During my framing inspection today, which went well, the building inspector asked where we were going to drain the downspouts to off of the little addition we just built. A total of just under 4 sq of roof. The existing house has a 1 sq roof that we attached to with it’s own rain water drain pipe. Now here is my question to all. The inspector says we need to install a sump pit with a minimum of 40 qu ft of gravel per 100 sq ft of impermeable surface. We were planning to just use the existing rain leader. He says this is new this year. Well this isn’t going to be a simple or a cheep excavation. Is this something I eat and learn from or is it an unforseen situation I can charge the homeowner for? If you just read all this thanks! Any opions or facts?
Ed
Replies
Guess my first question is where are you?
Fill out your profile maybe?
Joe H
Maybe we should ask him to post the contract too. Lets see what it says about change orders in there.
It depends on how you worded your contract. My contract excludes any work required by the building inspector and not specifically included in the scope of work. I cannot make it my business to keep up on every single regulation and how it will apply to the project, and I cannot predict what the inspector will ask us to do that's not shown on the plans or otherwise included in what I bid on. Inspectors add work to projects, there's little question about it. Make sure that the work you are performing is well described and that you are not making yourself responsible for doing whatever may somehow become necessary.
>>>>I cannot make it my business to keep up on every single regulation and how it will apply to the project<<<<<As the building professional I would think that is exactly what you job is. If I hired you to build an addition I certainly would expect it to be built to meet all current local codes and regulations. I could understand it if it were something the inspector is requiring above what the code or local reg requires. Should the homeowner be required to know all the codes and regs before hiring you.As an aircraft mechanic I can just imagine how well that excuse would fly with the FAA. No matter what field you are in, the duty to keep up with local regulations regarding your work should fall on the pro.
All of the different inspectors and building departments have varying interpretations of code, and enforce things differently. What you can do on one job in one location will not fly on another. To a great extent I know what all of these various things are and how they will be applied, but they always come up with something I was not yet aware of. Ergo, my contract states that items required by an inspector and added to the plans via red line during plan check, or items required by the inspector and noted on an inspection report, are not covered in the scope of work unless specifically listed.
I have two jobs with open permits right now in the jurisdiction of a fairly particular inspector. He has added cost to both jobs, one by redlining part of the plans, the other by asking us to do added work following an inspection. I get paid to do the extra work he is asking for, and I can virtually guarantee you that no other contractor could have predicted or would have included that work. In one case he is making a very stringent interpretation of a code clause, in the other he is doing some amateur structural engineering.
>>>>To a great extent I know what all of these various things are and how they will be applied, but they always come up with something I was not yet aware of.<<<<<This is the part I would have issue with. You are essentially saying that there is something that is in fact required by local code but you weren't aware of it. It is your job TO be aware of it. If the inspector is adding work above and beyond the minimum code requirements then that is a different story.
Sorry, don't agree, and it doesn't sound like you're a contractor who does a lot of permitted work in various jurisdictions. If you do become one, make sure your contract states that you will do anything and everything that could possibly become necessary, for one price with no changes, and let us know how that goes.
I'm not a contractor, but I would expect one I hire to know the minimum code requirement for my jurisdiction. Obviously you can't be required to know what an inspector may try to require above and beyond the local code, but I would also expect my contractor to be my advocate if the inspector is requiring things above and beyond what is required.If I hired a GC, then it is because I need someone manage the project. That includes insuring that all local codes are complied with.If I want to guess about what needs to be built to meet local codes I can do that perfectly well all on my own. No way I'd hire a guy that says, "I will build your addition but I am not sure it will pass inspection and when it doesn't you will pay any and all costs for the portions of my work that don't meet local code."Why am I hiring a pro.I built my second home in NH and acted as the GC. Before any construction began I met with the local BI and asked what specific requirements he had. He was happy to discuss it with me and gave me a short list of his pet peevs. Had zero issues at inspection time. That'ss just part of the GC's job in my opinion.If I just hired you as a carpenter then that's a different story. I hire a GC to avoid the issue you are discussing.
Tom, your experience with the local building inspector was a good one. Congrats. If you build another 100 houses in different locations, I can assure you that you will not be batting 1.000% at the end of your career. You will run into building inspectors that will tell you "it's not my job to tell you how to build. Build it and I will inspect it."
