out of line?

Date 01-15-2009 05:24 Edited 01-15-2009 05:58

I'll bet it did stir the hornets nest when the general contractor got his head on the chopping block in front of everyone. How dare you bring up such embarassment back into full view.

Tough being thorough and ethical aint it?

Yes it is within the scope of your job to have all procedures available. I also think your supervisor is a mullet! However...VT what you can, document the weld as incomplete pending backgouge on all your paperwork and let your supervisor sign off on the final. Make sure your report specifies the inaccessibility issues concerning the backside of the joint. It's all about proper documentation and creative report writing.

ALWAYS KEEP A SECURE AND DETAILED PERSONAL LOG! INCLUDE DATES, TIME, PEOPLE INVOLVED/PRESENT AND THE TEMPERATURE AND WEATHER CONDITIONS. The weather conditions/temp is very important. It shows the judge and attorneys meticulous detail that is difficult if not impossible to fabricate. Common practice on MSHA audits and State Mine Inspectors reports.

By 803056

Date 01-15-2009 05:55 Edited 01-15-2009 06:04

Include a clear description of the work inspected. Include the fact that you requested copies of the the welding documents, i.e., WPS, WPTRs, and any drawings or sketches associated with the work. The sketches or drawings should have the EOR's stamp affixed indicating it was approved for construction. Include sketches and photographs of the work you are inspecting.

The fact that the SI or EOR provided a sketch of the work or other description of the work does not preclude the need for a welding procedure specification or the need to use qualified welders if the work is required to meet AWS D1.X. You should request the opportunity to review a copy of the project specification that will provide specific information of what codes or standards are applicable to the work.

Are you a third party inspector or an employee of the contractor performing the work? In either case, you have specific requirements that are to be met that usually run contrary to the wishes of the contractor. After all, the less you know the better off he is.

Don't argue with the man, but then again, don't accept the work until you have all the information you need. Put the pen to the paper and describe what you saw, what was done, and who did what. If you are the third party inspector, you are the eyes and ears of both the EOR and the owner. The first report you turn in will set the tone for the entire project. Being "Mr. Nice Guy" will only gives the impression you are a push-over and you will get no respect. After all, you are not on the job to be popular.

I inspect work and report my findings without accepting the work until all the supporting documents are provided. That is, I reject everything pending the receipt and approval of the required supporting documents. That usually gets their undivided attention, especially when they don't get paid until I sign off on the project. I let the code do my talking. I quote chapter and verse and include them in my reports. It is hard for the engineer to gloss over the facts when everything is properly laid out for him. When there is a discrepancy, request the engineer's blessing in writing. They usually stop and think twice when they have to sign the dotted line to approve nonconforming work. After all, why should I or the engineer take on added liability because the contractor doesn't want to do what's right.

Nothing gets the contractor's attention like the sound of money coming out of their pocket. The bigger the expense the more they pay attention. The last thing that I think about is how much it will cost the contractor to fix something. "The more it cost the uncooperative contractor the better" is my creed.

Always, always keep copies of your reports. Turn in your notes and your reports to your employer when required to do so, but always keep a copy for your files. You never know what the office staff will do with your reports. They may modify them, they may "correct" your spelling and substitute an incorrect word, or they may misfile them. You just don't know when you are going to need a copy of your original report. It is usually after an accident and you are being deposed by the plaintiff's lawyers.

Best regards - Al

By Superflux (****)

Date 01-15-2009 06:07

803056
"After all, the less you know the better off he is."
I love that line! So twisted and Whacked, yet so very true.

By 803056

Date 01-15-2009 06:15

It's sad but true.

Some inspectors go through life as mushrooms. They're kept in the dark, fed a line of BS, and they thrive!

Glad you saw some humor in my response. :)

Best regards - Al

By Superflux (****)

Date 01-15-2009 06:24

That is why I am 3rd party, and or go from job to job. I see many permanent shop QC's that are puppets to the company.

Yes, you have a demented sense of humor...COOL!

By clutch

Date 01-16-2009 12:13

thanks Al, Unfortunately I'm just a measly 3rd party inspector who's a thron in their side from the moment I pull up to the site. I'm always told by everyone on the site at the end of the day the I'm the only one who gives a sh#@. But the only good thing is I'm working for the owner so I don't need to play games with the general. what I failed to mention in my first entry the stub column has a RFM (TCU-4a)connection on both columns so there is great significance with these columns. also this was about a month or two ago, and I recently called the general to ask about the connection because my report has been idel I bassically rejected it due to the fact there is no evidence of a CJP and asked for a WPS and he told me its been coverd and the SI accepted it. So I asked him if he hired another inspector to do additional NDT and he said no. So all the controversy was for nothing, but this isnt rare. I have several jobs where my non-comp. reports are dead in the water and the building will open. I think its just a result of the lack of participation from all these little hick municipalities not doing their job as per IBC/17. Why will it take an earthquake and kill people before were takin serious. but anyway thanks guys its good to know I was in the green.

