Interpetation of Job Specs

Date 11-19-2003 12:24

Here is another one on different job.
Specs state,
"Welder's Certifications: AWS certified within past 12 months for each type of weld required. Maintain current certification for duration of the project."

Again this leaves me with questions as to what is exactly required, above the normal requirements of D1.1.

1) Are the spec writers sure about what they are specifying?

2) Do they mean to say qualify according to D1.1 like we normally do, or do they really want us to go through AWS to Qualify and Certify all of our weldors?

I really wish someone would come up with a standard and everyone stick to it.
John Wright

By TimGary (****)

Date 11-19-2003 12:48

Hi John,
Those individual job specs sure can get confusing some times.
Especially when the writer does'nt fully understand what he's asking for.
Most of the time you can get by with your standard welder's cert program without change just fine, with no need to question the customer about the job spec.
However, you sound like you've been bitten on this type of thing before, as I have had, and want to be double sure that this inadequate wording doesn't come back to bite you later.
I would write up an exception to the spec that reads something like the following:
"In order to clarify any confusion that may arise about Customers's Co. Special Project job spec Section I, paragraph 1 etc. which states, etc. etc.
John Wright's company's welder certification program adheres to the mandatory requirements detailed in the AWS D1.1 Structural Welding Code."

This will help if you've been given the oppurtunity to review the specs before they have been agreed to. However, if you are finding this question after the job start date, you may want to go ahead and get a clarification from the Customer.

Good Luck,
Tim

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-19-2003 12:56

Good AM Tim,
No, I get the specs after the job has been sold and then we are bound to what is written in the specs. I agree, if I could review the specs before the job is sold, I could include a statement like you had suggested. We do that for other items when we bid the job and write exclusions or advise of additional cost to provide the abnormal items in the specs. It's too late after the job has been sold, I then must write RFI's to clarify the requirements. Yes, those things have come up on other projects that they forgot to get me a copy of the specs on. I have made it mandatory for the specs to cross my desk before the job is completed and erected.
John Wright

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 11-19-2003 13:15

John; for what it's worth, my read on your spec is that it is allowing the option to accept previous certification as described in D1.1-2002; para. 4.1.2.1 and further, to take responsibility for that acceptance by issuance of a company specific "certification" in accordance with para. 4.1.2.2. The only thing that confuses me about this interpretation is the 12 months vs. six months prescribed within para. 4.1.3. Okay, so much for my two cents!

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-19-2003 14:09

Jon200013,
What throws me the curve is when they reference AWS instead of D1.1 type quals or certs. I realize that AWS wrote the book, but to me it implies they want AWS to do the work through one of their testing labs instead of our normal company quals and certs. Then I have the additional confusion over the 12 month issue.
John Wright

All two cents are welcomed!

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 11-19-2003 15:40

John;

I have seen reference to AWS instead of D1.1 before on numerous jobs.

In that case, it is my strong opinion that they (the spec writers) do NOT wish for you to go through an accredited test facility but simply want your company to comply with the given standard, i.e., D1.1 in your reference. If D1.1 covers the acceptance criteria for the fabrication it would also cover the qualification of the welder and any WPS.

It's my personal opinion however that the 12 month issue is incorrect ~ to the best of my knowledge neither AWS nor ASME permit 12 month effectivity; both seem to be set at 6-months.

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 11-19-2003 14:28

John
I agree with Tim's post on the whys, wherefores, and how to clarify the requirement. I have seen the same wording before. Usually the requirement is a leftover from previous jobs. You know- after someone specs a fracture critical project, it sounds like a good idea to build everything that way. Kinda like all the jobs that require CMTRs and traceability but no one ever wants the paperwork. And it is rare for anyone to actually request copies of our WQTRs and proof of continuity.

We have had some jobs where the specs meant exactly what they said and had to qualify people. And if you are FCP qualified, you are required to test people every 12 months in order to maintain qualification. (That's just for people and processes that would typically be used on a FCP job. Not necessarily everyone in the shop.)
I like Tim's suggestion as a way to find out if they really want it or not.

