# Third party inspections



## Pcinspector1 (Oct 26, 2018)

I typically do the footing inspection here but was asked by a new home builder if he could use his third party engineer for inspecting the footings. The near by big city has a list of third party inspectors for footings and drain tile inspections, etc. The builder indicated that he has to pay the engineer to do the inspection. I'm almost sure the big city picks up some fee to have the engineer on the list.

Q1. Would the AHJ under the IRC be permitted to allow an engineer to perform some inspections on a residential project?

Q2. Would it matter if the engineer was on a list or not as long as he/she states the footings are in compliance with the adopted code?

Q3. If the third party engineer inspector provides an inspection report approving, stamping, signing and dating the report would that suffice for the required footing inspection?

On commercial projects I have to approve the SI's. 

A plus is that the engineer will issue a recommendation if the soil is sub-par or rock is encountered, he/she could provide a solution for the footing install.

Your thoughts?


----------



## ICE (Oct 26, 2018)

Let the engineer do one and then go behind him/her.

I recently had a structural observation by the engineer and the work was approved.  The bottom steel was supported on dobies spaced 20’ apart.  Anchor bolts were too close to pipes that will interrupt the sill.  There was no UFER.  

I have many stories about engineers and their inspections.


----------



## Sifu (Oct 26, 2018)

Q1-The IBC and the IRC allow it based on qualifications and your approval, see IBC 1704.2.1 and IRC 109.2.  Like ICE said, you should make yourself comfortable with them as an approved agency.  We also follow up from time to time.
Q2-for some things we do have a list of qualified inspection agencies but not for residential.  We probably should, but I am not the boss.
Q3-Letters of inspection can be tricky.  I had one yesterday that said an "audit team" from the contractor reported the conditions to the DP, then said all review is based on those observations and only valid if accurate, then said if the conditions are different the contractor should notify the DP.  Our A&E board doesn't have a rule that the actual DP be the one making the observation, but whoever does do it must be under the responsible charge of the DP.  IMHO if the "audit team" was under responsible charge, why all the disclaimers?  In any case you have to be comfortable with the reports, and on this one I was not.


----------



## Mark K (Oct 26, 2018)

The inspections in Chapter 1 are intended to be by the building department.  Do your job.  If you really want to do this you might interpret IBC Section 110.4 to allow this.  We are not talking about special inspectors,  that is a different thing than the inspections listed in Section 110.

The list adopted by the neighboring city is irrelevant.

Structural observations were not intended to be inspections but many building officials illegally want to make them inspections.  The California Professional Engineers Act states that the engineer does not have a legal duty to inspect the work, unless agreed to in the engineers contract, thus the building department cannot impose that duty on the engineer.

While a civil engineer performing footing inspections in section 110.3.1 might identify an extreme problem related to the supporting soil this is not part of this inspection and most civil engineers  are not trained as geotechnical engineers.   Inspections of the subgrade should be performed by a geotechnical engineer.

There is no requirement that a ufer ground be installed.  There are other ways of providing a ground.    A ufer ground would be inappropriate, and in violation of the electrical code, if there was a membrane under the foundation.

I know inspectors want to put down the engineers because they apparently missed something.  Engineers could also identify a number of things missed by city inspectors but do not because it would do no good.  Instead they deal with the problem.   The problem is that the inspectors then believe that they are always right.


----------



## ICE (Oct 26, 2018)

_"There is no requirement that a ufer ground be installed. There are other ways of providing a ground. A ufer ground would be inappropriate, and in violation of the electrical code, if there was a membrane under the foundation"._

You are as wrong as wrong can be.  I have never seen a membrane under a foundation. A Ufer is always required if it is available.  You are not familiar with electrical code or concept so please refrain from statements that make no sense.

In fairness, I wouldn't expect an engineer to find a UFER.  But the UFER is reason enough to not have an engineer approving a footing inspection because as we all know, engineers don't know.


----------



## ICE (Oct 26, 2018)

_"I know inspectors want to put down the engineers because they apparently missed something. Engineers could also identify a number of things missed by city inspectors but do not because it would do no good. Instead they deal with the problem. The problem is that the inspectors then believe that they are always right." 
_
That's just dumb.  I have no interest in putting down engineers.....and they miss plenty......only because they aren't versed in actual construction practice.  I received a structural observation report today where the work passed with flying colors.  The shear walls had one anchor bolt in the middle.  That's because the contractor removed all of the anchor bolts prior to placing concrete and screwed up when wet setting the anchors.