You are also entitled to have your contract written exactly as you have described. You'll want the GC to be responsible and know every little nuance of the law, including some very weird interpretations. Usually, your philosophical position will come out in the vetting process. As a result, anyone bidding on your project should/would include the worst case scenario. Essentially, you will pay 10 to 20 percent (maybe more) for a competent GC to do your work.
Other guys, like me, are more realistic. I say so up front when the contract is being discussed. I understand that everything isn't black and white in the building process. I convey that philosophy to the bidder and we mutually agree that we will financially work things out with change orders if something unforseen occurs. When the unforseeable occurs, we will discuss whether it was normal and reasonable for the GC to forsee it. If it is an un-normal occurance, I will pay. That's what reasonable people do.
The OP has stated that it is a change from normal. He has a strong case if he's dealing with a "me" and has no case if he's dealing with a "you".
In the long haul, I will pay less because my bidders will know I will be fair when the unforseeable, or change in building code, bites me in the seat of my pants. I will save 10 to 20 percent on every bid and occassionally have to kick back 5% or so.
No one wins them all.
Unforseeable is what the inspector requires over and above local code. Recent changes to local code are not unforseeable and part of the GC's responsibility.I would expect my GC to keep up with local codes. Seems that is an unreasonable expectation.
Tom,
I guess what we are telling you is that the environment isn't just black & white - there is gray as well.
If you recognize that and trust that your contractor can be fair then things will work better for everyone. If you don't think I will be fair with you, then that also colors my opinion of what sort of customer you will be.
If I sense that you can only see black or white and can't be fair with me, then I just might be too busy to work for you at all. If we do work together, you will be paying me for customer induced risk. If you build in a jurisdiction with an unpredictable building department, then you will be paying for that risk.
And if you feel you can't trust me, maybe you need to act as your own GC. Or do all the work yourself. And hopefully you can trust your contractor in that situation!
Regards,
Jim x 3
I made an edit to my post while you were replying. I think it may address what you are saying.
Blue,
Yours was a good post - didn't see it before I composed mine.
Jim x 3
Tom,
You have a good point - you're hiring a pro and your paying him to build to (at least) pass code - you don't know or want to know the details.
But Dave has some concerns as well. I don't know for sure, but I imagine that since the FAA is a single federal agency it has a single set of rules for the maintenance and repair of a specific type of airplane - it probably doesn't matter which airport it's at. This isn't the case for the contractor.
I'm a contractor in California and the rules are different in every city or unincorporated county area I work in. Mostly I know those differences. But even in a single jurisdiction, there are multiple inspectors each with their own interpretations. So I have had inspector #1 generate a "correction notice". Then I decide whether to argue my case or just do what the inspector asks for. Either way my time and the schedule are affected. Most of the time its expedient to just do it. Then inspector #2 comes out. Sometimes he just looks at the items on the correction notice. But sometimes he looks at the whole job and applies his own "correction notice". After 3 iterations the customer is wondering whether anything you've done is correct.
Now I have addressed this issue to the building department of at least one jurisdiction but that agency is immune from influence (from me at least). The end customers don't know (or care to know) that this is even happening. Some jurisdictions are much more predictable than others. But the net affect is that there is an additional risk in the process. Who should assume this risk? If I do as the contractor you will pay me well for it. If you meet me in the middle your job will overall cost you less.
Regards,
Jim x 3
>>>>>>I don't know for sure, but I imagine that since the FAA is a single federal agency it has a single set of rules for the maintenance and repair of a specific type of airplane - it probably doesn't matter which airport it's at.<<<<<<< Actually that's not the case at all. Every carrier can set up their maint program however they want, that program just has to be approved by the FAA. I work for Delta Air Lines, but work contract jobs for nearly any carrier you can think of, and many you can't. Every one has a different set of rules and it is my responsibility to ensure we have followed their procedures when I sign off that job.In addition to that every airport we travel to to work at has different rules with regard to security, waste disposal, vehicle operation, aircraft taxi and run operations. It's a matter of asking the right questions to keep yourself out of trouble and being aware that this may change from one visit to the next.In the original post the rule change was new this year. It's not clear whether that was an actual local code change or and inspectors ruling over and above the minimum requirements. To me that makes a difference as to who bears responsibility.There is probably some middle ground there but if it is in fact a new local reg, the GC should be aware of it.