However, I interpret the verbage as requiring persons who will weld on the job to have qualified with performance tests within the last 12 months. Not the same as welder continuity. (I believe you recently tested many of your people after you returned to work?)

Chet

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-19-2003 15:21

Hi Chet,
I did just retest many of our shop's weldors, but not all, only a third or less. It's hard to keep up with who has what qualifications, so I test everyone to the same thing. If I do need the qualifications to be done within the last 12 months, I'm going to test the balance of our weldors. I'm not even going to attempt to keep track of who, what, and when. The way they work our fitter's tables, I'll never keep up with it. If something gets moved up in the schedule, I don't see them letting me stop production and test weldors before letting them work on that job. As it is, I can put work on any table in the shop and have weldors qualified in 2G - unlimited thickness. But if the date of qualification is going to be a player now, instead of what D1.1 states that as long as continuity is maintained the qualifications remain indefinitely, unless quality of welding is an issue with a particular weldor, then I will need to retest the balance.

My whole point to our estimating dept. is that when they see verbage like that they need to address it then, and also allow time in the delivery schedule for testing all of those weldors that are not qualified within the past 12 months. But now that the contract has been agreed to and awarded to us, I don't see how we have any room to dispute any of it, just comply with the requirements as stated in the specs, period.
John Wright

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 11-19-2003 15:46

By the way John, unless its just something you want to do, there's no need or requirement to test welders at any given period unless they havn't welded with a given welding process within a 6-month time frame. Welders qualifications/certifications remain in effect indefinately so long as their processes are kept current. One other thing to consider: may company's are not asking to see "Continuity Records" that is; they want to see proof that your welders have used the process(es) they are qualified in within that time period. At my company, we maintain a log of all our welders and simply list a job number, welding process and date on that log on a continuing basis and that seem to satisfy our customers. Good Luck!

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-19-2003 15:53

I keep a log to maintain Paragraph 4.1.3 too. I was reading the spec to say that they want our welder's to have qualifications less than 12 months old. I have welder's here that have been qualified at our company 30 years ago and records are in the files to back up the period of effectiveness. I just went through that battle on a job recently, where the QC at our plant many years ago came from another company along with 20 welders and he could vouch for their period of effectiveness, well, he's dead and gone and I had no proof in the files and had to retest a third or so of our shop(that is what Chet is referring to).
Do you see the 12 month issue like I'm reading it?(not the peroid of effectiveness issue)
John Wright

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 11-19-2003 16:23

John;

I wouldn't read the spec in the same way as you have; having to assure qualifications were performed within a 12 month period. If forced to the table on that issue, I would fight it tooth and nail. There's no reason I can see to re-qualify people who are already qualified, meet the Code requirements and who have also been performing satisfactory. In the case of your previous Inspector bringing along 20 welders and vouching for their periods of effectivity (without proof), that's another issue all together and I think you probably did the most logical thing you could do under those circumstances! Okay, I'm certainly getting a run for my two cents today! Best of luck!

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 11-19-2003 17:33

In spite of my interpretation that the spec requires welders qualified within the last 12 months, I agree with jon in that I would certainly argue the case (diplomatically, of course). Unless your project is FCP, nuclear structural, or DOD I find it difficult to believe the customer won't accept qualifications per D1.1 with proper documentation. I suppose anything could happen, but I doubt it. In fact unless you are required in the bid documents to submit all that info, most likely no one will ever request copies of your records. And as was pointed out, the EOR can accept documentation of previous qualification.
FWIW- I believe the 12 month requirement stems from old thinking. Customers wanted to insure practiced and knowledgable welders worked on their project, instead of novices who might run into problems. Much like you wanting to hire an experienced person to service your heating system. Today, shop certifications help to insure the work will be done properly and correctly because of increased quality control and better management.
(To anticipate rebuttals- I know many shops did a good job before shop certifications were in existence and also that the certifications do not guarantee the work will be done right. But I am speaking generally here.)

