Inspection outside the shop

By michael kniolek (***)

Date 07-29-2009 02:12

Code or contracts.

By Joey

Date 07-29-2009 10:00

If there is no ITP(Inspection & Test Plan), then the coach will decide on the game that you will play :)

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 07-29-2009 15:58 Edited 07-29-2009 16:03

Strat,

Since you work as an employee of the company in the position of in house QC for the most part your employer determines what code, where, and when you inspect. If they have said no need to cover the field crew then there is no need. At least for YOUR services. This should be in a written QA program for your company. And the customer building specs, contract documents could alter that. But not usually as far as in house QC.

More than likely, even though you inspect the jobs before they clear the floor, and even if your shop is a certified fabrication facility with a program of QA approved by say San Diego, a customer can still require a third party inspector to verify all members before shipping. And they will call the level to which those inspectors do their job. Usually we wait for the in house to do his job and tag the part. We then follow up preferrably before the item leaves the floor so it isn't double handled. After we sign off it goes to the yard to be prepped for shipping. Even if I am on the floor most the time to monitor all fit up, weld out, clean up, parts prep, pre-heat, etc I do a final walk through after their QC clears the part. It doesn't get my sign off until then.

The field work is often performed by third party inspectors for the satisfaction of the Building Authority and the Customer, not by the fabricators in house QC even if he is a CWI. If your employer wanted to make sure the third party inspector would have very limited items to complain about and/or wanted to monitor his crew to be sure they knew how to do their job and were indeed doing their job he could allow/require you to inspect before the third party did. But it is not mandatory per code.

Just my two tin pennies worth. Hope that helps.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By strat

Date 07-29-2009 20:31

Thanks guys,
and especially you Brent, that clarifies alot for me

strat

By 803056

Date 07-29-2009 22:18

The contractor is responsible for quality control whether it is in the shop or in the field. In the shop we've grown to expect the QC program to address shop inspections, but my experience is it happens only when they are forced to inspect the work. Yea, yea, yea, I know they all do it. Yea, right. Most of them do "spot" inspections or "random" inspection, but that isn't what AWS D1.1 requires. AWS D1.1 says all welds are to be visually examined, so where does the fabricator get the idea they can do random or spot inspection eludes me.

There is no distinction in AWS D1.1 between shop or field inspection responsibility. The contractor responsible for the work is still responsible for the quality of the product produced. The fact that the owner may have a third party on the site (or shop) does not relieve the contractor of their QC responsibility.

The failure of the contractor to live up to his contractual obligation is the burden the owner puts up with because the owner's representative (the EOR) doesn't insist on the contractor meeting their obligation.

On one of my projects I drove a fabricator to the point of being ready to commit suicide or first degree murder (me being the victim). I refused to allow anything to ship unless it had been inspected and approved by the shop's inspector. I refused to become the fabricator's QC inspector. As the third party inspector, my function was to ensure the fabricator was doing what the code and their QC manual said they were responsible for. I would randomly pick a member and check my results with those of the shop's QC report. If there was a disconnect, I would refuse to accept any work until the situation was resolved. If the truck was loaded and left the yard without my release, it was turned back upon arrival in the field. At one point the fabricator's president complained to my client that I had rejected everything they had fabricated. My response was that there were no reports that included any rejected work with my signature. I simply refused to sign any releases until I had their QC reports in hand and I was satisfied the inspections were properly conducted. All the work rejected was at the hands of their in-house inspector. I thought he was going to throw the telphone across the conference room with that one!

Ain't life grand?

Best regards - Al

By trapdoor (**)

Date 07-29-2009 23:45

I hear that Al. I find that shop QC is missing way more than half the time when I am called out to a fab shop. And as far as QC in the field, I have never seen it performed to the fullest. The closest was on a hospital job here in CA where the powers that be insisted and the fabricator had a legitimate QC man on site but he spent all his time dealing with detailing errors from the shop during erection and didn't pay much attention to the welding. More money for me I guess.

By strat

Date 07-31-2009 21:41

Brent, I respect your two tin pennies worth, I really do. But for Al " were grown to expect the QC program to address shop inspections, but my experience is it happens only when they are forced to inspect the work, yea,yea,yea, i know they all do it. Yea right". Al, we or should i say I, inspect every fit before weld and every weld after welding and all processes are properly recorded and I for one are not forced to do so, I know that you were talking about some shops but dont belitter the ones that do

strat

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 07-29-2009 23:44

Strat,

I would like to clarify somethings following Al's post.

I totally agree, and I think it show in the progression I stated, we are not taking your position in the field or shop. Fabricator/contractor is to have a QA program. You are part of that program. We, third party inspectors, are verifying your company's implimentation of that program.

I probably didn't make myself clear about field. Although I know a lot of companies depend TOTALLY upon the third party inspector to tell them what to do, that is not their job. Your company, if it is the erector & fabricator is responsible for some kind of QA at both locations. But, that does not mandate that YOU be there. They can assign someone else to assure their QA program and check their welders performance. Granted, a CWI is more ideal. But, I see a lot of company inspectors who are not as careful about their inspections as they need to be. Too much flack from their fellow employees and management. So, it ultimately falls on us. But, as Al stated, we at least try to inforce the proper job being done by both your welders, foreman, and inspector. It is not our job to replace you. So many companies are trying to cut corners big time in these economic times especially by hiring cheap labour and calling them QC.