Edited 9/2/2009 11:03 am ET by TomW
Tom,
Actually that's not the case at all. Every carrier can set up their maint program however they want, that program just has to be approved by the FAA. I work for Delta Air Lines, but work contract jobs for nearly any carrier you can think of, and many you can't. Every one has a different set of rules and it is my responsibility to ensure we have followed their procedures when I sign off that job.
I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the background. So you are well aware of the contractor's situation. I would imagine you charge some customers more than others depending upon their procedures. And if their procedures were weird enough, you might decline the work alltogether.
And if the rules (certain details at least) aren't even written down and change from plane to plane even for a single carrier, then you can understand that imposes a business risk to you.
Regards,
Jim x 3
jimjimjim, I agree with your point and not just because of your name.
I had an inspector write up a framing inspection against me with 8 items on it. I couldn't understand any of them. Instead of flailing about and attempting to fix something, I scheduled a meeting with the inspector and builder. The inspector was there writing the green tag when I arrived. He asked me "so....what is it you want to meet me about?"
The guy didn't have a clue about what a good house looked like but I can assure you he caused many, many, many builders and remodelers to enter into stupid, useless repairs.
No one can keep abreast of stupidity like that.
we have two of them out here...
write the rules as they go...
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
"Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints"
Tom Where your approach has a problem is when a contractor is given a set of prints to bid a job off of.
Does each contractor invited to bid include every possible BI change to the plan and specs? Nope. Not our task, the task of making certain the design is correct is the designers job, we are charged with pricing what is in front of us (within reason of course) but not to read into the plans and specs what isn't there.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
No, each contractor shouldn't have to do that, but as the GC on a project, it is his responsibility that the project is built to meet the local codes. If I hire a GC to build an addition I would expect the GC to made sure that the planes are code checked. In this case it sounds like a local regulation was in place prior to the start of the job. As any judge will tell you, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Now if I hired a carpenter to build an addition to my plans then the responsibility would fall on me to ensure we meet the code. I'm surprised this is apparently an unreasonable position.I'd be curious to see Mike Smith's of Piffins take on this. Maybe I am out in left field on this.
For clarification: when I used the term "contractor" I was speaking of a GC. ""No, each contractor shouldn't have to do that, but as the GC on a project, it is his responsibility that the project is built to meet the local codes."" Correct, but it is not his responsibility to take the plans down to the BO's office prior to having a signed contract in hand and have the BO review the plans. Are you going to pay the (lets say 4 for sake of discussion) different contractors to each take the plans to the BO and have them reviewed prior to signing a contract with them or do you expect them to do that gratis in hopes of getting the job?
It is the GC's responsibility to BUILD according to codes, and BI rulings, but he can only BID on what is in front of him. therein lies the rub.. who pays for the discrepancy?
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Well, as a GC if you know that a certain jusrisdiction has a difficult inspector then I guess you would price that into your bid.I would also say that a bid is just that, a bid. We are not talking about a bid, but a job that is nearing completion. There is apparently an entire portion of the job that was required by local code, but not included in the project. Let's say for example that I hired you to build an addition for me. The area you normally build in requires the structure to be built on 16" centers. The place you are now building just changed their requirement to 12" centers within the last year. You build the addition on 16" centers and fail the inpection. Who pays? I guarantee I won't be working with you on that one. You failed to research the local codes, precisely what I hired you to do.If I hire you to build do the addition, start to finish, for a fixed price, that should include it mmeting all local codes, and your price structure should have an allowance to deal with building officials, especially if you know they are a bit quirky in your area.You guys are shifting all the responsibility to the homeowner. Why should they hire you? Why do you not shoulder the risk for complying with local codes?If the plans are wrong and the homeowner supplied the plans, that's another story, but in this case it sounds like the GC just wasn't aware of the new requirements. That could have been the difference between the people building the addition or not. Was it the homeowners responsibility to research the local code? I'm just trying to give a homeowners perspective here. If you can't meet the code I don't see why I should be eating the extra cost.
Fact of the matter; it's darn near impossible to know everything you need to know, town to town.