But the engineer is way familiar with his design.  He knows that there is a shear wall there by the hardware staring him in the face.  So I would expect him to call out the missing anchor bolts.  There and at sill splices and the ends of the walls.  But no, that didn't happen.  He didn't notice that the top plates do not overlap and the corners aren't nailed together.  Top plate breaks a foot apart didn't raise any flags. It's hard to miss an MST37 but both the contractor and the engineer managed to pull it off.  

I really don't know why we started requiring a structural observation other than the realization that so many jurisdictions send neophytes as inspectors.  In those cases nobody catches the missing anchor bolts and ground rods are installed.

So did I tell you all of this to put down engineers.....oh Hell no.....I did it because an inspector asked about engineers doing inspections.  I am also curious about engineers that are willing to work for inspector wages.....what's up with that.  The inadequate structural observations are hugely expensive.....what must an owner think when he pays an engineer $800 for a few hours work and then I tear them up.....I have written a correction for the engineer to redo his observation because he missed so much.  That's like an ostrich egg on his face hey.


----------



## Mark K (Oct 27, 2018)

I have seen a project where they placed a membrane under the entire foundation.  Also there is a provision in the electrical code that addresses this issue.  Reference the information note below Section 250.52(A)(3)(2) of the 2013 California Electrical Code.

ICE admit it you are compelled to dis engineers even when they are right.  You also do not understand why the structural observations were placed in the building code.

Building inspectors and building officials have tried to turn structural observations into inspections even though that was not the original intention.  Is this because the inspectors do not want to do their job or do you believe it is your job to shift responsibility to somebody else.  This is rich since the California immunity laws are so strong that unless an inspector really screws up he has no liability.


----------



## jar546 (Oct 27, 2018)

Mark K said:


> I have seen a project where they placed a membrane under the entire foundation.  Also there is a provision in the electrical code that addresses this issue.  Reference the information note below Section 250.52(A)(3)(2) of the 2013 California Electrical Code.
> 
> ICE admit it you are compelled to dis engineers even when they are right.  You also do not understand why the structural observations were placed in the building code.
> 
> Building inspectors and building officials have tried to turn structural observations into inspections even though that was not the original intention.  Is this because the inspectors do not want to do their job or do you believe it is your job to shift responsibility to somebody else.  This is rich since the California immunity laws are so strong that unless an inspector really screws up he has no liability.



Although I can understand the overall message you are trying to convey, I think you are getting a bit personal here by telling someone what they think or what you assume they do.  Your tone makes it appear as though you have an "axe to grind" with inspectors.  Am I wrong?

I have a plethora of past situations where engineers were completely wrong, whether through calculation with the wrong dimensions or signing off on the wrong part of a structure or simply undersizing a beam and had to call them out on it.  Just about 100% of them were happy that the issue was caught.  We all make mistakes and I have had to eat my share of humble pie in the past.

Yes, there are some inspectors out there that are over the top because they know they are for the most part untouchable.  I can't argue that.  Your opinions are like my opinions, they are welcome as long as we are not making them personal.  It might be better to question someone rather than tell them what you perceive is in their head.

Thanks for being here and participating over the years by the way.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 27, 2018)

Jeff: LOL! Now that humble pie was that with or without icing?


----------



## Mark K (Oct 27, 2018)

I am willing to admit that there have been problems with engineers but I would appreciate it if there was a recognition that engineers have had equal problems with inspectors.  This forum seems to echo the same group think because it sees only one side of the picture.

If I am perceived of having an ax to grind with inspectors maybe it is in reaction to a perception that others have an ax to grind with engineers.  Are engineers expected to be passive when others present a one sided negative view of engineers?  Civility goes both ways.

I believe that it is unreasonable if not impossible to expect that a single inspector can have in depth knowledge of multiple codes.  Even if the inspector has read every code in depth the lack of academic training makes it difficult to understand the intent of the code.   I also believe that the typical time allocated for the inspectors to perform inspections is inadequate to do a thorough job.  Being placed in this impossible situation does not excuse some of the defensive behavior I have seen.

