# Failed Footer Inspection, Not allowed to pour then found this



## jar546 (Nov 17, 2010)

Footer inspection failed:

1) No permit posted on site (one was issued)

2) No set of approved plans on site

3) Forms not pinned yet, still loose

4) No provisions for bonding the rebar in the footer

5) Job not complete and no one there

On the way to another inspection and found this:


----------



## Mark K (Nov 17, 2010)

"On the way to another inspection and found this:"

A  little unclear as to what was found.  First photo is unclear but suggests that the CMU was placed on the earth and the "footing" was to be poured on the sides of the wall?  Please clarify.


----------



## rshuey (Nov 17, 2010)

Nice. They pored the footer and added some block. Should be fun to demo.


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 17, 2010)

Apparently, they are located in a "get it inspected if they feel like it ahj". Or, they complied with the posted corrections, and thought it okay to proceed.

If the steel was okay at the footing inspection, and you are comfortable at this point that the bond to rebar is established, everything else can be verifed with no demolition.

It may be an honest mistake, but these folks already have two strikes against them.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 17, 2010)

Two pieces of vertical rebar? So much for laps....


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 17, 2010)

Having plans on site seems to be your lack of diligence not the builders. How do you know what to inspect if you do not have a set of plans?

I don't see it being a big deal. How many jobs have you "ok"ed the footings on and the contractors removed the rebar before pouring the concrete? (Now that I have planted this idea in your head I expect that you will stand around and watch every footing be poured. And don't leave until the concrete is hard.

---

I expect whatever notes you left on site were read and the problems resolved to the builders ability. It is sort of hard for him to provide plans when he is not on the site. I guess you will have to accept that one.

Ask the builder.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 17, 2010)

If that is 12 inch block then it maybe beyond the prescriptive method of the IRC 2006 TABLE R403.1. Need an engineer ?


----------



## pwood (Nov 17, 2010)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> Having plans on site seems to be your lack of diligence not the builders. How do you know what to inspect if you do not have a set of plans?I don't see it being a big deal. How many jobs have you "ok"ed the footings on and the contractors removed the rebar before pouring the concrete? (Now that I have planted this idea in your head I expect that you will stand around and watch every footing be poured. And don't leave until the concrete is hard.
> 
> ---
> 
> ...


george,

i know it may be hard for you to comprehend this but it is a code requirement for the permitee to have the approved set of plans on the job at the time of inspection or a reinspection fee can be assessed. our work trucks are not rolling file cabinets:mrgreen: sheesh! jar, do whatever makes you comfortable to sign off the work completed!


----------



## peach (Nov 17, 2010)

"ooops, mr. inspector.. I promise not to do it again"


----------



## Robert Ellenberg (Nov 17, 2010)

Jar,

Several questions:

You said you were on the way to another job and found this and then stated no one was there.  It sounds like you weren't called to do an inspection.

You said footing inspection but these are foundation walls.  Did they fail the initial footing inspection, pour it and then proceed to run up the walls?

I wasn't clear about the comment on forms being pinned.  If the concrete is already poured, why would they pin them now or am I not understanding?

No way implying you aren't right, just not clear on the details.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 17, 2010)

They called for an inspection and failed.  Never heard from them again.  They did not have approval to pour the footers.

About 2 weeks later I was on my way to an inspection in the area where I had to drive right by this one.  This is what I found.  You are looking at the foundation going up where they never had approval for the footers to even be poured.

Hope that clarifies it for those of you who did not get the jist of the original post.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Nov 18, 2010)

When push comes to shove; they know you are not going to be able to make them tear down that wall, remove the footing and start all over. They know it and we know it; so, it becomes a case of how do you cover your butt.

And, everyone knows an Engineer; who, for $150.00 will write a letter that the footing meets engineering requirements. You file the letter and go on to the next inspection;

Or, you slap a stop work order on the project, stand your ground; and, send out resume's because you are not going to have that job for long.

Uncle Bob


----------



## RJJ (Nov 18, 2010)

Well UB it depends on the town! I ask for the 150.00 letter. I would place a stop work notice and have them core the footings to assure proper concrete was placed. I would also issue a citation and drag them to the DJ for a fine. 600.00 would due!!! Next time they will clean the wax out of thier ears!