The state building code contains all the pertinent info on the building itself. State code also applies in regard to septic systems, but only to the minimum. Localities then have the authority to install their own rules. Mass state for years had the reg that the bottom of the septic system had to be 4' above high water table; my town it was 5'.
If you do a lot of work in 1 locality, it's easy to know all the rules, as the BI will tell you in the course of conversation. But what about things that change between the last job you did and this job? It's not like the building inspector from east wingwang sends me an update that they now want the grass planted before I can get my C.O.
I think one could be a good gc and not necessarily know every single intricacy of each small town. I've been licensed for 20 years, and I get some surprises, still.
I guess the answer is, when bidding a job in a town that you're not familiar with, or haven't worked in for a period of time, to walk into the AHJ's office with a coffee and ask if there's anything that is a pet peeve of theirs that's not in the code book that they need to be aware of.
Bing
Of course it's impossible to know all the local rules. If you are bidding a job in a new locale, I would expect you to make sure you know what the rules for that locale are. That's all.>>>>> I think one could be a good gc and not necessarily know every single intricacy of each small town. I've been licensed for 20 years, and I get some surprises, still.<<<<<I agree 100%. I'm just saying that that risk is on you, not me. That is why I hired you.When I was building in a new area I did just as you said and it worked well. If you know that a certain jurisdiction is going to be difficult then that should be built into in your pricing structure.
I think JimAKAblue's post laid it out pretty well.
It's not that you're right and they're wrong, or the other way around, really.
It's that it is basically impossible in real terms to know every last detail of code (and more importantly, any individual inspector's interpretation).
Even if it was possible to know everything, that would be a nearly full time job in itself (usually the designer's job, theoretically). That study costs (you, the client) money in the end. It is sometimes simply more efficient to occasionally shrug and say "really? I had no idea that was required."
Even if someone did know everything, they'd also know a lot of the time different inspectors wont ask you to do everything theoretically required, and sometimes code actually requires conflicting things.
You personally expect the GC to pay for anything that becomes required that he didn't know or expect. You are certainly entitled to that right. However, if all GC's give bids based on that all the time, every job will cost the maximum possible amount. That was what Jim was saying. Not right or wrong, just more expensive in the big picture.
If we accept that it isn't black and white all the time, then we can bid jobs close to the minimum amount we expect it will take to do it correctly and safely. Some jobs will have unexpected (to an average, conscientious, experienced GC) requirements and expenses. But the average cost of each job will be less than the scenario where the GC has to bid on the absolute maximum work theoretically possibly required.
K
Tom
In the traditional owner architect contractor relationship it is not the contractor's responsiblity to know the codes, it is the architects responsiblity. But in either case it is impossible for anyone to know and understand every inspectors/ building departments interpretation of the code. Their interpretation often changes on a daily basis and is not always based on the intent of the code.
Beyond that no owner is every willing to pay for perfection and that is what you require of a contractor if he is to have the level of knowledge you expect. Most owners bid projects then want to further reduce the cost and then want perfection. They do not pay for this, it is not in their contract and should not expect it.
if a building permit was obtained, based on a set of drawings and the inpector changes something in the field how does the show on those drawings then how can you expect the contractor to know something the building departments own plan review missed?
I've seen quite few of prints for new homes under construction and I don't recall ever seeing a spec for the house number and it's location. How'd that ever get installed prior to the receipt of the CO?
What ever happened to responding to the OP??
You guys are all arguing amongst yourselves.............if the building inspector wanted the site drainage a certain way, then it should have been red inked on the plans and permit. You are all missing the point I think.
BI can't come in after he issued a permit and tell him he didn't do something that wasn't on the plans the BI approved. ???
Maybe I'm just niuts. I have a few people telling me that lately.
"When the spirits are low, when the day appears dark, when work becomes monotonous, when hope hardly seems worth having, just mount a bicycle and go out for a spin down the road, without thought on anything but the ride you are taking." — Sherlock Holmes, 1896
""BI can't come in after he issued a permit and tell him he didn't do something that wasn't on the plans the BI approved. ???"" Don't bet the farm on that ... I have had it happen more than once, and each time the BI apologized and carefully explained that it was a mistake on his part, he missed something, but that didn't did not relieve me (or him) of following the code.