I suspect that some of the problems that inspectors may have with engineers about structural observations may be because they have a different understanding than engineers about the intent of the code.  Engineers are clear that structural observations are not intended to be detailed inspections.  This is the reason that the term observation was used instead of inspection. .

Then we have some departments, including some in Southern California, that try to impose requirements related to structural observation that are not in the code.  These  "extra" requirements would require the engineer to spend many more hours and expose the engineer to greater liability than required by the engineer's contract.  It seems that these extra requirements require more detailed inspections than required by the special inspection requirements.  It is not the building department's right to impose additional liability on the designers.  It is the building departments responsibility to fulfill their obligations in the code.  The building department's focus should be on whether the building as constructed complies with the building code.

The engineer is then blackmailed by the department into writing unnecessary reports because if they refuse the inspector will hold up the job which will get the Owner excited and the contractor claiming delays..  Would it surprise you if some of these engineers acted defensively.  We need win win solutions not attempts to dump everything on somebody else.  This is how an engineer sees it.


----------



## jar546 (Oct 27, 2018)

Mark K said:


> I am willing to admit that there have been problems with engineers but I would appreciate it if there was a recognition that engineers have had equal problems with inspectors.  This forum seems to echo the same group think because it sees only one side of the picture.
> 
> If I am perceived of having an ax to grind with inspectors maybe it is in reaction to a perception that others have an ax to grind with engineers.  Are engineers expected to be passive when others present a one sided negative view of engineers?  Civility goes both ways.
> 
> I believe that *it is unreasonable if not impossible to expect that a single inspector can have in depth knowledge of multiple codes*.  Even if the inspector has read every code in depth the lack of academic training makes it difficult to understand the intent of the code.   ..................Would it surprise you if some of these engineers acted defensively.  We need win win solutions not attempts to dump everything on somebody else.  This is how an engineer sees it.



Well said.  There are a lot of problems with all of the trades and all get called out every now and then.  One of the issues that I see with inspectors is that most have no one to answer to and can be unreasonable.  Ultimately, we all need to be more understanding of each other.


----------



## ICE (Oct 27, 2018)

Well gentlemen being described in such unflattering terms is eyeopening.  You guys should have said something earlier.....years ago even.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 28, 2018)

Speaking from experiance, knowledge breeds arrogance. Arrogance breeds anger and pushback.

Image projected is image reflected.


----------



## ICE (Oct 28, 2018)

Honestly Mark, I did not realize....


----------



## ICE (Oct 28, 2018)

Well now that I know.........  I will accommodate.   To those that agree with Jeff and the Marks I say, you are easily offended.


----------



## jar546 (Oct 28, 2018)

ICE said:


> Well now that I know.........  I will accommodate.   To those that agree with Jeff and the Marks I say, you are easily offended.


I see both sides equally as posted in this thread with 2-3 particular posts that I made.


----------



## ICE (Oct 29, 2018)

jar546 said:


> One of the issues that I see with inspectors is that most have no one to answer to and can be unreasonable.



Get out much?


----------



## mark handler (Oct 29, 2018)

ICE said:


> Well now that I know.........  I will accommodate.   To those that agree with Jeff and the Marks I say, you are easily offended.


Ice, I am not offended by your posts. I love them.
I am conveying personal experiance, The arrogance is what I had.
I also did mot realize the way I was coming across.
I, in conveying the code, came across in an arrogant manor.
I have tried to tamper my arrogance.
I now realize that many, that think they know the code, know some, not all.
just conveying this to give a little insight.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Oct 29, 2018)

Pcinspector1 said:


> I typically do the footing inspection here but *was asked by a new home builder* if he could use *his* third party engineer for inspecting the footings.



Came here to ask some experts.




Mark K said:


> *Do your job*.



I thought I was doing my job, thanks for setting me straight, I'm sure I needed that.

Jar, you can probably close this one!


----------



## mark handler (Oct 29, 2018)

Pcinspector1 said:


> I typically do the footing inspection here but was asked by a new home builder if he could use his third party engineer for inspecting the footings.



