Also out here in seismic land with a virtually total healthcare practice, we regularly include a form that lists required inspections provided by California OSHPD in our project deliverables. OSHPD is the permitting agency for I occupancy work in California. The record form is a stand alone wet signed document (OSHPD used carbons until a couple years ago and still LOVES wet signed documents) and we include a copy for information only in DIV 1 immediately after our testing and inspections Section, because as Anne notes, there are time and money issues involved.
CBC 1701.5 requires that the Owner provide for special inspections.
Mark makes an important point that we have discused here in our office, and that is the definitions of quality assurance and quality control are not the same in the structural community as CSI has defined them. Of course, CSI’s definition is not a new one (I don’t know how long PEs have been using their definition.) I’ve found that this confuses engineers when editing structural specifications. I don’t have a solution to that other than to be careful when reading and writing quality requirements in project manuals.
The National Institutes of Health have their own definitions of QC and QA that must be incorporated in project specs.
“Quality Control Versus Quality Assurance: Quality Control is the responsibility of the construction contractor. Quality Assurance is the responsibility of the NIH.”
We currently have a series of projects with a California County GSA as client that appear to also use the NIH model you cite (without explaining its provenance). I wondered about the source and the reasoning behind this terminology change. For the first client review of the first project to hit CD phase we were gifted with lengthy spreadsheets that listed every use of “quality assurance” in the specs with the requirement we change that to “quality control”. As an article called “quality assurance” is part of every Section’s “Part One”, this was a tedious piece of work with no clear benefit.
Would it make sense to change the article title in SectionFormat from “Quality Assurance” to “Quality Requirements” (match the Division 01 section title)? Would that sidestep the issue, or just add more confusion?
Or should QA and QC be renamed to reflect who does it – for example, “Contractor Quality Requirements” and “Independent Quality Verification”?
In the current draft of SectionFormat, the PART 1 Quality Assurance, PART 2 Source Quality Control, and PART 3 Field / Site Quality Control articles remain pretty much intact.
This setup keeps it consistent with the Project Resource Manual, and MasterFormat 2004.
Our interesting client had taken the term “quality assurance” and created different meanings to it in their front end documents. The simplest change for the specifications was to re-label the the PART 1 Article as “Quality Requirements” and move on.
It has been interesting to watch this client in action as they try to redesign the world of project delivery. They have had their fingers burned to such an extent that they have needed to reissue new Front end documents and DIVISION 1 Sections several times per year as they react to the latest problem of their own creation. It is like watching someone try to steer on black ice.
I am confused. What are “special” about special inspections?
Being from the Left Coast, in the State of “Kollyfonya”, the requirements of the Division of the State Architect (DSA) for schools and the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Design (OSHPD) are big issues and specifications are routinely required to include a list of tests and inspections required by the building code and the AHJ. Does this make these tests and inspections “special”? Are additional tests and inspections a matter of quality assurance between the owner and the contractor and considered ordinary inspections not required to be listed?
In California, the latest version of the IBC will be the basis of the new California Building Code written by ICC and due out in a few months. Will this mean that all projects, and not just those under the jurisdictions of DSA and OSPHD, will require lists of “special inspections?” Realize that with recent bond issues for educational facilities and mandates for seismic safety upgrades (reconstruction) of medical facilities, the value of projects under DSA and OSHPD are several billions of dollars. And private, non-residential construction is still substantial. New office buildings are being built again and new retail complexes just don’t seem to quit.
Where will all the inspectors come from? The local Home Depot parking lot? Can tests and inspections be outsourced to Bangalore through the Internet?
My operating practice has been is that the DSA and OSHPD forms deal with those tests and inspections required by the code and do not have to address other tests and inspections.
There is currently discussions in the structural engineering community regarding the form that special inspection lists will take in CA for non DSA and OSHPD projects. This was why this topic was started. Talk to your building official but also don’t be suprised if the rules change.
The difference is not so much in terms of the amount of testing and inspections but rather in the form that we will define and document them.
Special inspections are those required by the building code and are given the “special” title by the code.
In CBC 2001/UBC 1997, Section 108.6 is titled “Special Inspections” and has a reference to Chapter 17, which covers all the special inspections.
Unlike the other inspections listed in Section 108, special inspections are not performed by the building inspector. Special inspections are done by an inspector hired by the owner, and acceptable to the AHJ, that has training and experience in the area that requires special inspection.
The majority of the special inspections are structural in nature, and, therefore, the owner retains the structural engineer-of-record to perform these inspections. In a lot of cases, the structural engineer has an employee specifically dedicated to special inspection.
Actually, it’s Chapter 17A for schools (DSA) and hospitals (OSHPD). This chapter and its references get into the details of qualifications of inspectors (“Project Inspector” and “Special Inspector” and, by reference, the required inspections).