Hope I clarified my view a little. And on the whole I do agree with Al. Just did not completely finish my thoughts. This is somewhat in contradiction to my earlier wording, as I was eating lunch and typing quickly it was more that my mind and fingers were not in total union.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By rfieldbuilds (**)

Date 07-30-2009 01:53

True that! I feel that out in the field, so many times as a third party inspector, I am responsible for the fabricators or erectors work. yes, I always put my name on it; however, it is far from my responsibility to QC for the responsible party. An unslagged weld tells me the welder doesn't do his own QC. I hate being in the position of a QC Person from fabricators or erectors who do not instill quality in their own welders. I should never have to perform QC. I am a QA professional. QC should be done by a welder before leaving the joint. As QA, if I am called to QA a welder, I know I have a problem. A welder who has an aversion to a grinder is a QC nightmare... Anytime I hear a welder polishing welds, I KNOW, I have a man who takes pride in his work. QA should be done as an afterthought. A welder who cares about his reputation looks into the specifications and qualifications prior to laying a bead. He then KNOWS his work is in conformance with the project specs and he won't be questioned.

By johnnyh (***)

Date 07-30-2009 02:53

Have you found that welders like that are in the majority or minority?

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 07-31-2009 02:05

In my neck of the woods, I'd say it runs 50-40-10.
Some welders really want to do a good job and put in the effort.
Some people are there for the minimum but will do OK if you stay with them
Other folks are nothing more than "trigger pullers" who are always complaining that they deserve the big bucks.

However, almost all people will cut corners if they are being told they have to. Foremen have more influence on whether they keep their job than QC has.

By 803056

Date 07-30-2009 03:31 Edited 07-30-2009 03:35

I help write the project specifications for many of my structural steel projects. I always insist on a clause that delineates who is responsible for quality control and who is responsible for third party inspection. I also state that the cost of the initial third party verification inspection is borne by the owner. All reinspections to verify nonconforming work is properly corrected are borne by the contractor responsible for the work.

I remember one job in particular where this clause paid dividends. The contractor on the project provided no QC and left it up to me to inspect all his work. It was a game to see what he could get away. The welders wouldn't chip the slag, bolts weren't tightened, etc. By the way, I have never chip slag on a weld so I could inspect it. That's the welder's job. Slag intact, reject!

He would sputter and ***** every time I wrote up another nonconformance. He would call for a reinspection every couple of days for me to buy off on one item that he had corrected from a growing list of NCs. I told him that it was very expensive to have me visit the job site to look at just one NC. I told him I charged by the day, not the hour.

One morning at coffee break he made the remark that the owner must be getting very upset with the large inflated bills I handed in. “I’m surprised he hasn’t fired you by now!” he said. At that he and his entire crew started laughing.

“Why would the owner be upset by the number of visits I made to the site” I asked. “Every time I visit the site he knows that I am watching out for his best interest.” I replied calmly as I sipped my hot tea.

“Those inflated bills must be costing him a fortune!” He said laughing loudly. Again every one joined in on the chorus.

“What do you mean? You’re paying for all my visits!” I responded with another sip of tea, “Didn’t you read the project specifications?”

You could see from the look on his face that he had dropped a load in his britches. He threw down his coffee and stormed off in the direction of the office trailer!

A few minutes later the office door nearly exploded off the hinges as he burst through the door. “You son of a bxxxx!” he screamed, “You’re raping me! You have me over a beam and you’re screwing me!”

Everyone in his crew stopped what they were saying in mid sentence, no one dared to even take a sip of their coffee and their faces turned nearly white in color.

“What do you mean?” I said still slowly sipping my hot tea. “I believe I mentioned to you several times that it was very expensive to call me back every other day to look at corrected work.”

I though the poor SOB was going to stroke out, his face was maroon in color and the veins in his neck and forehead looked like they were ready to explode! He started to speak, but couldn’t find the words and could only sputter something no one could understand. I swear, I thought he was going to fall to the ground dead as a mackerel!

No one was laughing now. All was quiet as everyone dropped their coffees and went back to work.

I went into the office trailer where the project superintendent was picking up drawings scattered around the room.

He looked at me and asked, “What in hell’s name did you say to that man?”

“I just informed him that he was paying for all my time on the project, not the owner.” I replied.

“I thought he was going to destroy my office after he read through the project specs. What was he looking for? He asked.

“He found the clause in the PS that said he was responsible for all the cost of corrective work and reinspections.” I responded. “I guess he had mistaken idea the owner was paying for my time.”

Needless to say, I didn’t hear from the job for a couple of days, but when I did, I found all the NCs had been cleared and the workmanship was “first class”.

To this very day the project manager insists I made more money on the job than the erector. That's the way it should be. You don't do the work right, you should pay for the consequences of your actions.

I met up with the same contractor several months later on another project. His first words to me were, “You won’t screw me on this job. You aren’t going to find anything to reject this time!”

He was right. The number of NCs on that job attributed to erection could be counted on one hand. What was found and attributed to the fabricator is a different story for another day!

