First, yes, they are claiming to be the only certified shop in the area. And, they are the only one.
Most of the jobs around AZ are too small and the fab shops too small to justify the expense of getting AISC or even AWS Certified Fabricator Shop status. Too much money for too little benefit. We would rather just deal with the Special Inspectors being in our shops when needed.
What they have told the city and the General Contractors in the area, is that because they are the only shop that is certified, they are the only one who is qualified to perform any work that has code requirements on it. Things as simple as beam seats, posts with beam seats, embeds with anchors, and all the way to any columns and beams for structural support in buildings. There are many other jobs that are have code requirements as well. You guys know all the various applications.
That is not the case obviously. You do not have to be a certified shop to do the work. You need qualified/certified welders and will have lots of other things to do and document but you do not have to be an AISC Certified Fabrication Facility. That is not what is promoted by any code and AISC does not advocate telling city officials that your status as a Certified Shop gets you that kind of perferential treatment. The code does not EXCLUDE others from even participating in the bid and fabrication process.
Basically, I would say that they are claiming this is a requirement to perform work when it is not. They have convinced the city. Small town with inspector wanna bes easily persuaded by lawyers who are probably the brother-in-law of the shop owner.
Don't get me wrong. I am all for the certification of shops. On projects of any size it makes many factors so much easier to deal with. You know right up front what you are getting in a fabricator. The TPI's job is a lot easier because of the in house QC that has been documented. But, even the AWS and AISC acknowledge it is not for everyone. Even shops without that status must have all the right contractors licenses, insurances, bonds, certified welders, paperwork, etc to be considered for any such work. The certification becomes a trade off for special inspections and does give you special consideration by a customer because he has some documentation as to what you are capable of. But it does not give you the right to have the city mandate who can participate in jobs.
Hg, I'm not sure if I am still coming across clear. I know what you mean about programs not being worth anything if they aren't required in some way. But, some programs are worth it because of the benefits that are involved not because they are mandated. I try to encourage all shops in my area to send at least one person to the CWI seminar even if they don't take the exam. Very useful info. They need it so they know more about what they 'claim' to be working to and know more about what inspectors are looking for. Doesn't mean they all MUST have CWI's on their payroll. Certified welders (no arguments please about qualified vs certified) are more of a requirement in my book. Especially for any project concerning public safety.
But how about certified shops? They have their place. I am glad many I have done TPI work in had that status. But I do not see it as a code requirement to doing residential structural beam seats. That is what this comes down to. And, fire escapes on the side of buildings. I can manage that just fine without being a certified fabricator shop. Not according to this city.
So, is it 'right' for a city to mandate shops be certified to even bid a job involving code work? I have been a certified welder since 1978. I have owned this shop in AZ since 1996. I am a CWI. I do work for the public, city, county, state, and federal governments. I know my limits according to my certifications, licenses, insurance, bonds, skills, and equipment. Bringing in a special inspector according to IBC has never been an issue. NOW, it is not even an option for work in this particular city. Is this 'right'?
The AISC may be about getting shops certified, spreading knowledge of steel in buildings, and many other aspects of steel construction. But, their certification in no way grants exclusive rights to any shop for work privileges. And claiming it does is not proper according to their code of ethics. That does not say that customers will not consider that as something to be looked at when making their final decision as to who won the contract. So be it. It isn't mandatory.
I'm rattling too much, I'm rattled by the situation. Hope I cleared up where I am at and what is going on. I do appreciate ALL comments, your posts have always been valuable info Hg.
Have a Great Day, Brent
[quote]So, is it 'right' for a city to mandate shops be certified to even bid a job involving code work?[/quote]
Not sure whether or not the City or State can mandate only certified shops to bid their projects(I don't know the legal in's and out's)....
however, customers and engineers often write these certification requirements into their job/contract specs, so if the City or State is the customer and/or their engineer is asking for only certified shops to bid...well....they have that right to only except those bids, I think.
I do believe the AISC is trying to help customers/engineers to see the value in their certification program, so it wouldn't surprise me if they help encourage this practice a little bit.
"they are claiming this is a requirement to perform work when it is not"
If the city has made it a requirement, then it is a requirement. It may not be an IBC requirement, but it is a city requirement. If they put it in writing as part of their municipal codes, or the contract for the project, etc., it's a requirement. Nothing prevents the city from imposing additional requirements on top of the IBC if they have local concerns. Whether those requirements are wise, that's another story, but they're still requirements.
Again, if the city wants to mandate this certification, they can. DOTs do for bridges. If you want to build a vehicular bridge in the U.S., you HAVE to have AISC certification. No way around it. And that has been the situation for decades (I don't know how long, but it was already well-established by the time I came along 10 years ago). So mandating a certification is not inherently problematic, from a legal standpoint. It may be dispreferred, from an industry standpoint, but that is another line of argument (and lobbying) entirely. (And lobbying to change the requirement is up to you and your non-certified peers, not AISC. Your competitor may have lobbied to get the requirement in. Nothing stops you from playing the same game. The same thing happened with pedestrian bridges; a certified fabricator lobbied to get Major Bridge certification with Fracture Critical Endorsement to be a requirement in for pedestrian bridges in certain states. Not much to do, legally, but lobby in the other direction.)
If there's no city mandate written into law, specification, or code, and the guy's going around claming an interpretation of the IBC that *implies* only certified shops can participate, that's another story.
And if the kind of work that the city is requiring the cert for isn't the kind of work the cert is supposed to apply to (like my pedestrian bridge example above), that's also another story.
But if the requirement does exist, and he's the only one who meets the requirement, what is he doing wrong? Or is it that he's telling other cities, who don't have the requirement, that he's still the only one who can do that kind of work?
Hg
'Nother thought: Or is the guy not as certified/qualified as he claims to be?
Hg
Hg,
Brent could look him up in that link I provided earlier.... ;-)...and see if that company is listed.
You make a good set of points there Marshall, but if I may... I believe Brent is intentionally being ambiguous in some of his descriptions regarding the exact nature of his dilemma...
Forum