Approved plans here actually carry a stamp that says errors on the parts of the plans examiner/BO do not change the need to follow the code.(Words to that effect anyway)
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Approved plans here actually carry a stamp that says errors on the parts of the plans examiner/BO do not change the need to follow the code.(Words to that effect anyway)
'nother way of saying if he f' uped (omg I might get banned again!) it's on your dime. I may not be performing my job in a satisfactory fashion so excuse me if it costs you undue expense and time.
yikes! some caveat
"When the spirits are low, when the day appears dark, when work becomes monotonous, when hope hardly seems worth having, just mount a bicycle and go out for a spin down the road, without thought on anything but the ride you are taking." — Sherlock Holmes, 1896
Aeyep. Once it was type "X" rock in a concrete art studio attached to a house.. after all the mechanicals were in. I was doing the trim when he came by to inspect final plumbing and caught the fact there was an 8' sliding door to load the large ceramic pieces onto a pick up for delivery.
Door width/height made the space a "Garage". Lost another job just before ground breaking because a BO missed the need for sprinklers.. He caught it just before ground breaking but after approval had been given and made a frantic and apologetic call to the GC and Owners. Cost put the job out of range of the budget.. no job. It happens, they are human too.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
>>>>>>'nother way of saying if he f' uped (omg I might get banned again!) it's on your dime. I may not be performing my job in a satisfactory fashion so excuse me if it costs you undue expense and time.yikes! some caveat<<<<<<Funny, but that is what I am hearing from the responses here but directed towards their customers.
WOW!! I hope you don't think you are hearing that from me. I am just trying to explain that even in a situation in which everybody is doing their jobs to the best they can that day mistakes happen and that the BO does indeed have the right to come back and say "this" needs to be done.
Now someone has to pay for it.
Wasn't on the plans for the builder to bid on, why should he pay?
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
We don't really know what the situation here is. I'm lookimng at it from the standpoint of someone that said "I would like to add a room on to my house" and hired a design build contractor for a fixed price, a couple of Mike Smith's threads come to mind. Seems to me that if the drainage was part of the local regs it was the contractors responsibility to know that.Maybe I have assumed too much in this case. I'd love for the OP to give some more details. It is an interesting discussion.I'm not nearly as hard nosed about this as some seem to think. I do think that the average person hiring a GC to add a room on to their house is going to have expectations pretty close to mine though.I've done a fair amount of furniture and cabinet/built-in work and have eaten my share of errors. had plenty of jobs where I made next to nothing or lost money due to my estimating error or unforeseen problems arising during the project. Some I probably could have charged the customer for but I never did. Unforseen circumstances are understandable. Digging a foundation and hit ledge and need to blast, time for a change order. Missing a local regulation is not an unforseen circumstance. It is an error. The OP's situation doesn't sound like an inspector having an odd interpretation of the code. It sounds like a (new) local reg that he just missed.
Your lack of regular dealings with permits and inspectors is evident, you seem to see this stuff in black and white. Not all of the "regulations" are written somewhere for you to read, not all of the situations you encounter are clearly covered by code, inspectors' interpretations evolve as they see new and different things, stuff gets past plan checkers because plans aren't clear or complete, plans show things unclearly or not at all, inspectors fail to understand the code themselves, different agencies issue conflicting orders, and so on. A contractor may choose to eat the consequences that may result--as you apparently have--or they may choose to charge for the work needed to complete the project. My contracts cover a specific scope of work and allow me to charge for things that arise during construction that weren't included. My contracts are never a single line that reads "I'll do anything and everything necessary to build your house, no matter what that may turn out to be, for a fixed price". Obviously you are not a person who would enter into such a contract, and for that we are both better off, or at least I am.
"I'll do anything and everything necessary to build your house, no matter what that may turn out to be, for a fixed price".I never asked you to, and that isn't the position I have taken here, but read it however you like.
I'm not unsympathetic with your position, but maybe an example of something I'm working on right now will allow you to see a bit of the grey areas others have been referring to.
The restaurant I am renovating has an old deck that will no longer be accessible once the addition is complete except by a locked gate to allow painting or other maintenance to be performed. The building inspector is insisting that railings be installed, or the deck be removed. I have suggested that as other flat platforms such as adjacent inaccessible roofs do not require guards, neither should this one. The code is mute on this, quite understandably not having envisaged a deck no one could get to. How this will play out is anyone's guess.