----------



## KZQuixote (Nov 18, 2010)

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> When push comes to shove; they know you are not going to be able to make them tear down that wall, remove the footing and start all over. They know it and we know it; so, it becomes a case of how do you cover your butt.And, everyone knows an Engineer; who, for $150.00 will write a letter that the footing meets engineering requirements. You file the letter and go on to the next inspection;
> 
> Or, you slap a stop work order on the project, stand your ground; and, send out resume's because you are not going to have that job for long.
> 
> Uncle Bob


I'm with you there Uncle Bob. The stick's a good tool but if you never get the carrot out of your box of tricks you won't be around for long.

Bill


----------



## beach (Nov 18, 2010)

Tear it out or provide X-ray of complete footing. If I had to worry about losing my job while enforcing the code, I'd be asking if you want fries with that burger. That's why they make jack hammers and dump trucks......


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 18, 2010)

What was the original failure/corrections?

What is going to be placed on top? Single story? Two story?

You may not have to tear it out to get compliance


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 18, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> You may not have to tear it out to get compliance


The tear out is not to ensure compliance. It is to show who is "in charge."


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 18, 2010)

pwood said:
			
		

> george,i know it may be hard for you to comprehend this but it is a code requirement for the permitee to have the approved set of plans on the job at the time of inspection or a reinspection fee can be assessed. our work trucks are not rolling file cabinets:mrgreen: sheesh! jar, do whatever makes you comfortable to sign off the work completed!


The issue is that this was not an inspection. To expect that plans would be available whenever the inspector drives by seems a bit much. I prefer to be on site and give an oral engineering opinion that the work is proper. Others might have different opinions as to how to handle code compliance issues.


----------



## TimNY (Nov 18, 2010)

If you schedule an inspection (in this case, the original footing inspection. when there were no footings or walls existing.. yet), you should be there to meet the inspector, and you should have the approved plans with you.  In some cases (and I don't know how jar works) your inspection is between 8-4 and I personally would not expect somebody to wait all day (some municipalities do), but the plans should be there.  Get a piece of 3" PVC with a cap and screw it to a tree if you have to.

I know.. I know.. 10 minutes of time and $5 in pvc is too much to ask.. that's why I didn't go so far as to say they should take a wide tip marker and write "PLANS" on the pvc.

All of my inspections are scheduled, and with rare exception I am +/- 15 minutes.  I expect the contractor to be there with the plans that bear my stamp, unless other arrangements are made.  I don't think jar expected the plans to be there when he drove by (not for an inspection, but on his way to another job)-- but he didn't expect to see footings and block walls either.

The cable TV guy can require you to be at home between 8-4, but the building inspector can't.   I don't get it.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Nov 18, 2010)

Rule # 1 for contractors who have screwed up:  If you can't win the arguement; change the subject; and argue bout the new subject.  lmao

Uncle Bob


----------



## High Desert (Nov 18, 2010)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> The tear out is not to ensure compliance. It is to show who is "in charge."


Maybe in your area, but I have a very hard time approving something I haven't seen. For me it has nothing whatsoever to do with "who's in charge" but everything to do with ensuring the vertical and lateral loads are adequately transferred. I really don't care if they tear it out or provide me with an engineer's report. If they couldn't get an engineer to verify the adequacy of the footings, a tear out may be the only option.


----------



## High Desert (Nov 18, 2010)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> The tear out is not to ensure compliance. It is to show who is "in charge."


Maybe in your neck of the woods. I have a hard time approving something I haven't seen. For me it has nothing to do with "who's in charge" but everything to do with how the vertical and lateral loads are tranferred. I really don't care how they verify code compliance, tearing it out or providing an engineers report. If they couldn't get an engineer to verify compliance, a tear out may be the only solution.


----------



## beach (Nov 18, 2010)

> _George,_
> 
> _As an engineer, would you provide an approval letter stamped and signed by you for those footings?_


----------



## High Desert (Nov 18, 2010)

TimNY said:
			
		

> The cable TV guy can require you to be at home between 8-4, but the building inspector can't.   I don't get it.


