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
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
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!
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
You said it all.
Best regards - Al
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
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