I would be interested in how architects have been dealing with the requirement (2006 IBC Section 1705) that the design professional in responsible charge (Architect) prepare a “Statement of Special Inspections”.
Who generates this document? What information is included?
Is this statement incorporated in the specifications or presented as a seperate document? What format is followed?
What sort of difficulties are occuring when the structural inspections are coordinated with provisions for MEP and architectural systems?
Typically, the jurisdiction has standard forms that each of the special inspectors are required to complete before a permit will be issued. The forms include the information required by Section 1705.2.
Our office (which includes structural engineering as well as architecture) frequently generates the list of special inspections for the project. (Our state code is based on 1993 BOCA and includes special inpspection requirements.) We often assist the owner in soliciting proposals from testing agencies to perform the required work. This would not appear in the specifications, except insofar as it impacts the contractors work, such as providing access for steel inspection, coordinating and scheduling the required inspections and the like. I’m not sure I see what difficulties would come into play.
Since California has adopted and will shortly enforce the 2006 IBC with ammendments we are trying to understand how to deal with the new testing and inspection provisions. These provisions require the design professional in responsible charge to submit a Statement of Special Inspection which implies more than a list of secial inspections. Note that special inspections are no longer limited to structura issues.
I am trying to understand what form this document should/will take. In the 2003 IBC this document was refered to as a Quality Assurance Plan.
These changes will need to be coordinated with the Quality Assurance and Quality control sections in Division 1 as well as with the individual technical specification spections.
As I have been looking on the web it seems that a few jurisdictions have developed special forms while the majority seem to ignore the changes.
BCOM in Virginia has excel spreadsheets that have been useful in organizing special inspection sections. They have them for 1996, 2000, and 2003. Try the following link. Use IE, it doesn’t seem to like Firefox. The last document on this page is 2000. Hit next page for 2003.
I am struggling with the relationship between the Statement of Special Inspections (SSI) and the technical specification sections and how the SSI will be used. The technical specifications historically have included testing and inspection requirements. With this new system I believe we run the risk of the technical sections and the SSI duplicating information and saying things somewhat differently.
I am also concerned that if we put too much detail in the SSI that inspectors and testing laboratories will tend to only refer to the SSI and ignore the provisions in the specifications. This would especially be a problem if the SSI listed only the tests and inspections required by the agency having jurisdiction and not including the special provisions in the technical specifications.
I prefer a system whereby the SSI lists a reference to the code section requiring the test or inspection and a reference to the location in the contract documents where the detailed testing and inspection requirements are located. This would give the building official a check list whereby he could verify compliance while forcing the inspectors and testing laboratories to look in the specs. The document used by DGS in Virginia.
I believe listing the section in the code requiring the tests and inspections will help minimize the number of times where the Plan Checker makes a requirement that is no justified by the code.
If we were to take the testing and inspection provisions out of the technical specifications and move them to the SSI it would make it more difficult to coordinate the T&I provisions with the rest of the section. In addition this would also make the generation of the SSI more complex on each project.
In addition I see the SSI as a permit document but not a contract document. Thus the specifications need to explain the relationship of the SSI and tell the Contractor how to obtain a copy.
I don’t believe that the details of special inspections belong in the project manual at all. These are contracted separately between the owner and an inspection agency, and are not part of the contractor’s work. The project manual should have only the testing that the contractor is responsible to complete, and those are generally quality control procedures, not public safety mandates.
I agree with John. You may indicate in the specifications that the Owner will hire a special inspector for the required inspections and establish general ground rules for the contractor to follow, such as making the site accessible to the SI, contacting the SI a number of days/hours beforehand to schedule the inspection, etc.
I also agree with John, that the details do not belong in the project manual, but because the contractor is responsible for those things mentioned by Ron, I include a table of inspections. That tells the contractor how often inspections will be required, which can affect schedule and cost.
From a formal legal perspective I also agree that the testing and inspection provisions are between the Owner and his Inspectors/Testing laboratories. Still I have come to the opinion that life is easier if the technical aspects of T&I are kept in the technical sections. I would have no objection to moving the administrative provisions to another document not a part of the project manual. Then this raises the question of what form this document should take since the PRM makes no provisions for it.
A seperate T&I document that is a permit document but not a Contract Document would likely result in resistance from plan checkers who all too often want the structural tests and inspections located on the drawings.
Keeping the technical T&I provisions in the specification section can be rationalized since the testing and inspection provisions indirectly define the quality expected. Courts have heald that significant changes in the T&I program can constitute a change in scope for the Contractor.
Because the T&I provisions need to be closely coordinated with the technical specifications it would cause difficulties if they were to be located in another document. Has anybody placed the technical T&I provisions in another document and if so what form has it taken?
The currently proposed Statement of Special Inspection forms definately are not able to deal with the detail needed to specify the various structural tests and inspections. The building officials have taken ownership of this document. Thus if we were to be pure, what should the docuements look like?
I also agree that the Special Inspections, along with many other code issues, do not belong in the Spec. However, on state projects in Virginia and South Carolina, the code officials were adamant that there would be no permit without a Special Inspections Section included in Division 01. But, that’s fodder for a different thread.