If at all possible, I say no to third party inspectors, Architects and engineers.
Third party inspectors, like may design professionals (I is one) do not want to upset the client so they say *no deficiencies observed.* that means less than nothing.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Oct 29, 2018)

It is best for the owner to pay a third party inspector.

A registered architect or professional engineer can lose his license for writing false reports, and can be sued for negligence for not looking closely enough to see deficiencies that aren't hidden.  However, we are human and occasionally miss something.

Prescriptive designs are very conservative, and often an engineered solution will require fewer bolts, ties, etc., but usually not enough to offset the engineering cost.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 29, 2018)

Under the IRC an AHJ can accept reports of inspections from agencies and individuals they approve. As an AHJ I have even paid an individual or firm to perform specific inspections that we did not have the time or expertise to do. Since it is the building departments responsibility to perform certain inspections I prefer to do it this way and not require the DP to do something that is not within their scope of work.

R104.4 Inspections.
The building official is authorized to make all of the required inspections, or the building official shall have the authority to accept reports of inspection by approved agencies or individuals. Reports of such inspections shall be in writing and be certified by a responsible officer of such approved agency or by the responsible individual. The building official is authorized to engage such expert opinion as deemed necessary to report upon unusual technical issues that arise, subject to the approval of the appointing authority.

Under the code the term third-party is used during the manufacturing process and usually refers to an accredited organization.

THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION AGENCY. An approved agency operating a product or material certification system that incorporates initial product testing, assessment and surveillance of a manufacturer’s quality control system.

THIRD-PARTY CERTIFIED. Certification obtained by the manufacturer indicating that the function and performance characteristics of a product or material have been determined by testing and ongoing surveillance by an approved third-party certification agency. Assertion of certification is in the form of identification in accordance with the requirements of the third-party certification agency.

THIRD-PARTY TESTED. Procedure by which an approved testing laboratory provides documentation that a product, material or system conforms to specified requirements.

SPECIAL INSPECTION. Inspection of construction requiring the expertise of an approved special inspector in order to ensure compliance with this code and the approved construction documents.

Continuous special inspection. Special inspection by the special inspector who is present when and where the work to be inspected is being performed.

Periodic special inspection. Special inspection by the special inspector who is intermittently present where the work to be inspected has been or is being performed.

SPECIAL INSPECTOR. A qualified person employed or retained by an approved agency and approved by the building official as having the competence necessary to inspect a particular type of construction requiring special inspection.

STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION. The visual observation of the structural system by a registered design professional for general conformance to the approved construction documents. Structural observation does not include or waive the responsibility for the inspection required by Section 110, 1705 or other sections of this code.


----------



## steveray (Oct 29, 2018)

We legally need a CT licensed inspector to do "code required inspections". You can approve whomever you want under the code, but your state law may differ. And as I believe ICE was getting at, I would be VERY careful about anyone's report I accepted.....Special inspection is a whole different animal, and again, have gone behind plenty of them (engineers included) and found serious problems....


----------



## conarb (Oct 29, 2018)

Paul Sweet said:


> It is best for the owner to pay a third party inspector.
> 
> A registered architect or professional engineer can lose his license for writing false reports, and can be sued for negligence for not looking closely enough to see deficiencies that aren't hidden.  However, we are human and occasionally miss something.
> 
> Prescriptive designs are very conservative, and often an engineered solution will require fewer bolts, ties, etc., but usually not enough to offset the engineering cost.



I agree, all inspection should be private, for one thing public employees cost too much with benefits, as I've said before a friend just built a new home in Nevada and private inspection cost was negligable, permit for a $2.7 million house was only $3,000, a fraction of what it would cost here in California.

With people sleeping in the streets something has to be done about out-of-control codes and inspections, even cities are complaining, some going to modulars and *'Tough Sheds"* to avoid code compliant buildings.


----------



## ICE (Oct 29, 2018)

mark handler said:


> Ice, I am not offended by your posts. I love them.
> I am conveying personal experiance, The arrogance is what I had.
> I also did mot realize the way I was coming across.
> I, in conveying the code, came across in an arrogant manor.
> ...