I agree that there can be grey areas and your restaraunt examaple is a good one. The OP's example didn't sound like a grey area, bu a new regulation that he was not aware of. I see those as two different things. Maybe there is some middle ground there, I don't know, since we really don't have the information.
Tom, glad your GC experience went so smoothly. perhaps this is because you examined every arcane detail before hand, and every professional GC can learn from your amazing attention to detail.... Or, you just happened to build the one project wher sh*t didn't happen.
My own personal building experience, things did happen. Drainage issue, plan was authorized by the county. Installed, inspected and sealed. whoops, someone??? decides that I have to send my roof drainage 150' to the culdesac (3' upslope), to dump into the street drains that dump into the drainage swale that runs along side my house, that my drains were dumping into.
thankfully. 14 yrs prior, I dated the daughter of the plan checker who was married to the head engineer to the county planning commision. And even more thankfully, they still liked me and I didn't screw anything up (figuritvely, or litterally) years prior. A GC around the corner a few months before wasn't as lucky.
There was another great example of the state electrical inspecor telling me that he can't tell me what would pass, but could only fail me for what wouldn't pass??? this was after 2 different of his underlings failed me, and then specified totally different solutions. one failed for 10 gauge, required 6 gauge. second, failed for 6, required 8??????? their boss, wouldn't decide. we told him we were leaving the heavier, it passed the next day????
It's clear from your post that you weren't willing or able to pay for a GC that would gaurantee knowing and living up to all the requirments of the BI's in your region (or yours). Mike Smith is an amazing builder. From all his posts ther is no doubt. Piffin too. SO, why din't you hire their equvilant in your area??? Because tht level of preciseness, and proffesionalism ain't free. And I would tell you that David Meiliends (sp?)isn't either. You had ONE good experience, go do it 20 more times in many different locations, environments, and jurisdictions and then post your results .
I'm not trying to be confrontationall or a jerk. just saying that comparing plane repairs/building. to home construction/remodeling, is two comletely different things, in two totally different environments.
BI can't come in after he issued a permit and tell him he didn't do something that wasn't on the plans the BI approved. ???
Yes he can.
I had an architect do a small commercial project for me. We got plans approved with only one bathroom. When the inspector came to do the rough plumbing, he red tagged us and told us we had to have two. We explained that the office had reviewed it and explicitly allowed only one for various reasons.
We go back to the city and the guys says, you have to have two. We said "Inspector Smith allowed us one". He says Smith isn't here, I am.
The next day, Smith meets us at the desk and says he made a mistake...we need two.
We put in two.
Who should pay for the second bathroom?
Edited 9/2/2009 9:41 pm ET by jimAKAblue
Blue, in your case where the design was done by an Architect, the Architect should have been responsible for the change costs. It is definitely their job to be up to date on the codes.
They truly are "Design Professionals", and it is their job to design to the codes, and argue with the folks at the AHJ, who have different interpretations of the code than they do, and resolve the issues.
That said; it would sure cut down on the personalized interpretation of the codes, if the building codes included commentary like the ACI concrete codes do. The ACI code is the left column, the commentary that explains how and why, that paragraph of the code is there, is in the right column. Not much room for personal interpretation. I actually learned more about reinforced concrete and masonry design, from the commentary in the code books, than I did in the text books, and lectures in the classes I had in college.
"Blue, in your case where the design was done by an Architect, the Architect should have been responsible for the change costs. It is definitely their job to be up to date on the codes.
They truly are "Design Professionals", and it is their job to design to the codes, and argue with the folks at the AHJ, who have different interpretations of the code than they do, and resolve the issues. "
But the architects themselves realize it's impossible to know everything, so they stamp VIF or "according to standard practice" on their plans to cover exactly these things. It is essentially impossible to know and predict everything required on a complicated project. Even if it wasn't impossible, it would be economically disadvantageous (for the designer or the builder) to try to predict and pre-empt (and therfore price) every single theoretical requirement.
k
I couldn't possibly fault the architects. They specifically went in and hammered out this agreement on the design. They were in there several times discussing it. When they finally approved it, I thought it was a done deal. Then, after we were in progress, they backed out of their agreement and stuck it to us.