We do next day inspections day after day, week after week, month after month....and the "contract employee" cable guy can't give me an estimated time for the service call I have to schedule 2 weeks in advance for? Sorry I got off subject... maybe that's a good one why contracting out government services won't work with contract employees.


----------



## beach (Nov 18, 2010)

Try contracting out plan checks....... architects, contractors, homeowners, etc. really start to appreciate the "Non-contract" government employee.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Nov 19, 2010)

Beach said,

" If I had to worry about losing my job while enforcing the code, I'd be asking if you want fries with that burger."

Well, I just got a similar situation. Having just started a new job; and, a few weeks into it; I have been told to issue a C of O for an Industrial addition on a slope.

The material used to bring the area of the foundation level; they call it "screed" (a gray gravel-like material) is washing a way around the perimeter about 4 feet from the slab. I'm told this is a great base which was compacted for two days before forming and pouring the foundation for a steel frame building addition.

My first call out I am told is for the final inspection. In the office I was told by the City Administrator that no inspections have been conducted. Other city employees confirm that the footing, slab, structure, electrical, Mechanical (HVAC on top of the structure); have not been inspected; and no records of any inspections. I have been informed that I "will issue a C of O".

Well, Beach, we do have something in common. Glad I kept my apartment.

Uncle Bob


----------



## RJJ (Nov 19, 2010)

TimNY: I agree. UB: you are on point as always! MT you raise good questions. Beach: Love the approach! George: It is not so much who is in charge. It comes down to doing a job correctly and that includes inspections. Just one of the little details sometimes ignored by contractors. If it is left unchallenged then it will just continue and we are left with no order in the process. Having inspections with plans on site is not something new. This is just a case of I will do as I please.


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 19, 2010)

RJJ said:
			
		

> George: It is not so much who is in charge. It comes down to doing a job correctly and that includes inspections. Just one of the little details sometimes ignored by contractors. If it is left unchallenged then it will just continue and we are left with no order in the process. Having inspections with plans on site is not something new. This is just a case of I will do as I please.


The attitude of tear out the work is used to show who is in charge. If you want to be a thug, you can be one. There are other less costly ways to show compliance.


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 19, 2010)

beach said:
			
		

> > _George,_
> >
> > _As an engineer, would you provide an approval letter stamped and signed by you for those footings?_


_I am not employed by the contractor so there is no need for me to provide a letter._

_If I were employed by the contractor, I would be in the position to determine if the footings were sufficient. I could provide a letter regarding the sufficiency if asked._


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 19, 2010)

beach said:
			
		

> > _George,_
> >
> > _As an engineer, would you provide an approval letter stamped and signed by you for those footings?_


_I am not employed by the contractor so there is no need for me to provide a letter._

_If I were employed by the contractor, I would be in the position to determine if the footings were sufficient. I could provide a letter regarding the sufficiency if asked._


----------



## Robert Ellenberg (Nov 19, 2010)

UB--There is currently a mood in the country to change such business as usual among bureaucrats.  Whether or not it carries to where you new job is, I don't know.  However, it sounds from you post that you don't intend to compromise your integrity just to keep your job.  If so, try and take the opportunity to bring this to the public attention.  Start by sending a written note (or email) to the official above you to confirm that he is instructing you to issue the CO even though the building is not compliant.  Stay there and keep documenting things.


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 19, 2010)

RJJ said:
			
		

> This is just a case of I will do as I please.


This is the a thing to be determined, and it sounds like a determination is made. What are you going to do about it?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 19, 2010)

Lets take this to a different view. How can you pass this and CYA at the same time?

2006 IRC TABLE R403.1 states

1,500 lbs soil capacity with a 12" footing will support a 1 story conventional light–frame construction or a 1 story 4-inch brick veneer over light frame or 8-inch hollow concrete masonry

Foot note a. Where minimum footing width is 12 inches, use of a single wythe of solid or fully grouted 12-inch nominal concrete masonry units is permitted.

Depending on the soils and unbalanced back fill he may be compliant with TABLE R404.1.1(1) PLAIN MASONRY FOUNDATION WALLS.

So JAR is this a single story IRC building?