I believe we’re all going in the right direction; it’s just that we’re on different tracks.
Special inspections, which are a part of the overall testing and inspection of a project, can be covered in each of the applicable technical sections if the specifier so chooses, and leave the general requirements in either Section 01 40 00 “Quality Requirements” for MasterSpec users, or Section 01 45 33 “Code-Required Special Inspections and Procedures” for the truly anal, such as that mentioned by Don.
Placing SI information in each section may include the particulars of what will be inspected; however, the language should be nonmandatory since the contractor isn’t required to perform the inspections. Only those actions required by the contractor to properly prepare for the SI should be in mandatory language.
Additionally, the requirements of the specification (tolerances, performance criteria, materials, etc.) should be aligned with what the SI will be looking for. For example, the SI is to check periodically that the masonry starting course has a bed joint between 1/4" and 3/4" thick per ACI 530.1/ASCE 6/TMS 602. If the specifications don’t spell this out in PART 3, then some masonry rework may be required when the SI checks for this and finds noncompliant masonry.
There seems to be a concensus that the administrative provisions regarding T&I is between the Owner and his inspectors and is not a part of the Contract with the Contractor. If this is the case where do we document these provisions? What have others done?
Sheldon since the inspections are likely defined in the technical sections, which is consistently done for structural inspections, why prepare a list of inspections?
I have been involved with many projects where there were Division 1 sections dealing with testing and inspection, much of this structural, and I have never been asked for input. I am lucky to even be provided with a copy of the Division 1 sections prior to their being published.
From the discussion, it seems that the documentation is a particular issue when inspectional services wants to see the plan as part of the contract documents. In our area, this has not been a concern, and we have used a separate document for this purpose. It is in the form of a series of tables, organized by type of element.
If necessary to include in the contract documents, I would be tempted to create a separate section for these. MF includes section 014533 Code-Required Special Inspections and Procedures. This could include language that essentially says “here’s the stuff the owner will do, and the contractor needs to cooperate to do it.” The remaining Contractor’s QC testing could be in another section.
IMNSHO, special inspections are a lot like (or just a different category of) the typical independent quality testing usually specified in general in 01400, along with specific testing requirements in various sections. So they could be similarly specified, and in the same documents.
On the other hand, since they are a lot like the Commissioning specified in 01810, they could also be specified in a section of their own (with or without specific test requirements in various other sections).
What all three have in common is that, if the Contractor’s work doesn’t meet the requirements, the resulting remedial work presumably is the Contractor’s responsibility, so this is not as similar to other separate-contract work, which just requires site sharing and coordination.
Mark, we do most of our work in Minnesota. The State has a required submittal form that lists the type of inspection, who is responsible, and frequency for code-required inspection; that form is used pretty much everywhere here, and also has been accepted for most work we do in neighboring states. Information in the specifications is coordinated with that in the form to avoid redundancy. Our structural consultants fill in the form and give it to us; we add any other required testing or inspection, e.g., fireproofing.
We help our clients find independent testing agencies, but are not directly involved in their agreement. I believe most of our engineers are CASE members, and use guidelines prepared by CASE MN. In general, I prefer that all inspection and testing be done by an independent agency, and encourage our clients to have all of it done by a single testing agency.
I find the CASE document interesting since 1) it need not be a part of the Contract Documents, 2) could be used to help define the scope of the Testing laboratories and Special Inspectors work, and 3) it is not a preprinted form provided by the building dept and thus can be customized.
Bob
The only difference between Special Inspections and the other quality testing is that the Special Inspections are specifically listed in the IBC.
Note that the IBC requires that the special inspections be hired and paid for by the owner, not the contractor. From an administrative point of view it does not make sense for the contractor to hire and pay for any of the other specified structural tests and inspections. The Contractor would still be responsible for costs of all additional tests and inspections he chooses.
John
The question as to where the T&I information should be located is not directly mandated by those performing the inspections. What is driving this discussion is a desire not to duplicate information ,the perceived difficulties of tightly coordinating information in two separate documents, and the concern that if the inspectors have to be regularly referencing both documents they will make more mistakes. This discussion may be moot if the building officials mandate where the information will be located.
I believe that the decision by CSI to use articles Source Quality Control and Field Quality Control causes confusion. The structural community in general uses quality assurance to refer to activities taken by the owner to provide him and the building department a level of assurance. Quality control is used to refer to activities undertaken by the Contractor to help him to meet the contractual requirements. Because of a desire not to be pulled in to Contractors means and methods, all specified structural tests and inspections are considered quality assurance activities.
From out here in seismic land – where special inspections have always been a way of life – I was trained to include a special inspections section “for information only” in Division 1 of the project manual. the section (much like the information provided by CASE) was used as the Owner’s RFP for an inspector, but it was included in the contract documents because the cost of coordination and access is a schedule and cost issue for the contractor and can be an expensive bit of coordination at that.
the distinction I use now is that all code required testing is paid for directly by the contractor but the owner pays for all other inspections that "simply " insure quality control. (these typically are the waterproofing and roofing inspections that I require)
the provision in the IBC seems pretty clear to me: as design professionals we are responsible for preparing a list of the required inspections on the project.