Best regards - Al

By 803056

Date 07-30-2009 03:44

I though some of you might get a chuckle from a response I sent to an engineer last week.

He sent me some photographs of some welding preformed by a "handyman". He wanted to know if the welds were acceptable. This is what I wrote in response:

"Al is not home and will not be home ever again for the foreseeable future. He looked at some photos and ran from the house alternately talking to himself and screaming at the birds and squirrels running about in the yard. I’m not at all sure what it all means. Just what did you send him? There’s a pile of his cloths at the foot of the driveway. I just don’t know what to think at this point."

His secretary called me like seconds after I sent the e-mail and said, "I guess this means you weren't happy with the welds?" Then she laughed. She said, "I've never read anything so funny! I can't wait until George reads it!"

Who said there's no humor in inspection

Best regards - Al

By Joey

Date 07-30-2009 09:06

To me, I will review first the project organization / flow chart and ITP to see my position and work scope as a QC / or third party inspector.

Yes, although you are the third party, but not all the time the client will require the third party to perform random inspection only.

There is an instance that the client or owner wants you to report the number of items you inspected, how many are accepted and rejected and then to release those items you accepted.

Some project having tight schedule requires 100 % inspection by 3rd party to ensure the drawing requirements are met and items delivered are having good quality. The client is already fed up with rejection and no time to argue and revamp the entire in house QC organization. Will you say “NO” to the client’s request if they are willing to pay for 100% inspection?

Regards
Joey

By CWI555

Date 07-30-2009 09:43

"Some project having tight schedule requires 100 % inspection by 3rd party to ensure the drawing requirements are met and items delivered are having good quality. The client is already fed up with rejection and no time to argue and revamp the entire in house QC organization. Will you say “NO” to the client’s request if they are willing to pay for 100% inspection?"

The only person or entitety I will not say no to is GOD himself. Their "tight schedule" is not my problem. If your a "real" TPI, your going to behave in an honorable fashion and perform your duty as the TPI without bowing to schedule pressure.

It is a fools errand to let them put the their lack of project and quality control on your head as a TPI. The moment you start doing their inspections for them, You are no longer a Third Party Inspector, and very likely in no mans land in regards to liability.

Their lack of proper planning and processes does not constitute my emergency.

By 803056

Date 07-30-2009 14:12

The terms and scope of work has to spell out what services the third party is providing. The third party can not (in my opinion) become the fabricator's QC without incurring liability that borders on lunacy for the third party inspector.

Quality control has to start with the receipt of the "Request for Quote", i.e., the bidding stage of the process. The concept of quality has to be a part of the normal operations of purchasing, incoming receiving, and all the various processes down stream. The visual inspections of the welds are a minor detail considering all those things that must be controlled before welding is ever initiated. How is the third party inspector, assuming the turn of events is so dire that it is necessary to proclaim the fabricator's QC as nonfunctional, going to assume responsibility for all the QC functions after the fact? In becoming the fabricator's QC, the third party inspector is assuming the liability and financial repercussions for potential failures he has no control over.

Even in the event the third party inspector assumes some of the QC rolls as far as the visual inspection of the welds, additional NDT, etc., it is important to recognize he is still functioning as QA. The third party inspector is simply increasing the level of surveillance of the fabricator's work. The contract and the reports should clearly state that the third party inspector is not assuming the fabricator's quality control responsibilities. To do so is an invitation to financial ruin for the third party inspector.

As a third party inspector I have never agreed to become the fabricator's "quality control" guy. I can't remember a time when my reports have not included a disclaimer that stated the fabricator is responsible for all quality control functions. As part of my QA functions I will perform the visual inspections of the completed welds, I will perform the NDT, I will verify what members were shipped, etc. to the extent included in my agreement with the owner. However, never have I assumed the fabricator's QC responsibility.

My reports state exactly what I have inspected and what deficiencies I have detected and where my involvement began and ended, i.e., I inspected completed welds on member XXX, I reviewed the material test reports for materials used to fabricate members XX and YY, members ZZ and QQ were fabricated from stock materials for which there are no material test reports, etc. The reports also include a statement that my reports in no way relieve the fabricator of their quality control responsibilities.

The bottom line is that my scope of work, as defined by the "Statement of Special Inspections" and/or the purchase order issued by the owner's representative, define what inspections I am responsible for. My inspections and activities are limited to those described in the P.O. If it says to inspect every completed weld, so be it, but I am not relieving the fabricator of their quality control responsibilities.

If the fabricator's QC is not functional, it is best to inform the owner and increase the level of QA surveillance. At some point a decision has to be made whether it is in the owner's best interest to pull the work out of the fabricator's facility because he isn't meeting the terms of his contract, i.e., failure to perform. It also has to be recognized that no increase in the level of surveillance is going to improve the quality of work already completed. In my mind, the function of QA is to ensure QC is functioning properly. If the fabricator's QC isn't functioning properly, the owner has some hard decisions to make, because everything produced by that fabricator is suspect.

CWI55 has it right.