I don't see how the archy can eat this one, either.
The plans cover the house, sometimes some landscaping, while a site engineer designs the septic, drainage, etc. The arch may not ever see the lot, or even know what town the house is being built in!
Expecting the Archy to know every nuance of every small town is as unreasonable as expecting the builder to. Half the prints I see have a disclaimer on them as to "Builder takes responsibility of building to local codes" Some stuff just can't be planned for ...."(blank) to be located in the field"
As for Piffin and Mike Smith, they both do business (as far as I know) in a very small area. I'm sure both are on a first name basis with the inspector.....so it's not really a fair comparison.
I can also tell you that both would prolly have a friendly sit-down with the inpector in a town that they hadn't built in, or they'd have specific contract language to protect themselves from unforeseen bs from a locality. It's no different than "Builder will not be responsible for any costs incurred from hitting ledge during excavation....... " I hope they don't mind my speculation on this....
I did have a thought as to Cirino's dillemna.....The town has specific rules as to where the runoff from downspouts must go.......Do they have a rule that says you MUST have gutters? If not, then this might be one of those times when it makes more sense to get your c.o., and hang the gutters at a later time....
Bing
i got failed for seven times on a septic tank install, they would not tell me what wrong just" if you dont know then you need not be in the business"one day at lunch in the lobby i got mad, threw my hat down started yelling 'WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT ME TO DO" pisssss hey buddy, here copy this one.. another job up the road, copied it and it pass no problem, last septic system i ever did. Boss said he fired me if i took another one.
It really sounds like everyone on this project team did their best to avoid this issue. In the end any construction project needs to have a contingency available to deal with issues like this.
This was not in the original scope and if it had it the owner would have paid for it. maybe the best solution is for the contractor to do whatever he can to keep the cost down, including not making any fee or profit on the additional work, and the thus keep the HO cost as low as possible.
it is not reasopnable to expect architect or GC to be omniscient, Besides that a client bids a project and all the gc can do to be competitive is bid what is on the drawings. if the client wants to shift all the risk for unforseen conditions then they would have to pay for that... not likely.
Why do extra work for a reduced or zero fee? Is it some kind of penance for not foretelling what the AHJ would call for after inspecting the job?
I gotta agree with you David--- doing it for a reduced cost- means you are subsidizing the whole situation---- in effect you are "admidting" responsibility for something I don't think you are responsible for.
stephen
i think of it as customer satisfaction. depending on the customer some times a little good will goes along way to maintaining relationships and getting references. Besides the customers is paying for the work just not paying the GC mark up and fee. The GC is already on the job and how much additional time is he going to spend?
its just a thought and certainly is not the way to go with customers who are PITA's.
I fully understand your point. One of two scenarios generally applies.
1) I anticipate a project and a customer where I will be expected to "do whatever it takes to get this job done, foreseen or unforeseen, for one price". I am in fact on just such a job right now and am spending a fair amount of time dealing with an unforeseen problem... with unfailing politeness and no extra charges. This is in spite of a contract that clearly spells out all of the work items and the total costs, has a clear change-order clause that was initialed by the customer, etc. I am handling it this way because the customer is not someone I deem capable of reading or really absorbing the entire contract and all its implications. I am treating the customer the way I would want a contractor to treat my own mother.. who lives 2000 miles from here and has hired work done on her own house, some by really good contractors and some by not-so-good.
2) I estimate and contract for what I can see, what's on the plans, what appears to be necessary. I charge for extras as they arise, including all time, materials, OH&P. We just started such a project. The owner is very sophisticated, a retired exec who has presided over many large public works construction projects. He knows exactly what is going on with regards to his project and is well able to follow every detail.
If I decide it's appropriate to donate time or materials to improvements to YOUR property, it will be for a very good reason, generally much like #1 above. I can always sell my time to another customer for full rate plus overhead and profit; donating it to you means a loss of income--income that I use to support my family, put money away for my kid to go to school, put money away for retirement, and all that trite stuff. It is rarely necessary or justified to give anything away, provided you have prepared yourself and the customer for the deal you are entering into. Almost all of my customers are well off, moreso that I am, they own waterfront homes, airplanes, yachts, large businesses, etc. No need for me to work for free.