I include the listing of tests and inspections (“special inspections”) in Section 01450 - Quality Control (MF95). Keeping up with changes to the list from DSA and OSHPD is an ongoing challenge. How the new IBC-based California Building Code will address this (separate document required or ok to dedicate an article in the “Quality Control” spec section?) is something I’d like to find out soon after adoption of the new code.
John B.: Believe me, it’s not a knowledge based on knowing the code, but a knowledge of where in the code to find it and how to apply it. People always ask me questions such as “What does the code say about ?” My typically response is “I don’t know, I’ll have to look it up and get back to you.” Codes constantly change and are frequently modified by jurisdictions. Trying to quote the building code from memory is dangerous, in my opinion. So, understanding the building code, knowing where things are generally located, and how to interpret the language, is more important that committing its content to memory.
John R.: DSA and OSHPD may have their “special” special inspections, but the basic building code, unmodified, still has special inspections that may be required for any project, regardless of owner type, be it public or private. Not every project will require special inspections; it depends on the building, the type of construction, and types of materials. Chapter 17 of the IBC is similar to Chapter 17 of the UBC in regard to content, except for format and the fact that EIFS and mastic and intumescent fireproofing are now required to have special inspection. What California will do to that chapter is anybody’s guess; they tend to do whatever they like and make things more complicated than it needs to be (if you don’t believe me, read the current CBC and compare it to the '97 UBC).
The practice of the structural engineer performing special inspections in California is not widespread. The structural community in California (SEAOC) disagrees with CASE on this. This is also influenced by the fact that we typically have capable testing and inspection firms and by the fact that many building departments will not let the design professional perform special inspections unless he has some certification as an inspector. In California the structural engineer monitors the project my means of Structural Observations (ref the IBC for a definition)
Regarding the complexity of the CBC it should be noted that the vast majority of the changes are related to provisions for public schools and hospitals. When you take this into account you will find that we are currently very close to the 97 UBC. My impression is that this will continue with the adoption of the IBC.
It is not uncommon for an engineer who does not do schools or hospitals, to use the UBC and not the CBC.
Cities and counties in California are required to adopt the California Building Code (UBC with State of California Amendments, soon to be IBC with State of California Amendments). Notable exceptions are City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles and City and County of San Francisco, which have their unique amendments which further modify the California Building Code).
From the newsletter of the State of California, Architects Registration Board, received a few days ago:
"New California Building Standards Codes to Become Effective January 2008
"The California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) unanimously adopted the state agency amendment packages to the model codes on January 30, 2007. This action by the CBSC constitutes state adoption of the model 2006 International Building Code; the model 2006 International Fire Code; the model 2006 Uniform Mechanical Code; and the model 2006 Uniform Plumbing Code. With the adoption of the amendment packages to the model codes, the CBSC has authorized creation of the 2007 editions of the California Building, Fire, Mechanical, and Plumbing Codes. The International Code Council and the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, authors of the model codes, are on track for publication of the new codes in late July 2007. Local jurisdictions will then have 180 days to complete their local amendment process, for an effective date of all codes in late January 2008. Information on the code is available on the CBSC Web site at www.bsc.ca.gov.
“California Building Officials is offering training classes for architects, builders, building department personnel, and engineers on the new California Building Code for the transition to the 2006 International Building Code. Information on the training classes is available on the California Building Officials Web site.”
In reality many cities and counties in California have local amendments it is just that most are relatively minor. These amendments are supposed to be limited to items that are unique to the location of the jurisdiction but some jurisdictions push this.
Many jurisdictions have unique regulations dealing with administration of special inspections. LA has taken it to an extreme (from an Northern California viewpoint) with the creation of the Deputy special Inspectors.
While the new CBC will be mandatory in 2008 once the code is published in July you will be able to follow it instead of the current CBC at your option. The qualifier is that all aspects of the project must use the 2007 CBC.
I find it interesting that building officials are offering classes on the new CBC. From my perspective they will be struggling like everybody to learn the new code.
There is a prospect that a presentation on the 2007 CBC will be included in the education program at the West Region Conference in Pasadena. Expressions of interest in attending such a presentation could help it happen.
When I read the requirements of the IBC, it is my interpretation/understanding that the Owner needs to hire and pay for the services of the testing agency to perform the testing required by code (AKA: Special Inspections). I frequently get comments from Architects and/or Owners who want the Contractor to hire and pay for the testing agency, or want the Contractor to hire and pay for it and have Owner reimburse them. Am I correct in telling them that the Owner needs to retain and pay for them?
Not all quality control tests and inspections are special inspections under the code. So, some testing and inspecting can be performed by an agency hired by the contractor. Only those tests and inspections specifically listed as a special inspection in the IBC are required to be hired and paid for by the owner.