. This is most likely what is happening; Counties are requiring inspections that are over their head, be done by outside inspectors, so outside inspectors have more work, and hire the good employees away from the Co.. Then, the Co. is left with bottom of the line employees, and high turnover.


The biggest gripe I get is from homeowners on the subject of special inspections, the way Chapter 17 is written I interpret it to say that the owner, not the contractor, has to pay for special inspections, in my cost breakdown I include it but back it our as paid by owner, if I don't do that they always argue that it should be my responsibility as a builder and they are ill prepared for the costs.  In one recent instance, a single family home with 125 pages of plans and $100,000 budget for special inspections, the owner asked: "Why all these multiple layers of inspection?"  I explained that city inspectors can't stand around all day while piers are being drilled and watch while all the welding is being done, plus city inspectors do not have welding certifications, the structural engineer was standing there, he is from Poland and stated that in Europe all inspectors have welding certifications, here we don't even require college degrees for inspectors.

What you are witnessing is the two levels of welfare in this country, the first level we flat out give people money, the next level is government employment where the recipients are people who do something for a few years then we give them a retirement for the rest of their lives.  We are all in business to make money, government is the most lucrative business on the planet, what you are paying is a tax and we just have to accept it as such.  Actually building inspection is veering away from it's original mandates into the enforcement of social engineering,  it appears that the vast majority of these threads today are about accessibility for the disabled, a thread appears about a deck collapse and 5 people are killed and they take no responsibility.

People here justify their existence by pointing to ICE's threads, he inspects in a lower socioeconomic area where people are doing a lot of dumb things like installing solar panels, which are today's equivalent of aluminum siding.


----------



## David Henderson (Jul 14, 2015)

You state that you would like to see the county have inspectors that stay longer, so you could build a working relationship with them, I have a hard time believing that. Sounds to me like you feel that you or your employee's are to blame what so ever. Perhaps you went the county office with the same attitude you have here, which is pi$$ poor. not a good way to start out.


----------



## conarb (Jul 14, 2015)

Q

Dave:

I'm curious, does Albany allow you to go on roofs, ladders, or to walk roofs?  In the last few years both Contra Costa and Santa Clara County inspectors have told me that they are not allowed for insurance reasons, they actually inspected roof nailing from standing on the subfloor looking up for shiners!  I had the electrician leave his longest ladder and told the inspector I'd get it to test smokes over 20' up, he said don't bother he can't get on ladders.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 14, 2015)

We climb scaffolds, ladders and mountains to do inspections. We will walk the roof, 4/12 with no second thoughts, steeper then that and we harness up. HR is okay with all of it as long as we provide the safety equipment and training to use it.



> If the city does require a lift to inspect those boxes I'd require both certificates of liability insurance and Workers Compensation certificates from the city naming you as additionally insured with a hold harmless and indemnification agreement.


Good luck with that approach


----------



## BSSTG (Jul 14, 2015)

MRRPM said:
			
		

> The more I think about this, makes me wonder why we as a society even need code inspectors? In my case, I hired an engineer to design the building, from top to bottom, it was approved for construction, by all gov't parties. Then, I had to pay for my own inspection, on the footers. Why do I, or we, even need gov't paid inspectors? I can hire my own. Co is not liable if they miss anything during inspection, engineers & outside inspectors are.


Actually I kind of agree with you with limitations. Some property and building owners due their due diligence and require type notch code compliant construction. However, more often than not, contractors and building owners will cut any number of corners to save a buck and keep the inspector at bay.

Then there are some like the guy that told me one day "You tellin me I gotta do what with my motha fudgin house?!" I said "you sure do if you want gas service. You see sir, it's my pals with the FD that gotta risk their lives to drag your charred arse out of that building cause you screwed up"

So it's really more of a life safety issue from my perspective. In addition, I've been a master electrician for very long time and I'm always flabbergasted at the stupidity of electricians on pretty regular basis. When they mess up they can fry somebody. Not cool.