I would put out some "feelers" to see if your feet will be held to the fire, but otherwise I wouldn't do anything special. With 1/3 of your welders tested recently you should be in good shape for full compliance if it becomes necessary.
Chet

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 11-19-2003 18:13

Chet; thanks for seconding the diplomatic arguement. My current business is nuclear (thats all my company does) and my immediate past job before joining this company was Dept. of Defence (DOD) and, from my experiences in both of these industries, they would not require re-qualification within the past 12 months. I further agree that your statement about "old thinking" but, if I were in the position of reading the spec in question I would simply submit my welders qualification papers and say that they meet code requirements and their effectivity dates are within code requirements and let the spec writers take issue if they wanted to. Naturally it would be better to do this before starting the work! Ok, good luck!

By billvanderhoof (****)

Date 11-20-2003 04:18

verifying AWS qualification within previous 12 months.

As Mr Clinton said "it all depends on what the definition of "is" is". You could read this as requiring that you have verified that the welder was AWS qualified within the previous 12 months (by looking in his file for example).

Make no decision based on the above- basically just agreeing that careful wording can save a lot of agony.
Bill

By Neal Chapman (**)

Date 11-21-2003 01:57

Poorly written specs for sure

To answer your first question yes the welder must have been qualified in the previous 12 months (not necessarily tested).

Second question...taking a leap here...yes it appears this customer thinks 12 months is acceptable for his work. Just using the english on this one...not commonsense.

It helps if we all educate each other. Inform your client of your interpretation when you supply your records for the job. Tactfully provide them information on how your program meets "code" and supply them with typical contract language that will be beneficial to you both.

By vb

Date 11-21-2003 06:17

I agree!

As a spec writer - and coming from Canada - not knowing much on regs of CWB - let alone AWS - I do know one thing. When I write a specification on a standard, my full intent is to insure that the work will be completed in a legal manner.

In this case, I would inform the client the work you do is done by code, and perhaps educate the spec writer on the best way to word this request - for the next tender!

Hopefully the spec writer will have an open mind..., and considering the wording - has already given out a cry for help!

Good luck!
Vicki

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-21-2003 11:12

Hi Neal & Vicki,
I did address one of these jobs with a letter explaining as humbly as I could that our company's qualification/certification program adheres to the requirements set forth in AWS D1.1. I used Tim's wording almost to the letter and submitted it with all the AISC & AWS certificates, the company's welding procedures and welder's certs. I figure if what we have done is not suffient for their liking, they now have the opportunity to say so and we'll just deal with that then, to satisfy them. After all that is why they call it "submitting for approval". Hopefully, they will read the paragraphs enclosed out of D1.1 and realize we have done everything by the code, and they can reword their specs for future work.
Thanks to all for the replies, it's comforting to hear how other people(outside of our company) feel about some of this,
John Wright

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-21-2003 11:15

Neal,
Thanks for your reply, see post below for my comments.
John Wright

By vonash

Date 11-21-2003 20:18

Take a McDonald's break John. You know what it means.
I, being the engineer of record, can specify welder qualification current within one(1) year; if I want to. I can also encompass all related sections of the code(AWS) into a statement which defines that all processes, positions etc. be in accordance with the code(AWS)...If we were building heat exchangers, boilers or something, the (code) would be ASME. This can and does mean D1.3 or D1.4 etc.
Only my humble opinion and I don't want to step on toes.
Best regards,
Vonash

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-21-2003 21:02

Vanosh,
I just don't want to get the job fabricated and up in the air only to have somebody stop all our payments and demand that we do exactly what the spec says or they will hold our money until we comply. These days it seems that "others" are looking for any and every excuse to not pay us, or not to pay us in full, because of something that they claim we did or didn't do according to the specs. So I figure any unusual wording in the specs needs to be addressed. I realize the EOR has the authority to ask anything he/she wants to, their neck is on the line should something happen to that building. So, I ask questions to things I don't fully understand.
John Wright

By vonash

Date 11-22-2003 00:55

You are right of course, however, it's not a perfect world in our business.
Regards,
Vonash