----------



## beach (Nov 22, 2010)

> If I were employed by the contractor, I would be in the position to determine if the footings were sufficient. I could provide a letter regarding the sufficiency if asked.


If you were employed by the contractor, what would it take for you as an engineer to determine the footings were sufficient and provide a stamped letter stating so?

Would you need to verify steel placement, lap splices, depth/width, soil bearing, etc.? If so, how would you accomplish that?

Or, would you provide a stamped letter stating that, to the best of your knowledge, the footing, steel, etc. were installed per plan/code without actually being able to verify it and hope for the best?

My point is how does an engineer know more about how the footings and steel were installed after the fact any more than an inspector would...... I don't think I'd accept a stamped letter from an engineer unless I knew how he verified it, then.... why would you need an engineer?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 23, 2010)

Beach In non seismic zones the engineer or inspector could approve it as a plain concrete design with no steel.


----------



## beach (Nov 23, 2010)

Thanks Mt, I'm used to seismic zones..... block walls, footings, etc. always get steel. Of course, the approved plans dictate how it is to be built.....


----------



## north star (Nov 23, 2010)

** * * **

To me, it sounds like brudgers and GHRoberts are related!







Uncle Bob,

Sorry to hear about your situation.  If they're already asking /

requiring you to sign off on non-compliant / non-inspected

projects, they are setting the tone for all future applications.

Once this door has been opened, it will be virtually impossible

to close again, ...until a new administration comes in to office.

Have you looked at teaching "the codes", rather than trying

to enforce them, or possibly as an independent contractor?

The Oklahoma territories sound like an all uphill battle!

Hang in there!



** * * **


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 23, 2010)

One of the criteria for determining the appropriate course of action is to be consistant with like situations, and to make sure the remedy fits the violation.

But always insist on a permit being pulled within one-three days, or issue a citation and red-tag the job with a stop work order.

What historically does one do in case of a missed footing inspection? In my ahj, we maintain an informal "you get one freebie" rule. Usually, as is the case with the subject jobsite, the inspector did have the opportunity to view the footing depth, width, and, I believe, the existance of rebar. He does have some knowledge of what is there.

In other cases, you may consider a depth of experience with the subcontractor who actually cleans the trench and ties the steel; You have inspected dozens, perhaps hundreds of other footings for the same sub, who historically, has been very consistant, (not necessarily the person having responsibility for calling in the inspection).

Perhaps it is your policy to give no exceptions, and to require a full demolition. Whatever your policy is, try to be consistant and fair.

What RJJ has verified in the subject case, is that the inspections have not been properly performed because of rebellion against the code enforcement system. It is not the case of a honest mistake or misunderstanding. In similar cases in my own ahj, I have virtually always required some level of demo, and a letter from the "permit holder" for anything that cannot be verifed, and a severe warning for a first offense. In any case, I have to have a very strong sense that the actual construction meets the minimum code requirements.

Only RJJ is in a position, based on what he has seen, and his experience with the people and workers involved, the exact remedy that will:

A) demonstrate compliance (technical compliance)

B) develop a proper respect for the building and code enforcement laws (workable relationship)

In this case, had I actually seen the steel on my first visit to the jobsite, and a grounding electrode was present emerging from the concrete, and, I came to believe I had developed a understanding with the "permit holder", I might simply require the "permit holder" to excavate a dozen or so holes to get a visual inspection of the trench (form) depth (even if a known quantity).

In another case, for missed in-wall inspections, I have required full demolition of newly installed wallboard, more because of the defiance against the inspection process than to see behind the wallboard. I had no more problems during the construction of that commercial building.

I expect some to be critical of these methods. But they are efficient and effective. And, to really do a good job as a municipal inspector, efficiences and effectiveness count.


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 23, 2010)

beach said:
			
		

> If you were employed by the contractor, what would it take for you as an engineer to determine the footings were sufficient and provide a stamped letter stating so?Would you need to verify steel placement, lap splices, depth/width, soil bearing, etc.? If so, how would you accomplish that?
> 
> Or, would you provide a stamped letter stating that, to the best of your knowledge, the footing, steel, etc. were installed per plan/code without actually being able to verify it and hope for the best?
> 
> My point is how does an engineer know more about how the footings and steel were installed after the fact any more than an inspector would...... I don't think I'd accept a stamped letter from an engineer unless I knew how he verified it, then.... why would you need an engineer?