BSSTG


----------



## conarb (Jul 14, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> We climb scaffolds, ladders and mountains to do inspections. We will walk the roof, 4/12 with no second thoughts, steeper then that and we harness up. HR is okay with all of it as long as we provide the safety equipment and training to use it.


Mountain Man:

Remember a few years ago somebody took a cell phone picture of an inspector on a 4:12 and turned him into CalOSHA up around Santa Rosa inspecting solar panels?  If some AHJs are allowing it and others aren't I bet Risk Management get's better insurance rates if they don't allow it.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 14, 2015)

I remember that and I am glad I do not live or work  in CA. We belong to a self insured municipality group within the state so it may be different for us then others

I heard the call many years ago


----------



## conarb (Jul 14, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> I remember that and I am glad I do not live or work  in CA. We belong to a self insured municipality group within the state so it may be different for us then othersI heard the call many years ago


Well what you better watch out for is on September 25th and 26th the United Nations is convening in New York with it's first Biodiversity Panel, the IPCC was just the first to get the funds for the New World Order, from the *maps I've seen* most of Montana is going to be declared Wildlands off limits for human habitation, we've already got a code section in place called the Wildlands-Urban Interface Code, it's just being used for fire purposes now but will govern the interface of our Urban cores and the new Wildlands, we will be creating migration paths from the Arctic to the equator and we can't allow any humans there. Welcome to urban living and all it's beautiful diversity.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 14, 2015)

So, the problem, as I understand it, is that you now need to rent a lift because neither you, nor your electrician, called for a mandatory inspection and, that had the inspector stated this prior to completing the final inspection, the lift would have still been on site?

In response to your question. A final inspection will generally assess the finished areas of the trade (building, plumbing, electrical, etc.) and may or may not be reliant on other inspections. Naturally you would want a rough in before the final inspection, because this is how the construction would progress, but if the same items are not being assessed, one is not reliant on the other. For instance: if I am building a house, but don't complete a framing inspection, does that mean that someone cannot inspect most of the life safety elements, including egress windows, smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, handrails, etc.?

Even if an inspection is missed, in my opinion, the remaining inspections should be completed and means of satisfying the outstanding inspection should be undertaken by the person (or company) named in the permit.

We do not have special inspections where I am so I can't comment on that. All plan review and inspections are completed "in house".


----------



## David Henderson (Jul 14, 2015)

conarb,

I do go on roofs, climb ladders, and check for shiners.


----------



## conarb (Jul 14, 2015)

David Henderson said:
			
		

> conarb,I do go on roofs, climb ladders, and check for shiners.


Dave:

Thanks for that, it's interesting that some jurisdictions here still allow it while others don't, got to be insurance related.


----------



## Frank (Jul 14, 2015)

MRRPM said:
			
		

> The final shouldn't have even been scheduled, if there was not a rough done. Am I wrong, or does the gov't always do thing backwards? Number two, is what he did, number one is what he should have done, if he was on his game, that way, we wouldn't be here today.


Generally the inspection is scheduled by the contractor, subcontractor, engineer or owner putting in a request.  Last jurisdiction I was in this was fully automated and there are not lockouts for previous inspections not done because different jobs require different inspections.  It also provides a lookup feature where anyone can look up the results of all the plans reviews and inspections for any project.  A weakness in the system is that anyone can schedule any inspection for any job.

When it first went online some of the homebuilders were unhappy that their buyers could see all the rejections and the review and inspection status

http://www3.co.henrico.va.us/bldg/insp/


----------



## steveray (Jul 15, 2015)

conarb said:
			
		

> Dave:Thanks for that, it's interesting that some jurisdictions here still allow it while others don't, got to be insurance related.


Conarb...Legally I do not believe I can open a live electrical panel. I certainly do not have arc flash gear..But I do.....Otherwise I would not find sexy work like this...