Best regards - Al

By bert lee (**)

Date 07-30-2009 15:07

let say as a contractor, i'm willing to hire your service as a third party inspector....to carry out 100% inspection and to produce an independent report. the company president said he has no problem for us to hire 803056 Pty Ltd in addition to our QC force, as long as the tpi conduct 100% inspection (whether its fit-up inspection, visual, dimensional)...there is no pressure to influence you findings, we want to know the ugly truth, we want to maintain our level as class A contractor n willing to hire a class A tpi.....i don't understand why can't hire the tpi for 100% inspection..

By 803056

Date 07-30-2009 20:59

Hello Bert;

The contractor can hire the TPI in which case the TPI is an extension of the contractor's existing QC. The TPI is paid by the contractor and is performing those tasks to which he is assigned. He reports back to the contractor just as their internal QC department would.

As a matter of fact, I have made the recommendation on more than one occasion that the fabricator be required to hire a third party inspector to perform the QC functions because their existing QC was nonfunctional. I still performed QA functions on behalf of the owner and thereby eliminated any appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest.

One job in particular comes to mind. A particular project involving open web joist girders had a significant problem with their welds. Go figure, these over sized bar joists would had welding deficiencies! Anyway, the specification provided by the fabricator clearly stated the joist girders were designed and fabricated per AISC, thus the welding was per AWS D1.1.

I informed the owner's representative that I would not normally be involved in the inspection of a manufactured item, but the welds on several of the girders were so bad he should take a look at them for himself before they were erected. He begrudgingly left the comfort of the air conditioned office trailer and trudged through the mud and mire to where the joist girders were stored on site. He agreed and said he never saw such terrible looking welds and directed me to select ten welded joints and provide him with the report. I did as I was directed. I even sketched a typical joist and picked out ten joints before going into the field, so they were as random as possible. In other words, I didn't seek out the worst of the worst. The results of the inspection were all ten of the joints were unacceptable based on AWS visual criteria. In my report I included photographs of each of the ten welded joints.

The fabricator sent in his QC manager who insisted the joist girders were inspected before shipment, blah, blah, blah. They didn't have to meet AWS criteria, blah, blah, blah. The erector put the girder in the air at the fabricator's direction and the fabricator said any repairs required would be done after the steel was erected. I asked him if that was a wise choice considering all ten joints examined contained serious deficiencies. The steel went up according to schedule. There would be no hold ups on his account.

At the next scheduled meeting the fabricator presented his third party inspector and let the inspector speak. He said the deficiencies were minor in nature and at most 1 or 2 percent of them would need to be repaired. Then I was asked what I had found. I told them that 10 of 10 welded joints were found to be defective and my estimate would be that 90 percent of the welds would need to be repaired. As you can well imagine there was a minor roar of dissent being heard in the room of nearly twenty people. So I said, "Before I am tarred and feathered by this group, can I ask the inspector a couple of questions?

The owner said, "Sure."

I asked the other inspector, "Did you use a man-lift to access the welds in question?"

"No." he replied.

I knew the answer before asking because I had the keys to the man-lift in my pocket.

"Did you use a ladder to get to the joists to look at the welds?" I asked.

Again I knew the answer because there were no ladders on the site that could reach them.

"No, I couldn't find a ladder that was long enough." was his reply.

"How then did you look at the welds?" I asked.

"I looked at them from the ground." he said.

"Are you a CWI? I asked.

"No, but I've been inspecting welds for several years!" he replied.

"You were able to do a visual examination of the welds from distance of 35 feet? I said.

"Well, I know these people pretty well and I know they wouldn't let any bad welds out of their shop!" he replied.

"So, you inspect their shop welds on a regular basis?" I asked.

"No, but I've been there a couple of times and I was comfortable with what I saw." was his answer.

My client, the owner piped in and said, "You've been to their shop once or twice and you looked at the welds while you were 35 feet away? You're lucky your client doesn't make you walk back to XXXXXX.!"

That was the end of the main meeting, only the fabricator, the erector, the owner, and I remained behind.

I recommended the fabricator bring in his own third party inspector, a current CWI, to do a preliminary inspection. The TPI would function as the fabricator's QC. Any welds found to be deficient by the TPI would be repaired. When all was complete, I as the owner's QA, would reinspect the work and anything found to be deficient would be repaired.

Eight months later, two welding crews working 6 days a week completed the repairs. When all was said and done, about 95% of all the welds on the joist girders had to be gouged out because of overlap and cracks and rewelded.

They hired a TP CWI to function as their QC and the owner had me continue in capacity as QA.

Best regards - Al

By jrw159

Date 07-30-2009 12:11

LMAO, Al, that's just too funny my friend. :-)

jrw159

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 07-30-2009 12:40

Al,
Loved your responses - you are right, we don't have to be serious all the time.

Gerald,
You and I seem to be doing a lot of disagreeing lately but I hope you realise there is absolutely nothing personal in my responses. You and I are two very passionate professionals who just happen to have differing opinions on various things.