I did not say an engineer was required. My engineering opinion is that a lot of fuss is being made about a non-issue. But non-issues seem to drive a lot of people.


----------



## beach (Nov 23, 2010)

George,

Maybe I'm not being clear.... If a contractor contacted you, an engineer, because he needs to satisfy the building dept. so he can continue working, and wanted to hire you to provide a stamped letter stating that, in your opinion, the foundation is acceptable. Being that, in your opinion, it is a "non-issue" do you provide the letter and if you do, do you actually verify that the foundation matches the approved plans?


----------



## Uncle Bob (Nov 23, 2010)

North Star,

Thanks, I solved the problem.  Will be back home for Thanksgiving.   

Uncle Bob


----------



## KZQuixote (Nov 23, 2010)

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> North Star,Thanks, I solved the problem.  Will be back home for Thanksgiving.
> 
> Uncle Bob


Don't mean to make light of your situation. I took a job as an inspector many years ago. My first inspection was a simple framing inspection which I declined to approve as it was just not ready. I left my card asking the builder to call me. Before I got back to the office he was raging on the phone demanding that I return to the job site. Came to find out that that was the first time in eleven years that that department had failed to approve anything it was asked to look at.:roll:

I lasted two tough years and then moved on.

For your Burger and Fries entertainment: [video=youtube;oKikZLRdJVE]





 Regards

Bill


----------



## beach (Nov 23, 2010)

Hey U.B.,

Over twenty years ago, a friend of mine was into his first week as a brand new building inspector and red tagged a window change out, about ten minutes later, he gets a page from the building official (No cell phone at that time) and found out he red tagged the city managers house, the BO told the city manager to come in and get a permit...which he did and told my friend to go back that afternoon and inspect it. The city manager is long gone, but the inspector is still there........

Hang in there!!


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 23, 2010)

I had an inspector out for a framing inspection. He started saying things were not to code. I asked him to write down the violations or put up a nice green tag. He refused. He left. I called the AHJ and explained what happened. The AHJ said the inspector was never sent out.

I said fine, I have a recording of the phone conversation and audio and video of the inspector on my property, and if any inspector or law enforcement officer shows up on the job site, ....

Well you get the idea.


----------



## beach (Nov 23, 2010)

I don't get it


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 23, 2010)

beach said:
			
		

> George, Maybe I'm not being clear.... If a contractor contacted you, an engineer, because he needs to satisfy the building dept. so he can continue working, and wanted to hire you to provide a stamped letter stating that, in your opinion, the foundation is acceptable. Being that, in your opinion, it is a "non-issue" do you provide the letter and if you do, do you actually verify that the foundation matches the approved plans?


I only do work for existing clients and new clients who are referred to me by people I trust. There is no need for a letter.

---

For my usual compensation I will show up in court and say it is a non-issue. And that the AHJ's office is practicing engineering without a license and without the ethics I have to practice. I will even file actions with the state board and ask a state legislator to assist in getting the Attorney General involved. The exact details would depend on the specific details of the situation.

Sure hope you have deep pockets.


----------



## beach (Nov 23, 2010)

That's insane and very funny!!!

Thanks for answering!


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 24, 2010)

in·sane [ in sáyn ]

adjective

Definition:

1. legally considered as psychiatrically disordered: considered legally incompetent or irresponsible because of a psychiatric disorder

2. lacking reasonable thought: showing a complete lack of reason or foresight ( informal )


----------



## jar546 (Nov 24, 2010)

How about the definition of Detractor


----------



## rshuey (Nov 24, 2010)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> I only do work for existing clients and new clients who are referred to me by people I trust. There is no need for a letter.---
> 
> For my usual compensation I will show up in court and say it is a non-issue. And that the AHJ's office is practicing engineering without a license and without the ethics I have to practice. I will even file actions with the state board and ask a state legislator to assist in getting the Attorney General involved. The exact details would depend on the specific details of the situation.
> 
> Sure hope you have deep pockets.