By 803056

Date 01-16-2009 23:01

The report you write is the tool you wield. It can be ineffective or it can carry the authority of Thor. You need to learn to write a report that is factual, grammatically correct, with proper spelling, and don't be afraid to quote the applicable clause out of the applicable code. Engineers are like most of us, overworked and underpaid. They are not going to get out of their comfortable seat to look for some arcane requirement in a code book unless they are forced to. So, you do it for them, include it in your report.

The owner and engineer reads your report. They develop a sense of your knowledge of the code, welding, etc. from what they read. If you don't take the time to make sure your information is factually correct, if you don't take the time to correct spelling errors, if you don't take the time to research the code requirements, the impression the reader develops is less than impressive.

Writing a report is much more time consuming that performing the actual inspection. I spend two to three hours writing my report for each hour spent in the field. Writing the report is the hardest thing an inspector has to learn. The CWI examination is a piece of cake compared to writing a good report.

I would be lost without my spell check and word processing programs. I have a very difficult time with English. I lost a scholarship in college because my English grades were so poor. My daughter used to correct my reports before I would hand them in. They were that bad! Over time I did get better at it and it makes a difference. My clients can hire any number of inspectors for a fraction of what I charge, but they are actually buying the report because that is the end product they need.

My reports include quotes from the applicable codes, sketches, photographs, and references to specific details and sections from the drawings I'm working with. When I reject the welds securing the angle clip to the end of a beam or a seat welded to a column flange, I report the piece number of the fitting as well as the beam or column piece mark, the face its welded to, the nature of the discontinuity, etc.

It is a rare event that the EOR will over ride my call because the report is very detailed in the description of the discrepancy. The engineer doesn't have to second guess the significance of the discontinuity being reported. If there is any question about how something is assembled, weld size, etc, I ask the question in writing and reference the RFI in the report and include a statement that I'm waiting for a written response from the EOR. That puts the liability of accepting a non-conforming work on squarely on the shoulders of the EOR and trust me, the engineer doesn't want to accept responsibility for non-conforming work performed by a contractor.

Good luck and keep working at it. You'll do fine. After all, you are being paid to be a pain in the contractor's butt.

My pencil is my thorn and I sharpen it every chance I get. I'm paid to be an SOB and most people that know me will tell you I'm darn good at it.

Best regards - Al

By hogan

Date 01-16-2009 23:15

803056,
That seems like a lot of time spent writing a report.

"I spend two to three hours writing my report for each hour spent in the field."

So for a four hour job that would be 8 to 12 hours on report writing?

By 803056

Date 01-17-2009 05:11

It isn't unusual for me to spend eight hours on a detailed report for a four hour inspection that has many problems. Most of my jobs are those that have already been identified as "problem" projects. Twelve hours would be unusual unless there were some very serious problems.

Let me give you a couple of examples of my current projects:

1) New X-ray installation in a hospital involving an 2.75 million dollar machine where the structural support system failed during installation and the X-ray machine crashed to the floor. Adjacent X-ray laboratory now being inspected. Corrective action involves removal of current supports where necessary, requalification of all welders, WPSs, new design, fabrication, and installation. Someone is going to have to pay a lot of money on this one. The delays involved will cost the contractor many thousands of dollars in penalties for interest, lost profits, lost opportunity, and actual rework.
2) New three story self supporting fire stair that experienced joint failures during hot dip galvanizing. All welds rejected and all welding documentation reviewed and rejected due to incorrect information and technical errors. Stairs not build to code requirements (lots of research time involved). What code requirements are applicable?
3) Military weldment inspected and defects documented in detail. Drawings reviewed for design and symbol errors with recommendations for corrective action involving rework as well as correcting the drawings. Involved detailed reports and executive summary of problems including cause and corrective actions deliverable to CEO.

All the reports included photographs that have to be cropped and annotated. Sketches have to be made to depict the problems shown by the photographs to clarify the conditions of concern. References to specific code violations have to be researched before making claims there are code violations that require corrective action. In some cases the contents of the reports are discussed with the engineer (or client) and revised several times before being distributed to interested parties which may include legal council.

Two to three hours writing reports for each hour spent on physical inspection isn't all that unusual in my work.