----------



## steveray (Jul 15, 2015)

MRRPM....I am sorry your experience wasn't what it should have been. I can't pretend that any AHJ is perfect, far from it. Our code,(and I am sure most others) make the owner or applicant responsible for following the code (knowing what inspections are required) and the AHJ for enforcement. If you took on the role of GC to save some money, you bought that headache with the money you saved.

No jurisdiction around here would have the funding to do the "special inspections" that are required by code, that is why it is put on the owner. Otherwise the taxes or permit fees would go through the roof....


----------



## conarb (Jul 15, 2015)

[QUOTE='CDA]Conarb...Legally I do not believe I can open a live electrical panel. I certainly do not have arc flash gear..But I do.....Otherwise I would not find sexy work like this...

[/QUOTE]As long as I can remember we've always had to leave the cover off all panels in the building, after inspection we screw them back on.


----------



## ICE (Jul 15, 2015)

MRRPM said:
			
		

> Well, as far as what they're gonna inspect, all they can inspect is under the covers, in junction boxes, and one 400 amp service, since that's all there is.I get a look inside all of that at the final inspection.  The typical rough inspection is conduit and maybe some wire.  And no matter what, if I am there for the first time and it's a final, I always look at everything.  There are bound to be some outlet boxes within reach of a ladder and the service is an easy reach.  So open it up.  The conduit, outlet boxes and service equipment can get a rough inspection from the floor.
> 
> One supervisor went on to explain to me that they were working on software that wouldn't allow a final, without a rough. It's called a job card.    I have employees, and know how people are, I have supervisors and I know how people are.  I also know how gov't employees are, and they will NEVER admit fault, and will cover for one another, until the end.   I get the idea that you've screwed ole Shepp more than once.
> 
> ...


Your last rant about the loss of electrical service gives you away.  When the lights go dark and the motors wind down, you will have yourself to thank.


----------



## BSSTG (Jul 16, 2015)

MRRPM Just so you will know. If it were up to me I would throw at least 1/2 of all codes and statutes governing building regs in the frickin trash can. But not for you. You're obviously such a likeable guy.

BS


----------



## cda (Jul 16, 2015)

Guess RPM gave up or got the final , since it seems the consensus is that most would go back and do some type of rough in inspection.

And that most inspectors try to do a good job,

And that the owner/ contractor does have some responsibilty in the construction process

And even """"Hammurabi""""  wanted it done correctly.


----------



## ICE (Jul 16, 2015)

MRRPM said:
			
		

> I don't know ICE


And here's to hoping that you never do.


----------



## ICE (Jul 16, 2015)

conarb said:
			
		

> People here justify their existence by pointing to ICE's threads, he inspects in a lower socioeconomic area where people are doing a lot of dumb things like installing solar panels, which are today's equivalent of aluminum siding.


That's not fair to the crowd of dedicated code professionals that pay to play here.  Nothing I've done has anything to do with justifying their existence.

As to the "lower socioeconomic area" that keeps me busy....trust me on this....I have worked millionaire's row just as hard as billy-goat acres.  I find that rich people fvck up just as much as paupers.  Of course the rich people's mistakes are way more costly ....but not equitable to the pauper's misfortune.

All things considered I prefer to work in areas with the goat owners as opposed to the Mercedes crowd.


----------



## BSSTG (Jul 16, 2015)

ICE said:
			
		

> That's not fair to the crowd of dedicated code professionals that pay to play here.  Nothing I've done has anything to do with justifying their existence.  As to the "lower socioeconomic area" that keeps me busy....trust me on this....I have worked millionaire's row just as hard as billy2
> 
> Ditto and can I can I hear an Amen brother!
> 
> BS


----------



## steveray (Jul 17, 2015)

Conarb...I find just as many issues with the $30 million jobs as the $3,000...Money does not necessarily = quality. How about a new school where the designer missed a second exit out of a basement? Or a firewall detail showing roof ventilation passing over it? And all of those plans get reviewed by the state or 3rd party before they even get to me.


----------