You sound like half the cracker jack box engineers I know. Their daddy started the business years ago, and now sonny boy uses daddy's stamp. LOL


----------



## rshuey (Nov 24, 2010)

That was not to be disrespectful, btw.


----------



## jim baird (Nov 24, 2010)

Thanks to all here for an entertaining thread, and I don't mean the video. (I have little patience for most Utubeism)

I actually don't think Jeff is asking us how he should proceed, but did think we would enjoy a vignette from his corner of the inspectors' woods.

As far as my opinion, it is case by case, job by job, builder by builder etc.  So many diffs, so many stiffs, so many miffs.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 24, 2010)

FWIW, we also need to act as babysitters. If an inspection fails we gotta be there with a "teaching moment" and a follow up. Otherwise, this is the result (happens to all of us I wager) and UB is right, then it is a question of, "is this the hill you want to die on"?


----------



## TimNY (Nov 24, 2010)

I have spent a fair amount of time in Court.  If not before the Judge, then waiting for my cases to be called.

It would seem to me that the people who cry, "lawsuit" the most are those that have never seen the inside of a courthouse.  None of the statements make any sense.

I would also say that using the expense of litigation as a tool to win a case is the act of a desperate person.  Municipalities are likely insured for such litigation.  The insurance company hires a firm commonly engaged in defending against these types of things.  If they feel it is cheaper to settle than to litigate, they will settle.  It does not make you right.  On the other hand, I have yet to see them settle anything.

Expert testimony grows on trees.  For every "expert" that testifies the sky is blue, there is another one that will testify it is orange.

A loss in court does not mean a loss of your job either.  I missed the section of law where the Judge orders the termination of an employee.

peach had it right!


----------



## jar546 (Nov 24, 2010)

I am not actually asking how to proceed.  That was determined while I was at the jobsite.  This is something that I wanted to share to see how others would handle the same situation.

In this case, the jobsite has a Stop Work Order issued under the PA-UCC.  We are still awaiting a response so we know where to take it from here.  Next stop a citation and a magistrate's hearing.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 24, 2010)

The jurisdiction is not practicing engineering without a license.  The building code and or the permit documents requires the reinforcing.  The regulations require the building official to perform the inspection and prohibit the construction to proceed without the inspection.  The building official can only be forced to issue a certificate of occupancy when the code has been complied with.  If the permit has not been complied with the default position is to deny a certificate of occupancy.

What I totally do not understand is why an engineer would take it upon himself to bring action against the building department in such a case.  This does not make sense professionally nor economically.  I would expect such activities from project owner and possibly the contractor but not the engineer.

Ultimately a consultant to the contractor has very little to say about what gets done.  The contractor will quickly decide that it is cheaper to conform to the permit documents.  In fact a consultant that causes problems for his clients, like I expect such threatened behavior to do, will not have any clients.

If I understand the logic put forward by GHRoberts it is irrelevant what was actually built because he trusts his clients and in any case it is a non issue in spite of what the building code says.  I think that the jurisdictions attorney will have fun with that logic.  It may also put the engineer making such a statement at risk for losing his license.

The threat of litigation made on this forum if traced back to the person making it could be used against the person making that threat.

The reality is that an engineer with a different attitude could solve the problem much cheaper.  Attorney fees are typically more expensive than addressing the legitimate concerns of the building official.


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 24, 2010)

rshuey said:
			
		

> You sound like half the cracker jack box engineers I know. Their daddy started the business years ago, and now sonny boy uses daddy's stamp. LOL


Perhaps you should read the process regarding appeals. It ends in court.

Perhaps you should read the ethics requirements. I am required to report those who I regard as practicing engineering without a license.


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 24, 2010)

Mark K said:
			
		

> The jurisdiction is not practicing engineering without a license.  The building code and or the permit documents requires the reinforcing.  The regulations require the building official to perform the inspection and prohibit the construction to proceed without the inspection.  The building official can only be forced to issue a certificate of occupancy when the code has been complied with.  If the permit has not been complied with the default position is to deny a certificate of occupancy.What I totally do not understand is why an engineer would take it upon himself to bring action against the building department in such a case.  This does not make sense professionally nor economically.  I would expect such activities from project owner and possibly the contractor but not the engineer.
> 
> Ultimately a consultant to the contractor has very little to say about what gets done.  The contractor will quickly decide that it is cheaper to conform to the permit documents.  In fact a consultant that causes problems for his clients, like I expect such threatened behavior to do, will not have any clients.
> 
> ...