I absolutely hate being put in the position as a TPI where the contractors QA/QC are either incompetent or lazy and you spend your time marking up defects that they should have identified themselves when the client has purely hired you to ensure the contractors inspectors are doing their job. I will usually just go and see the manager and state my initial findings and tell him to stop wasting my time, call me when your inspectors have done their job and I will come back again.
However, I agree with Joey and disagree with your position on 100% inspection.
If as a TPI the client hires you for random inspection, you do random inspection. If they hire you for 50% inspection you do 50%. If they hire you for 100% inspection you do 100%.
A TPI is still just an independent person or agency, they are still an employee being paid by an employer to do whatever the employer wants (no matter how much it p.sses you off)
Regards,
Shane

By bert lee (**)

Date 07-30-2009 12:55

i agree with you Shane, we also hired a third party inspector because our QC operations cannot cope up with other projects, we pay the TPI to carry out 100% inspection not by random. any queries from owner inspector, the TPI help us to explain. their inspection reports are independent under their company logo.

bert

By 803056

Date 07-30-2009 14:52 Edited 07-31-2009 03:28

In the capacity you just defined, the TPI is functioning as QC because he is being paid by the fabricator to perform those functions. He reports his findings directly to the fabricator and is not "answerable" to the entity/party the fabricator is supplying goods to. In the situation you described, the third party inspector is an extension of the fabricator's QC department. The TPI reports to the fabricator, not the "owner".

As QC, the TPI is protects the fabricator's financial well being by ensuring the customer's requirements are met and by reducing nonproductive time spent repairing materials and delays incurred by repairs or replacing rejected parts. In other words, QC tries to prevent those events or actions that result in unacceptable work. This is accomplished by performing in-process inspections so bad product can be removed/repaired from the production stream as soon as possible. Removing bad material early in the process stream eliminates spending time, labor, and money on bad product. It is more economical to repair or replace an unacceptable condition when it has a low value in terms of raw material, invested labor, etc. than to continue processing the bad part only to discover it was fabricated from bad materials at the end of the production stream. For example; it is easier to repair a weld as soon as it is completed rather than waiting until it is painted and ready for shipment.

However, when the TPI is paid by the owner to perform verification inspections, he is functioning as quality assurance, a separate function from QC with regards to liability and responsibility. The TPI performing QA is responsible for the owner's well being and he is not responsible for the fabricator's well being.

The TPI, acting on behalf of the owner is not the fabricator's consultant and should not act as such when a problem arises. It is a conflict of interest when the TPI recommends a certain course of action without the owner's blessing. Once the TPI recommends a specific course of action, he has a vested interest in seeing the action succeed, sometimes at the expense of the owner. It can be difficult at times to watch a fabricator make one mistake after another, but the owner's representative has to keep himself at arms length and not volunteer suggestions. There are times when the owner will request the TPI's involvement with finding a solution to a problem. There is no conflict of interest when the owner is fully aware of the TPI's involvement. However, the TPI must recognize his limitations because there is liability assumed if his course of action isn't successful. The liability may be limited to the TPI reputation or it could extend to financial liability in the event there is an injury or failure as a direct consequence with the TPI's suggestion.

Best regards - Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 07-30-2009 19:51

Al,

As usual I have learned a lot from this thread. Your responses, and those of Gerald and Shane, have given me some new aspects of the application of our job to take into consideration.

The company that I work for and the customers/owners that we inspect for all expect a higher level of involvement than what you have indicated as being the job of the TPI. I do understand your reasons and practice for your particular jobs. And as I told the OP in my earlier posts I understand it is not our job to replace the in house inspectors. But, with the owner's blessing, we normally are very active in a very in depth inspection of the entire process throughout the whole run of the job. We do not check their layout, i.e. measurements, angles, etc. but we do watch, monitor, & record everything from WPS's, MTR's, welder's certs, material processing, Ht# transfers, layout/fitup, pre-heat, welding, clean up, QC with final sign off by their people, then our sign off. A final sign off doesn't take me long because I have been around through the whole process.

We do many jobs with full pen welds, multi-pass fillets, Seismic ratings, and other factors that appearently have been deemed critical enough by the owners that they request our 100% involvement when it comes to VT of the welds. They may occassionally only require that I "measure" 25% of the welds but they want us to VT 100%. And it is even stated to the fabricator that if we are not there because we were told they would not be on our job that day that there will be no work done without us present. Mainly they don't want delays, extra handling, items that don't get shop inspected that may have pick up, etc. We have been in some pretty big, certified fabricator, large city approved, shops that still don't really do a GOOD job of in house inspections. I can understand why our customers want us to check their work. I don't know what would happen in the field if these parts arrived in the shape that I generally first view them in. On the other hand, their people probably get lazy and/or enjoy passing the buck of rejections on to us instead of doing it themselves to their fellow employees. I guess I was 'assuming' that most jobs went this way. You made me stop and rethink how the various codes describe the responsibilities of the various inspectors- contractor, verification, owner, building authority, etc.

With some of the comments made here I intend to ask some questions of the company I work for and make some suggestions as to our role in some of these jobs. I really like your involvement with the contract to make all aware of who is responsible for certain payments when things are not right. Keeps contractors feet to the fire for quality control on their job.

To me the bottom line still comes down to how much does my customer want/expect of me. Regardless of the level of quality of the in house inspections. And if he wants that level of involvement, I don't sit in an office on my computer most of the day. I spend about 75-80% of my time on the floor watching. 10-15% going over all the job paperwork and codes. Less than 10% on reports.