Best regards - Al

By clutch

Date 01-29-2009 04:44

Al,
What part of the county are you in and where do I put in my resume to have the ability you have. If I even thought about anything as far as what you did in any of the scenarios you listed I would be out of a job for hurting clients and potential clients feelings. I have to walk on egg shells where I am. Now how can I get respect doing that. I get called rediculous when I reject vertical braces that have square slots. Or SC bolted joints when theres primer on the faying surfaces. thats small fries compared to your deal. keep up the good work saving America on building at a time.

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 01-17-2009 03:58

Then you'll like my favorite: "Time wounds all heels".

By Richard Cook (**)

Date 01-28-2009 20:55

I have had issues as such, when accessability is a problem. Backing can be put in place then the stub fit in place and the weld be made with most standard prequalified WPS. the only issue is backing removal, if the project requires all backing to be removed then there would have to be a waiver in writing by the engineer to leave them in place. But you can put in proper welds with these conditions noted, it just needs preplanning and sequenced events.

Now if they welded without backing to provide a full penetration weld you have the obligation as the Inspector to review the welding procedure and the qulaification of the welder. The procedure must be qualified. If they made the weld already write an NCR.

All these changes have to be approved by the engineer of record, this SI, are you refering to a Special Inspector? No the SI cannot just call out a weld this is to be addressed by the engineer.

By clutch

Date 01-29-2009 04:36

Richard,
The SI was an error in my part I ment to write SE for structural engineer. basically I received a skectch of the w column with a bevel groove weld symbol with full pen in the tail pointing to the connection joint of the exsisting coulum and the stub. It wasnt even a good sketch looks like he just did it at lunch on a napkin or something. It didnt even show the adjacent exsisting wall. The moment I seen it, it was already welded. Did not see the preped joint or any rat holes. hell the iron workers didnt even try to fool me by grinding it all pretty. So I immediately requested a WPS. The super looked at me like I was asking for the holy grail. I did write a non comp. thats when the crap hit the fan. My supervisor got a call from this genreal contractor and wanted to know why I was being so hard on them and that I should just inspect the joint to the horrible sketch provided by the SE. So I told him I did and that no evidence of CJP was present. The sad thing is since I posted this I heard the SE just approved it and its concealed now. This happens alot, but I sleep well knowing I did my part. If only I had more authority?????
thanks

By 803056

Date 01-29-2009 05:48

The last thing to wish for is more authority, because with it comes liability.

You are the eyes and ears of the engineer. You report what you see and what you can verify and what you can't see or verify. Any deviations from the project specifications or applicable codes should be noted and when necessary a "buy off" in writing obtained from the engineer. The engineer is given the authority by the "codes" to make decisions based on sound engineering judgement to accept non-conformances when he deems them to be suitable for the intended service. The engineer has the license and the lawful authority in most cases to make the final decision. Your job is to provide the best information you can so he makes an intelligent decision. He may not be right, but he's never wrong.

The last thing the inspector wants to get caught up in is accepting nonconforming work based on his own judgement, because then he is accepting liability should something go wrong. The inspector doesn't have the authority to accept non conforming work.

As an inspector, when I do voice an opinion, it is to the engineer and if he accepts my opinion it is issued through his office. Many times my input is requested by the engineer and I am happy to comply, but the final decision is his and he issues the written edicts.

I'm very careful not to "advise" contractors or fabricators unless they are the client. I keep at arms length if I'm the third party inspector. When I have to qualify welders or if I'm involved in developing a welding procedures for the fabricator, it is only with the approval of my client and only if the client agrees to pay the costs. I will not do work for the fabricator, i.e., bill him for work, if I also represent a client on the same project or even another project if both are underway at the same time. As they say, "I can only serve one master."

I have two projects that are currently underway where I am the third party inspector. At my client's request, I qualified the welders and wrote the WPSs, but my client paid for those services and both he and the fabricator benefited.

More authority? That's the last thing I want.

Best regards - Al

By Richard Cook (**)

Date 02-05-2009 17:22

The biggest problem with the industry is this understanding that the NCR is meant to be a whip or hammer to punish the individual. this is not so, it is a tool to provide evidence of conditions that do not conform and the action needed to bring it into conformance. Once the Engineer buys off on it the item is closed. He was made aware and he reviewed, given the option to accept or reject. It's a document to cover everyones butt, even the erectors, so they should be glad to have it. I hope people in this industry do not think all work is done perfectly, I haven't found it yet. I gert tired of it to at times, but I just, leave it to the engineer, I document in my records and move on.

You did your job. The industry needs to accept it for what it is and not be afraid of a piece of paper. Keep doing as you did.