All this abuse because I said I would show up in court and give my engineering opinion. And because I would report people who pretend to not practice engineering.


----------



## beach (Nov 24, 2010)

That's not all you said.....



> For my usual compensation I will show up in court and say it is a non-issue. And that the AHJ's office is practicing engineering without a license and without the ethics I have to practice. I will even file actions with the state board and ask a state legislator to assist in getting the Attorney General involved. The exact details would depend on the specific details of the situation.Sure hope you have deep pockets.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 24, 2010)

Guys, remember that GHRoberts more than likely does not have a current P.E. license or may have never had one.  George like to detract and stir the pot and we have to take that into consideration when posting.  In essence, you are battling someone who quite possibly may not even be qualified to understand a floor plan.  So don't get your panties in a bunch.  Just my personal thoughts and opinions.


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 24, 2010)

beach said:
			
		

> That's not all you said.....


If you read what I said, it includes "the exact details would depend on the specific details of the situation."

---

I guess you object to me asking my legislator and the Attorney General for help in getting AHJs and inspectors out of "practicing" engineering. They can chose the venue they wish - prosecution or law change.


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 24, 2010)

Jar546 ---

Your post shows what you are. A bully.

There are several other inspectors and AHJs here who are also bullies.

I would report you the the moderator but ...


----------



## Architect1281 (Nov 24, 2010)

Jar agree or disagree its not personal its the code !

I am now an inspector for state owned and consrtructed projects and have the finance department to back us up and they do

so its right or its unpaid for.

In previous carear as an agent for financial institutions certifying payment and construction I had issues similar to yours.

Contractor Owner Developer for lease property, wants payment for structure shell and roof membrane. (ballasted)

Roof membrane looks like a wave between what is more like drainage stone rather than smooth river wased stone so I reject payment for roof

bank reduces payment to reflect my report.

Ballistically inclined contractor (owner) calls my boss wants my *** on line.

I ask owner contractor if he has seen the construction he submitted for payment. (of course not )

I tell him to look and if thats the kind of work hes willing to put his name on I'll change my report.

Contractor later apologizes to me and boss with a thank-you

It's not just municipal inspectors who are bullies don't ya know


----------



## GHRoberts (Nov 24, 2010)

I try very hard to stay out of contractor/inspector fights.

I have been drawn into this one by "inspectors" asking if an "engineer" would write a letter approving of the construction.

I would never write a letter or draw plans where a AHJ  who claims he is "not practicing engineering" has final say in if the letter or plans are acceptable.

If the AHJ wants a letter from me, his office can pay me for my letter. I would only write a letter if the letter was legally binding on the AHJ's office.

My rates for people I like are $200/hr. For people I don't like $400/hour. And for court appearances $1000/hr. I prefer to not work for people I don't like. I really hate going to court, but when I do I bring a bunch of professionals who independently agree with my conclusions.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 25, 2010)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> Jar546 ---Your post shows what you are. A bully.
> 
> There are several other inspectors and AHJs here who are also bullies.
> 
> I would report you the the moderator but ...


No, I am a fact finder.  A search of just about every state in the union that has PE licensing verification online is coming up empty with your name.  The only names that match yours are the ones that have been inactive.  Call it personal but don't represent yourself as something you may not be.  That is misleading.

If a moderator feels I am out of line, they can moderate me.


----------



## rshuey (Nov 25, 2010)

Haha/ That made my day. Thanks jar! Happy Thanksgiving.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Nov 25, 2010)

George,

I almost always do not agree with you; but, I am so glad you are here. You provide balance to many threads. Keep up the good work.  If Jeff was a bully; both of us would most likely not be able to post here.   