Thank you for your insights and experiences. Thanks for the chuckle. That was good, both for a laugh and for application.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 07-30-2009 21:11

Every client is different and every job is different. It is important that the project specifications clearly delineate the responsibilities of each party. The purchase order, project specification, the Statement of Special Inspections, codes, etc. are all tools used for that purpose.

As a TPI, I do my best to keep the client happy, whether the client is the fabricator or the owner. I can't serve both parties at the same time without walking a very thin line. It is for that reason that when my services are retained by the owner, I will not test the fabricator's welders and bill the fabricator for the same project. I will test the welders, but the owner, my client has to agree to pay the cost. Likewise for any WPSs developed for the project. The owner pays when I develop the procedures used on a project even when they are requested by the fabricator. That way there is no appearance of impropriety.

I have no qualm with performing 100% inspection, but only after the fabricator has inspected them and pronounced them to be acceptable. I'm repeating myself.

Best r3egards - Al

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 07-31-2009 02:19

Al, I can clearly see a pattern here!

Argueing with you about weld quality must be like wrestling with a pig in the mud. The pig actually enjoys it!

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 07-31-2009 14:10

Al,

Even when you repeat yourself, I stop and listen. Thank you for your responses. And Shane and Gerald as well. Guys, I think I understand where each of you is coming from. I think too, IMHO, that the defining of TPI, or Contractor Inspector, or Verification Inspector (terms defined vaguely by D1.1) could use some improvement. You have helped me to clarify some things about OUR responsibilities no matter what title we go by.

And, at the risk of repeating myself and others, it comes down to what the person paying us has put on paper as to what is required of us. Then there is nothing left but to insure we are doing our job to the best of our ability and insuring that SAFETY is number one both during construction and in the assigned usage of the finished product.

I hope the OP, who we haven't heard from in a bit, learned as much as I feel I have from all your combined input.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 07-31-2009 14:22

You said it all.

Best regards - Al

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 07-31-2009 17:58

Welderbrent

"And, at the risk of repeating myself and others, it comes down to what the person paying us has put on paper as to what is required of us. Then there is nothing left but to insure we are doing our job to the best of our ability and insuring that SAFETY is number one both during construction and in the assigned usage of the finished product."

This is not entirely correct. You may have legal obligations to the State or Local Building Official, if your report is part of a "Special Inspection" function. I have heard of an instance where the inspector who rejected everything and reported everything as non-conforming, was kept in the subsequent law suit, because the Judge said he had not done everything he should have done to stop the work! Section 1704 of the IBC comes to mind, where the inspector is required to notify the B.O.

You may also have legal obligations under other State laws, such as the State Education Law in N. Y. S.

Joe Kane

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 08-02-2009 02:56

Joe,

Thank you for your response. I believe I can say that works into my philosophy of the job though not communicated thus far.

I am not at full liberty to reveal the whole story, but we had a job that the inspections company that hired us to do the out of state testing on a particular project started asking us to operate outside the job specs, contract docs, work as per the codes called out, etc. Many things were being compromised and we could not get them to continue allowing us to work the job as required.

We pulled off the job thus: Finished the shift giving notice to ALL parties involved, wrote up the final reports with all violations documented, faxed copies of our reports to the fabrication shop head office, the inspection company that hired us, the Engineer of Record, the Owner, the Local Building Authority where the job was going. Boy was there a hornets nest stirred up.

We never got to finish the job but they ended up sending their people in to do so as the contract docs specified. At greater expense, I might add, than if they had just called us back. And, we still got to do the UT because their people were'nt certified and they had the fabricator bring in whoever they wanted to document the work and they called us. Go figure.

l believe we handled it best we could and contacted all the appropriate authorities to make sure things were documented and corrected.

Thanks again for your input, Have a Great Day, Brent

By CWI555

Date 07-30-2009 21:40 Edited 07-30-2009 21:44

To each their own Shane. I don't take it personnel that you disagree.

I definitely will not back off of my experience based stance. I believe the root of this disagreement is in the definition of a third party inspector.
Your not "independent" if you receive your direction in the manner you describe.
That is not a TPI to me. I believe the last 10 years has blurred the lines in regards to what a TPI is with all the wanna be inspection companies
jumping in and selling "TPI" services.
IF your hired by the contractor to perform inspection, or by the owner to perform inspection then your not really a TPI. If your hired by either the owner, or a governing entity to oversight the project, and your limited to specific areas of acceptor reject such as welder quals, or weld process quals, with the majority of the work being recommendations to the entity that hired you your a TPI.

The only exception to that is when a contractor hires a TPI when they either suspect or it is known that the job could go bad without an independent overview.
In this specific case, even though they bear all the cost, they do not have the right to demand inspection to 100 percent.

If in either case, your put in the position of performing their QC for them, then your value as a third party inspector just went out the window.
Maybe it's different where you live and work, but around these parts, (and most other countries I've been in) when all goes to hell, the TPI is going to be square in the middle of the inevitable arbitration / legal action. Anything and everything that can bring your independence in question can and will be used against you.

With that said, I stand on my position.

Performing standard accept or reject inspection is at best a "special inspector" or "recognized inspection agency", but in no way will they stand in court as a TPI.
It's simple as that.

That is how I see it. As you say, You and I are very passionate professionals with differing opinions. My opinion came from my first experience in court. It wasn't a pleasant experience as I had "jumped in there" to help them out. I got screwed royally for that, and will never make that mistake again.

Regards,
Gerald

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 07-30-2009 23:37

Gerald / Al,
I reread my earlier posting and I have not really explained myself properly, however, the more I think about it the more confused I become.
A Third Party Inspector is exactly that - a third party that is independant of the two parties involved.(usually owner/contractor or contractor/sub-contractor)
As both of you work for yourselves how can you ever be a true TPI because you are paid by one of the two parties involved ?

I worked for 4 years with SGS in New Zealand as a Welding Inspector / Radiographer
I worked for 12 months for CCI Pope in Australia as a Welding Inspector. (They have since been bought out by Bureau Veritas)
These IMHO are true Third Party Inspectorates.

Whether the bill for inspection is being paid by the owner or the contractor my wages are being paid by a "Third Party".
That is why I am maintaining that Company A (The Owner) can Hire Company C (The Inspection Agency) to inspect Company Bs (the Contractors) work, be it 1%, 50% or 100% and it is still classed as third party inspection.
That is my interpretation of third party inspection,however it may be different in the States.
Regards,
Shane

By CWI555

Date 07-31-2009 02:15

Actually, I work for Bechtel at this moment in time.

However, I used to work for Bureau Veritas, and have contracted with other IACS companies.

The members of IACS are:

ABS American Bureau of Shipping
BV Bureau Veritas
CCS China Classification Society
DNV Det Norske Veritas
GL Germanischer Lloyd
KR Korean Register of Shipping
LR Lloyd's Register
NK Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (ClassNK)
RINA Registro Italiano Navale
RS Russian Maritime Register of Shipping

I don't consider SGS or CCI a TPI organization.

The times I was contracted to BV and ABS are the times I consider myself to have ran as a TPI, and they are what I consider 'true tpi organizations.

At it's absolute cleanest, a true third party would be one that is brought in on the behalf of a Government, insurance organization etc to oversee a project they will not own in the end. This is the normal case with the IACS groups.

The IACS companies do not carry as strong a presence in the states as they do in other parts of the world. Subject matter experts in the states are what is classified as a TPI. Al being a good example of that. They don't work for an inspection firm or constructure but rather contract directly to the owner, government agency, insurance company, or in lesser cases a constructure needing an SME to protect their interest.

I hope that clarifies it. I've been in your world, and understand what you mean by a "true third party inspectorate", but it is in fact different in this particular portion of the world.

Regards,
Gerald

By 803056

Date 07-31-2009 03:24

This thread has taken more twists and turns than a soap opera on television. It is interesting to hear what so many have to say on the subject. Each of us has a little bit different twist on the definition of TPI, but in the end, the goal is to ensure a well made product, produced in accordance with some specification or code, is constructed and delivered to the buyer.

The best we can do is try to be impartial and to be neither too critical or too easy, but rather rely on the appropriate standards to provide the guidance needed to satisfy the customer while being fair to the contractor that is providing the goods or services.

The service we provide, whether it is as a contractor's QC, an owner's QA, present different challenges every day. The people we interact with are usually rather unique individuals in their own way and we do what we can to make sure the goods delivered measure up to the standards.

Best regards - Al

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 07-31-2009 04:46

Hi again Gerald / Al,
You are right, it has been an interesting topic.
I think Gerald is right, there is confusion over what is actually a TPI.
The organisations that Gerald noted are classed as RTPO's (Recognised Third Party Organisations) in Britain / Europe.
Any company can become approved to join this exclusive club if they comply with the requirements.
So who is a TPI ? Does a TPI have to be an employee of a recognised TPO ?
Bureau Veritas in my hometown have inspectors that perform VT,MT,PT,UT and RT on anything from 1 to 100%. Are they TPI's or not ?
IMHO a TPI is any inspector who is not employed by either of the two parties involved. In other words an independent inspector.
Regards,
Shane

By Joey

Date 07-31-2009 07:13

CWI555

"The only person or entitety I will not say no to is GOD himself"

Wow heaven men :) your fans will miss you :)!

I'm confused on your understanding of TPI., maybe your correct.

Actually, some call them ITA (Independent Testing Angency) or ITA Inspector.

Yours is "special inspector" or "recognized inspection agency",

If TPI is not proper, is it alright with your if we add INDEPENDENT?

Like "special INDEPENDENT inspector" or "recognized INDEPENDENT inspection agency"

I think no harm, sounds good than TPI.

Regards
Joey

By CWI555

Date 07-31-2009 13:42

"Wow heaven men your fans will miss you !"
"If there is no ITP(Inspection & Test Plan), then the coach will decide on the game that you will play "

You sir are taking my post completly out of context. There are times you have to say no, no matter how much pressure is applied.
If you wish to be a smart ass about my post, and take it out of context, keep in mind I've given you the benifit of the doubt.
Some of your post make it sound as if you would play ball with letting faulty work go, or doing something your not susposed to do if your pressured.
Now should I try to understand what it is your really saying, or should I be a smart ass and twist your words as you attempt to do mine?