Thanks for clarifying Mark. 
Here is a structural observation from today.  None of the electrical, plumbing or mechanical work has been started.  Anchor bolts are missing or with 1" washers.  None of the windows were in.....so I told them that I'm sorry but a framing inspection is out of the question. 






A lot of work went into installing radiant barrier wrong.  There's also a ridge supported by the ceiling joists....which is not much of a problem with this application.




I asked about the dark band at the bottom of the plywood and was shown a correction slip that instructed them to do that with wood preservative.





There is screen on all of the windows to keep out birds.  There are no garage doors and no screens at the garage door openings.  I could here pigeons in the attic.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 29, 2018)

"No deficiencies observed" famous last words.
When in court,  "I must have missed that"
I do not trust third party inspectors.


----------



## JCraver (Oct 30, 2018)

Mark K said:


> I believe that it is unreasonable if not impossible to expect that a single inspector can have in depth knowledge of multiple codes.  Even if the inspector has read every code in depth the lack of academic training makes it difficult to understand the intent of the code.   I also believe that the typical time allocated for the inspectors to perform inspections is inadequate to do a thorough job.  Being placed in this impossible situation does not excuse some of the defensive behavior I have seen.



You win.  I've been here ~4-1/2 years and I think that's the most offensive thing I've seen anyone say on this board yet.  Congrats!

Because I don't have an engineering degree I can't read words that are written in plain English and interpret their meanings?  And I can't complete an inspection in a time I deem appropriate if _you_ don't think I've been there long enough?   

I've re-typed this part about a thousand times and can't get it done so it results in me not getting banned, so I'm just gonna' say you can take that opinion and .............................................................................


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 30, 2018)

Just change the word from inspector to engineer and the same is true. No single person should be expected to have an in depth knowledge of multiple codes.
It is impossible.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 30, 2018)

Good dialogue gang, long overdue. Keep the faith or buildings fall down


----------



## ICE (Oct 30, 2018)

mtlogcabin said:


> Just change the word from inspector to engineer and the same is true. No single person should be expected to have an in depth knowledge of multiple codes.
> It is impossible.



I know more than a few inspectors that possess an in depth knowledge of building, electrical, mechanical and the lesser code, plumbing.  Then there's the rest of them.


----------



## JCraver (Oct 31, 2018)

We all do.  Except for one of us, who has apparently never met an inspector who knows anything.  I think there's a bunch of them on this very board.

The argument here, now, is that if you don't have a bunch of letters after your signature you're not "qualified" to offer comments to someone who does.  And that's a load of ........................................................................


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Oct 31, 2018)

mtlogcabin said:


> No single person should be expected to have an in depth knowledge of multiple codes.
> It is impossible.



I agree


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Oct 31, 2018)

mark handler said:


> I do not trust third party inspectors.



I'm pretty sure some on here feel the same way.


Like I said in the OP, the new builder is paying for his engineer to do the inspection, maybe he's had issues with other municipalities not doing timely inspections. I don't have a problem "doing my job!" inspecting the footing at all, that was not the issue here. 

Doing one's job should be having an open mind and listening to different ideas, the codes are changed every three years because some one's listening and acting!

Appreciate the comments, at least most of them.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 31, 2018)

JCraver said:


> We all do.  Except for one of us, who has apparently never met an inspector who knows anything.  I think there's a bunch of them on this very board.
> 
> The argument here, now, is that if you don't have a bunch of letters after your signature you're not "qualified" to offer comments to someone who does.  And that's a load of ........................................................................


Easy does it, in every profession you have 10's and 1's.


----------



## ICE (Oct 31, 2018)

mtlogcabin said:


> Just change the word from inspector to engineer and the same is true. No single person should be expected to have an in depth knowledge of multiple codes.
> It is impossible.


Do the inspectors that you work with specialize in individual codes?


----------



## conarb (Oct 31, 2018)

mark handler said:


> "No deficiencies observed" famous last words.
> When in court,  "I must have missed that"
> I do not trust third party inspectors.