Hope you are well,

Uncle Bob


----------



## Sandman (Nov 25, 2010)

I believe what Uncle Bob and GHRoberts are trying to say here is that the days of the Govt (federal, state or local) forcing compliance with rules and regulations interpreted and enforced by people who may or may not have the necessary education, training or experience to make these decisions are quickly coming to an end. Some moderation and intelligent compromise is the new philosophy. This is not to be interpreted as "lacking integrity" or ignoring the law. It is a matter of deliberate and thoughtful discretion. What is the worse that could happen to the building discussed in this thread? Probably nothing. This building will more than likely out live us and our children. What does the Govt or homeowner gain by demanding the builder to tear out and re-work this foundation? Probably nothing. Recently I moved from a 140 mph hurricane region where we strictly enforced the applicable codes (a lesson from Katrina) to the mountains of Colorado where there are no building codes. Some of the building practices I see here are almost obscene, yet, the buildings prove to be sufficiently durable, habitable, and most importantly in this very poor county in a recession, affordable.  Will the next hurricane destroy the units I helped build despite the strict code compliance? Maybe, maybe not. Will these non compliant houses I see in my new home state endure? Probably. Thoughful discretion, Code Warriors, thoughtful discretion.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 26, 2010)

There is a move towards requiring higher qualifications for building officials.  California has realized that some aspects of building enforcement involves the practice of engineering and has required that future holders of these positions be registered design professionals.  But the qualifications of the building official is not the problem with the building under discussion.

What apparently is being proposed is that the building official should pass the work that was constructed in violation of the requirements that it be inspected.  This is problematic for several reasons.  First and foremost is that if there is not consistent compliance with the regulations, code enforcement will be a hollow shell.  Second the building official’s job is to enforce the code and not to design buildings or evaluate defects and design fixes.

If you are concerned about government interference you do not want the building department trying to design your house.

It is easy for some third party to say that the building will perform adequately if nothing is done to resolve the problem but they do not have to live with the consequences.   While there are no guarantees, strict enforcement does greatly improve building performance.  While there are many questionable buildings that last for a long time there are also many of these buildings that do have problems.  I would hope that discretion is not a code word for letting obvious defects pass.

For this particular building I believe that the responsible approach needs to be pragmatic and needs to involve due diligence.  By pragmatic I mean that the Contractor needs to recognize that he screwed up and look at the quickest and cheapest way to satisfy the building department.  Delays cost money and create an unhappy Owner.  Before spending a lot of effort resisting doing anything ask at what point is it cheaper to tear out the offending work and do it right.  I have seen projects where this would have been a lot cheaper.

I am assuming that the Owner did not have an engineer design the building.

If the Contractor wants to save the existing work he should hire an engineer and develop a strategy to resolve the concerns or develop a fix if necessary.  This could involve some simple calculations to verify that the performance will not be impacted if the building does not comply.  The plan may also involve some testing to provide evidence of what was constructed.  Modern tools such as ground penetrating radar can provide evidence of what was constructed.  Some local demolition can be effective also.

Based on the results of the investigation develop a solution that resolves the problem, satisfies the building officials concerns, and ensures that the owner will not have problems.  Given evidence of what was actually constructed and the recommendations of an engineer the building official will typically be happy to sign off on any reasonable solution.

On the other hand the Contractor can delay and complain while he loses money due to the delays, runs the risk of litigation by the Owner, and ends up hoping that there are no future problems due to a lack of compliance.  This is the difference between a sophisticated contractor and somebody who doesn’t know what they are doing.


----------



## righter101 (Dec 8, 2010)

3rd option



			
				GHRoberts said:
			
		

> If you read what I said, it includes "the exact details would depend on the specific details of the situation."---
> 
> I guess you object to me asking my legislator and the Attorney General for help in getting AHJs and inspectors out of "practicing" engineering. They can chose the venue they wish - prosecution or law change.


GH you give 2 options for the AG "prosecution or law change".  There is a 3rd option, and that is to review and dismiss your complaint as being without merit.....


----------



## GHRoberts (Dec 8, 2010)

Sandman said:
			
		

> Some moderation and intelligent compromise is the new philosophy. This is not to be interpreted as "lacking integrity" or ignoring the law. It is a matter of deliberate and thoughtful discretion.


Seems reasonable and well stated.


----------