By Joey

Date 08-01-2009 03:15

CWI555 states “Some of your post make it sound as if you would play ball with letting faulty work go, or doing something your not susposed to do if your pressured”.

CWI555 states “Now should I try to understand what it is your really saying, or should I be a smart ass and twist your words as you attempt to do mine?”

Pardon me Sir, you are the one who first take my post out of context, and please remember that you did it to me in the past too.

You quoted my post

"Some project having tight schedule requires 100 % inspection by 3rd party to ensure the drawing requirements are met and items delivered are having good quality. The client is already fed up with rejection and no time to argue and revamp the entire in house QC organization. Will you say “NO” to the client’s request if they are willing to pay for 100% inspection?"

What is wrong with the above post? The inspection & test plan was revised by the Owner Engineer to reflect the 100% inspection by TPI. The client is willing to pay for more inspection visit by TPI. Is it considered bowing to schedule pressure?

Do you think the below response you gave is not a smart ass too? It’s in fact a bloody smart ass! Because you take my post out of context.

CWI555 states “The only person or entitety I will not say no to is GOD himself. Their "tight schedule" is not my problem. If your a "real" TPI, your going to behave in an honorable fashion and perform your duty as the TPI without bowing to schedule pressure.”

Amigo don’t act like a guru of this forum, we all have the same privilege and don’t under estimate a stinging ass person from Smokey mountain!! You can twist if u want and I will learn the twisting skill from you.

By CWI555

Date 07-31-2009 13:38

BV is pushing the limits of a TPI. After they went public (as in publically owned company) they changed. They should take care they don't get booted from the IACS organization.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 07-31-2009 14:01

Gerald,
All I am trying to do is clarify "What is a Third Party Inspector ?"
There are always two parties involved in fabrication or construction be they owner/contractor - client/contractor - contractor/sub contractor.
The third party inspector must be totally independent of the other two parties. If the inspector receives monetary remuneration from either of the two parties, be they the owner or the contractor then they cannot be classed as a TPI.
Regards,
Shane

By 803056

Date 07-31-2009 14:17 Edited 07-31-2009 14:41

I've always used the term TPI for anyone that isn't a direct employee of the contractor or the owner (client).

The TPI may be collecting a fee for services rendered, but he isn't a direct employee that is taking a salary as an employee as defined by the IRS or labor laws.

No one in my mind is truly independent unless they are working for free. There is always some form of pressure applied by the client. I've had testing agencies that used my services for NDT tell me not to be too critical because it will be too disturbing to the client and they might not get any additional work from them. I've even had one testing agency attempt to alter my reports so as not to upset the client. When I got wind of (from someone that worked there) what was contemplated I told the owner of the company that if I ever heard that he changed one of my reports I would break his fingers so he wouldn't be able to type again. I haven't done any work for him since, but I don't need clients like him. By the way, he did get caught later using a PE's stamp on reports even after the engineer had quit the company.

You show me a working relationship between a client and an inspection agency, and I'll show you a pressure point. The inspector has to have the personal fortitude to resist those pressures that come in many forms. When a client starts to apply pressure on me I usually tell them they need to look for another inspection company because the test results are what they are. If they are simply looking for a "buy-off" there are plenty of companies that will do that for them.

Have I said no to prospective clients? Rarely, but I have dropped clients on a number occasions.

An inspector only has one thing going for him and that is his reputation. All the training and knowledge in the world is of little value if the inspector earns a reputation as having no backbone and no integrity. I've seen more inspectors come and go because they lost their integrity by accepting "gifts" from the contractor, looked the other way because they got too friendly with the welders or contractor, buckled under pressure from contractors, etc. I've seen inspectors that I considered to be amongst the smartest I've known get nailed for signing for work they didn't inspect because they got overburdened or because they allowed the contractor to bully them into a corner and buy-off on something they knew wasn't acceptable. The other pitfall is falling into the trap of suggesting a "repair" or getting involved with developing a repair procedure for the contractor while being paid by the owner. Inspection isn't for everyone. Some people simply are not inspector material.

What is a TPI? Clearly there are several opinions on the subject. I like the idea that a TPI performs QA functions, but there are occasions where the TPI does perform inspection functions (QC) because the contractor doesn't have the capability to do the NDT required such as RT or UT, or the customer wants an outside agency to perform the inspection. I still view the inspection agency as a TPI because even though they are collecting a fee from the contractor, they are answering to the "owner". It gets very muddy even under the best of circumstances.

Best regards - Al

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 07-31-2009 14:35

Al,
Thank you for your response.
I do not have a pretty CV because I have a lot of "short term" positions shown. The reason for the multitude of employers in my CV is because I have been hired by a lot of companies ( mostly contractors) who only want you because the client demands it. "Stay in the office and when you do go out don't look too hard at anything." Needless to say, I tell them all where they can shove their job.
As I said, it doesn't look flash on the CV but those companies I have worked for who take quality serious have given me glowing references.
Hope you all have a great weekend,
Regards,
Shane

By 803056

Date 07-31-2009 14:46 Edited 07-31-2009 15:49

"An inspector with integrity is a pain in the ass." Overheard at a job meeting I once attended.

Best regards - Al

By bmaas1

Date 08-01-2009 18:46

Heard that along with a few other choice words.

Brian