Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / Another Structural Contract spec ? or 2
- - By jwright650 (*****) Date 03-16-2005 14:21
I am looking over a new job that was sold and I'm reading through the contract specs and it states....

"Qualifications for welding work: Qualify welding processes and welding operators in accordance with AWS "Standard Qualification Procedure".

Provide certification that welders to be employed in work have satisfactorily passed AWS qualification tests within the previous 12 months."

Ok, I know I've been down this same road a time or two with you guys and I value your opinions and when I see something that reads out of the norm, I start to wonder exactly what they want for us to do.

1) Does this first sentence want us to qualify per D1.1 section 4 just like we've always done or are they asking for us to do something different, I haven't seen it worded quite that way before(AWS " Standard Qualification Procedure")

2) Does the second sentence ask us to requalify anyone who has a qualification record older than 12 months?

Any help is always appreciated, I usually try to read too much into this stuff rather than taking it for what it says :)
John Wright


Parent - By jfolk (**) Date 03-16-2005 15:32
John,

I would ask the client or customer for further clarification. If these statements are above and beyond the minimum acceptable requirements of the code or standard then you as a company must decide if you will accommodate their additional requirements. This is very standard in contracts and fabrication issue packages. You know as a CWI that you don't read in any more or take away any more than what is stated. No assumptions, just the facts. Good luck.

John Folk
Parent - - By gkcwi (**) Date 03-16-2005 15:34
This is way we handle spec's like yours

1) We ask the E.I.C. if we use personnel that are qualified to D1.1, will this be ok. We 've never got shot down.

2) We provide a copy of our welder continiuity record to the E.I.C. once again, we also "inform" the E.I.C. that this record is in accordance with AWS code, we have never had to retest due to the 12 month requirement.
It sounds a lot like a engineering firm's "can" spec, and no-one has ever really questioned them about it. We have "helped" a couple of firms rewrite their spec's so they make sense to fabricators who would be reviewing them for a bid propsal. Hope this helps.
Parent - - By DGXL (***) Date 03-16-2005 15:40
*The 1st requirement appears to be simply poorly worded. Or, see my comments under "Letter to an Engineer"

*I have to retest welders regularly who have not qualified within the last 12 months. No it is not in the D1.1 code, but the RDP has always had the authority to modify the code requirements (D1.1:2004, 1.4.1). This is quite common here in CA for SFRS.

Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 03-16-2005 16:22
As you all know,
We are seeing lots of poorly worded specs and they lead you to a point to where you are trying to second guess the spec writer's intentions rather than taking them at face value.

I guess a clarification (RFI) is in order to make sure we are in fact giving the customer what we sold them. Arguing with them over wording is a mute point when we have already agreed to, and have been awarded the contract. I just wish we as a company would iron all this stuff out BEFORE getting into a binding contract with someone.

Thanks again for your input,
John Wright

Parent - - By thirdeye (***) Date 03-16-2005 17:04
John,

Here is a scan of a fax funny we received from one of our engineering clients a number of years ago after numerous requests for clairification. I still get a little chuckle out of it.

~thirdeye~

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/thirdeye2/welding01/ExhibitC.jpg

EDIT: Looks like you will have to expand it to full size in your viewer.
Parent - - By DGXL (***) Date 03-16-2005 17:39
Hey 3rdeye:
Did someone actually sign that piece of paper?
I'm still laughing!

John:
If you guys do much FEMA-type work, the 12 months probably arose from 353. Many DSA and OSHPD projects here require a limited qualification envelope for welders working on critical welds of the structure. The D1.8 (if published) has a 36 month period. The 12 and 36 month time frames apply only to welders performing work specifically on SFRS (e.g.: OMF).

Secondary or non-load bearing members or miscellaneous metals (stair stringers), qualification per D1.1 applies although these welders do have to qualify from time to time here in CA per the above specs.
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 03-16-2005 18:46
We do as little as possible:) We had our lunch ate and then handed back to us on our first "FEMA job". It blind sided us in the way it was referenced in the specs. That experience still has me jumpy when I read all of these specs. Our sales department and estimators are wiser for it though. We found out that is something that needs addressing very early in the project with the EOR to see how closely he/she will request us to follow those "guidelines". Our shop will have to step up to the plate if we ever tackle one of those jobs that will strictly adhere to those guidelines. It turned out on that first job that the EOR had not read the FEMA guidelines at all and only had seen it referenced and thought it would look good in his specs if he had his building per the FEMA guidelines. When we found out what we were being asked to do, we started the RFIs rolling into thier office and they did not know how to answer our questions. He ended up asking us to just make it work because he had not thought out any of the typical welded and bolted moment details and there were numerous situations where the steel would not erect and fouled if we drew up our shop details per his typical details. It was really costly for us and our erector to finally get away from that job.
John Wright
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 03-16-2005 18:29
That's pretty funny, I printed that out and we all passed it around here at work laughing at it, but we all sadly agreed that is it pretty close to real life.
John Wright
Parent - By thcqci (***) Date 03-17-2005 11:52
It is funny. It is now making the rounds here also. I recommended we incorporate it into our contract documents just to see how closely anyone reads them. If it is like our people here, there are only a couple of us that read every word to see what they really say. Most just assume, "Same ole specs; nothing to worry about". That bites you when taken lightly.
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 03-17-2005 16:23
John; I agree with the others who have stated this is simply poorly worded. We all have to remember that often times the people writing these specifications may be mechanical engineers, civil engineers or some other entity that probably doesn't have the same background as we do in welding. My personal opinion (and what I would do if I were in your situation) is use D1.1 for the qualification basis (sentence one of your question). Sentence two of your question simply sounds like they want a certification statement from your company that the welders have maintained their continuity of qualifications.
Parent - - By jerrykroll (**) Date 03-23-2005 14:41
Is it possible that

".....in accordance with AWS "Standard Qualification Procedure".

could refer to AWS B2.1 ?

I find this referenced occasionally, and use it as a generic code, especially when a client wants to cover all bases for a variety of welding with just one code (specification), as it covers all base metals, and processes ala ASME IX.
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 03-23-2005 15:10
Hi Jerry,
When I first read it, that is what I was pondering(B2.1).

For now, I'm simply maintaining that we have qualified/certified all welders and procedures for use on thier project per D1.1 and if they want us to do otherwise, they will have to say so.
As always, thanks to everyone for all of your input.
John Wright
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / Another Structural Contract spec ? or 2

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill