I agree with your first part but disagree with the second.

There is no maximum tightness for snug tight, it might be 1 kip, it might be 10 kips, whatever brings the plies into firm contact.  I don't agree him making you loosen the bolt or more importantly change your written procedure.

As far as the bolting crew aka shop personnel.  Technically yes it should be perofrmed by the guys installing the bolts, so they should be doing the test in the skidmore with the auditor.  Generally that's not how it's done, it's always been me doing it but I have heard of other guys getting the same thing and I can understand why.

There is no "initial snug-tight".  You insert the bolt and put the nut on by hand.  Then, after all bolts are in and the structure is racked and plumbed you lightly tighten (not to snug tight) to bring the faying surfaces into contact.  THEN, you go back through and bring each one to the snug-tight condition.  Normally going through twice incase the tightening of the successive bolts makes the first one loose. 

Now, you did not describe in detail how you brought the bolt to snug-tight for the auditor.  It should have followed a similar pattern to that above of tightening in stages.  And that should be your written procedure for any personel to follow rather shop or field.  You cannot stick a nut on and instantly tighten to snug-tight with the wrenches having gone from loose to snug tight all in one motion.  All bolts in the connection need to be brought through the procedure in stages.  Yes, it is stated that way in AISC/RCSC.  I don't remember any changes altering that in the 14th ed.  No, I don't have my last and current editions with me to quote the procedure.  I will be back home this weekend from a trip to OR and can look it up. 

Why are you using a tension calibrator to check the pressure, even for an auditor, for a snug-tight connection?  If he wants to see a pre-installation procedure, grab 3 bolts and a couple of plates with 3 holes in them.  Stick the bolts in, put the nuts on, lightly tighten to assure entire faying surfaces are in contact, then snug-tighten.  DONE.  That demonstrates your procedure according to your written policy.  There is no Pre-Tension testing required for Snug Tight, unless you called it out in your procedure.  So why would you show an auditor a procedure using a testor?  And, so far I have not noticed that the 14th ed added such changes to the tightening procedure in such a way that it actually calls out a kip value for bringing them into faying contact.  I'll have to check on that for sure. 

If your bolting is all done to only a snug enough fit to allow for shipping at the shop and then finalized in the field by the erection crew then I totally agree with the field crew proving training, knowledge, and experience in completing their tasks.  No reason for the shop to.  Maybe a change in wording there so the responsibilities are divided and clear. 

Now you have me wondering if I have missed something in the new edition.  I can't wait to get home and grab my books and see. 

Have a Great Day,  Brent

I just looked it up in RCSC and the Definition for snug-tight has changed from previous years in the way it reads.(edited my spelling)

Definition of snug tight per RCSC(page 16.2-xi 14th ed. AISC Manual of Steel Construction):
"A joint in which the bolts have been installed in accordance with Section 8.1. Snug Tight is the condition that exists when all of the plies in a connection have been pulled into firm contact by the bolts in the joint and all of the bolts in the joint have been tightened sufficiently to prevent the removal of the nuts without the use of a wrench."

First thing was to go check out RCSC Section 8.1 (on page 16.2-51) of the 14th ed. AISC Manual of Steel Construction, and nowhere in Section 8.1 does it mention the value of 1kip, even the Commentary (on page 16.2-51) on this Section reads like the old definition of snug tight. I see no mention of any tension values anywhere regarding snug tight. I would note this in my reply to the AISC during your challenge of any non-conformances or CARs regarding this bolting procedure.

The auditor may personally like to use or suggest using the value of 1kip, but no where does RCSC mention this regarding acheiving snug tight.

FabsForLife

I have been pondering your query.
Are you referring to a procedure for Pretensioned Bolts utilizing Turn of the nut method?

What the Auditor was trying to do was what the auditor is supposed to do.
See if your referenced individuals could do what you said they were going to do according to your procedure.
Possibly the Auditor saw an area of concern.

Not having your actual procedure I really couldn't speculate on the the Auditors requests or the point trying to make.

But the idea is to attain at least minimum required tension consistently not take the fastener assembly to the borderline of Fracture.
As Chris stated there is no Maximum tension but you only want to tension as much as required (anymore is a waste).
The only time the bolt is tensioned too much is when it snaps.

If utilizing the turn of the Nut you want to develop the proper snug tightness to just insure the minimum is achieved.
If this snug tight is higher than it needs it can lead to snapping fasteners when turns are made during tensioning.

Just My ¢¢'s
Hope it Helps more than hurts

Just got our Certificate this week for another year of the Building standard qualification audit we went through.
Don't you Love them

But Good Luck and if you want to post or PM the procedure I maybe could answer more.

Marshall

How can he quantify "a few impacts of and impact wrench:, "electric wrench... begins to slow", and "effort of a worker on an ordinary spud wrench"? I agree with below there is no value given and the Auditor was out of place, unless he was just being "helpful". I would definately challenge it if he wrote a concern or comment on it even if he didn't. I always comment and reference in my audit package anything that an auditor said at my audit wher I disagree, if only to formally document my disagreement and make it a matter of record. I even, after a heated discussion one time, insisted the auditor write a Corrective action and told him we would address the issue formally (by the way he backed down).

Auditors do have a tough job, trying to do it all in a very short time, and they can't all be "master of all trades", I know "cause I are one." By the book, with out personal opinion is the best audit technique.

FabsForLife-

Feel free to use AISC's feedback form to address matters such as this...you can access it here - http://www.aisc.org/form.aspx?ekfrm=23836 

The online form can be submitted as many times as you like.

You will also have the opportunity to provide feedback on the auditor's performance when QMC sends your company the customer survey form; QMC sends it to your company's certification contact. I would encourage you to use it as well.

ziggy