It is our policy not to specify that conformance with OSHA safety regs is a Contract requirement. I have tried to convince our electrical engineer to adopt the same policy. Their polite reply was “We thought about it, but we like “safety…per OSHA” in our specs.”
I suppose if the added liability for that inclusion fell solely on the electrical engineer, I’d let it go. But since it doesn’t work that way, I am still worried (somewhat) about this position.
Do you have a position, or policy about referencess in the contract documents to OSHA regulations? If you avoid those references, what about your consultants?
If jobsite safety could be summed up in “safety … per OSHA” then perhaps the statement would be adequate. But there’s more to it than that, and apparently limiting safety to only OSHA is not adequate in my mind.
What does “per OSHA” mean? Does it mean only OSHA regulations apply? No State industrial safety regulations apply? No work rules of trade unions apply? No safety regulations from applicable building codes apply?
We avoid these references. Enginers have been brought into litigation because of involvement in safety issues. If it is not in our scope of work and we do not gratuitously interject ourselves into such activities we are reasonably safe.
I do not know why they have to mention compliance with OSHA since the contractor has to comply with it in any case.
You might suggest that your engineer talk to his E&O carrier. Another option is to find another Electrical Engineer and let your current engineer kow that he has lost a project or two because of his attitude.
I advise our architect clients to insist that their consultants remove such requirements from their specifications. Neither the architect nor the engineer are adequately trained to enforce such requirements as part of their contract administration services, therefore these vague “safety requirements” do not belong in the architect’s documents.
Yes, I meant “architect’s documents.” Everyone involved needs a reminder from time to time that consultants are under the employ of the prime design professional, who has first line contractual responsibility for the content of the consultants’ documents.
Steven raises an interesting point, because sometimes we are specifying products or systems that must meet OSHA requirements that come into play during the operation of the building. We need to make sure that those products satisfy those requirements. (I recently specified a flamable liquids storage cabinet that way.)
However, that’s quite different from the OSHA requirements that come into play during the construction of the building. OSHA requirements are regulations, and there are heaps of them that contractors must comply with in addition to OSHA’s safety requirements. The need to withhold taxes from their employees, they need to have their trucks inspected by Dept. of Motor Vehicles, here in Massachusetts they need to provide health insurance to their employees, they need to buy worker’s compensation insurance, they need to have a Mass. license to operate power-actuated fastening equipment, etc, etc. We don’t specify any of that, we don’t need to, and we shouldn’t.
I am not concerned about eliminating reference to OSHA regs altogether (ref. Steven’s and John’s point above). e.g., Our roof hatch spec calls for the OSHA railing. My concern is reducing the refs to OSHA job site safety regs (trenches, temporary lighting, etc.) - for the same reasons you guys have so eloquently expressed.
Enjoyed the vid on the ‘hod carrier’. How can they call that “unskilled” labor?
In the conversation in which you direct your consultant to remove their “safety” language, ask them what particular knowledge and training they possess that they intend to bring to their site observation services when enforcing that particular requirement in their specifications.
If they aren’t equipped to enforce it, they’d better not say it.