I do not trust any government employee, in 2003 I was remodeling a home I built in 1977 and the owner pleaded with me not to get a permit, he didn't want any civil servants on his property, I agreed with him that civil servants were rotten people but that building inspectors were the best of them, that I would personally walk right with the inspector while in the home.  This in the paper yesterday:



			
				East Bay Times said:
			
		

> OAKLAND — A former city building inspector accused of taking thousands of dollars in bribes and other payments from people whose properties he was inspecting could get slapped with a million-dollar-plus fine.
> 
> Thomas Espinosa took $2,700 in bribes from people whose buildings he was inspecting and failed to disclose to the city that he received more than $300,000 for contracting work and other work from people whose properties he was inspecting, according to a report from investigators for the city’s Public Ethics Commission.
> 
> ...



With Special Inspections being what they are I see no reason for city inspections any more, as one customer asked me:  "Why all these levels of inspection?" As I started to explain the need for continuous inspection the German Structural Engineer chimed in saying: "In Europe all inspectors must have welding certificates". So he asked me what was wrong with our inspectors?  I told him our inspectors didn't even have to have college degrees, he couldn't believe that he's paying all of this money for inspectors without even a degree. 

¹ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/1...g-inspector-took-bribes-undisclosed-payments/


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 31, 2018)

No we are all multi-disciplined, they are 7 of us, each one has one or more areas we specialize in.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 31, 2018)

Conarb do you stereotype all groups, races, nationalities or just public employees? Don't forget the military and the president are public employees.


----------



## Mark K (Oct 31, 2018)

My mistake was in saying that inspectors have an impossible job.

I did not say that inspectors were not intelligent although I suggested that they might be ignorant of some facts.  It should be noted that no individual is capable of knowing everything unless they are God.

By the way not all knowledge is contained in the building code.

Yes engineers are human too, but that should not be used as an excuse not to consider the truth of what I have said.


----------



## JCraver (Oct 31, 2018)

mtlogcabin said:


> Just change the word from inspector to engineer and the same is true. No single person should be expected to have an in depth knowledge of multiple codes.
> It is impossible.





Pcinspector1 said:


> I agree



I don't get this.  Like, I can't understand it at all and it makes no sense to me.  There are several regular posters right here on this thread, let alone the whole site, that have an "in-depth" knowledge of the codes.  There's a whole group of people out there in the world who call themselves "code nerds" or some such (just go to an ABM, most of them will be there).  I'll freely admit I'm not one, but these people certainly exist.  And striving to have an "in-depth" knowledge of the codes should be the goal of almost all of us, especially the engineers, the multi-discipline inspectors, and the one-man shops.  If those fella's don't have an "in-depth" knowledge or are not working to acquire one, they're doing their employers a disservice. 

Maybe that's a bit idealistic, but you (hopefully) get my point..


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 31, 2018)

Point taken, there is no limit to learning; to cease to do so is to die. 
We architects are on a constant search for knowledge and how to apply it, aren't "we" MH? 
Cause and its effects have consequences for which we are responsible.
Inspectors are expected to be our eyes and ears in the field; I am grateful for "most" of them.


----------



## steveray (Nov 1, 2018)

For a single inspector (or engineer or architect) to know everything about all of the codes is impossible. The good ones know what they they don't know and strive to learn/ look up/ ask questions on the rest. Us "public sector" folks are at least relieved of trying to turn a profit and thereby cutting corners to do so (what I see of third parties), and then it just comes down to personal ethics and departmental staffing. Or, how much customer service does your municipality want to provide.....


----------



## ICE (Nov 1, 2018)

As much as I might know, I am constantly learning new stuff.  I'll see a mistake that I haven't seen before, a new product or a new fix to an old problem.  Except for one inspector that works in my office, you guys are correct in that nobody can know it all.  The key for me is recognizing that what I am looking at is important enough to send me.....The run of the mill inspections that I perform lead me to believe that it's just not that difficult to know all that you need to know in four or five disciplines.  .....what with Plumbing being one of them.....and then there's Energy.

Some of the statements that have been made about inspectors have some truth.  Over the top remarks like “most inspectors.......unreasonable” are wrong.  Had it said “some inspectors........unreasonable” it would be correct.

I have done this for a long time.  The things I’ve witnessed us doing are outlandish. So strange that I can’t reveal in public.  The slandering and general disrespect that I get from the public is for the collective body of inspectors where I toil.  Being a member of that group has earned a portion disgust.

I don’t expect to get that disgust here.


----------