Back to the original topic... if there was a code item or regulation that I thought 9 out of 10 decent contractors would know, and I didn't know it, I'd hold myself responsible for rectifying any mistake made. In the case of the OP's example, I bet that if he walks into the AHJ office and asks three different people about the rule applying to his situation, he'll get at least two different answers. The stormwater folks here barely know what's required, I would hardly expect to know myself. Some of this stuff is very difficult to predict, given the constantly changing codes and regs, the constant turnover in personnel that perform inspections, etc. I know a buttload about code and regs, but I do not know exactly what will be called at any given time by any given person.
"BI can't come in after he issued a permit and tell him he didn't do something that wasn't on the plans the BI approved. ???"
Our BI does very little plan checking beyond basic things like size of the project, setbacks and broad compliance with code. Everything else is picked up during inspections. The expectation seems to be that we should know how to build to code in the first place. I wish things were otherwise. It makes for a lot of problems.
Building inspectors alway come and change things in the field that were not marked up on the reviewed set of drawings. Each inspector has there own interpretation of the code and how it needs to be implimented.
"BI can't come in after he issued a permit and tell him he didn't do something that wasn't on the plans the BI approved. ???"
Others have already explained this happens all the time, but I feel I need to pile on, just to make it clear to HO's lurking that the majority of us run into that on every job.
In the jurisdiction I mainly work in, there are 4-6 plan checkers, none of whom are inspectors. There are as many inspectors, none of whom are plan checkers. Stuff comes up on every single job.
Some of the more lenient inspectors mention things that the checker missed, but don't end up writing a correction, they just suggest it ought to be done. Some of the stricter inspectors not only write the correction, they say they are going to give the checker a stern talking to back at the office.
Happens all the time.
k
BI can't come in after he issued a permit
Thinking back about 25 years, Newport Beach CA.
After 6 months wait while plans go through building dept and finally get OK.
BI shows up on job and adds 13 separate footing changes to already approved plans.
Why didn't plan check/approval ask for these changes?
BI sez my way or no way.
Joe H
Tom,
I needed to leave this morning - and we were cross posting anyway, which doesn't work too well.
I don't think we are that far apart. I know the codes and the code changes. I factor that into my planning and your cost. If I miss something there I'll eat it. Its the unpredictable that plays hobb. And if you don't want to assume any risk at all there, that's OK, you can pay me to assume it.
It hasn't been mentioned yet, but there is another side to this dsicussion. Just meeting an inspection (or multiple inspections) doesn't insure a good job. There is a lot of stuff inspectors miss - stuff they never look at. So you'll want a contractor who sweats the details for you, even though the details in question may never be a focus of inspection.
If you find a contractor like that you just might want to give him/her the benefit of the doubt on a correction notice and the fallout therefrom.
Regards,
Jim x 3
No, Jim, I don't think we are that far apart either. I agree that the unpredictable plays a part and I would be perfectly willing to work with someone on that. That doesn't appear to be the case here. It doesn't sound like an inspectors peeve or a weird interpretation of the code, but a new regulation in that jurisdiction that the gc wasn't aware of.I don't know if that is the case, but that is what it sounds like, and it also sounds like it could be a fair amount of money to fix. I'm not convinced the homeowner should be on the hook for that. I realize that meeting code doesn't guarantee a quality home. But it is the minimum standard that has to be met. I would bet most homeowners contracting a major home improvement would expect that it can at least pass inspection for the contracted price. Is that really that much to expect?
I am not a contractor, nor in the building industry.But after my experience with local code enforcers on my DIY project finishing my basement, I can see how stuff like this happens and I certainly can't blame the contractor.Not only are there code issues, but there are 'interpretation of code' issues no to mention 'depends on who shows up to the particular inspection' issues as well as 'codes states this but it's actually outdated/incorrect' issues.Fortunately, the FAA, I assume, has relatively standard regulations and guidelines that apply universally to every city, county, and state.
I think that work should have been noted on your approved plan by the plan checker as your submitted plan would have shown the simple downspout connection that you proposed. Unfortunately the building department isn't responsible for errors, I've been there.
A reasonable homeowner would pay part or all of the cost, a hard nosed guy like Tom would stiff you. He makes a good argument, we all should be aware of code changes.
As a drainage item, this sounds more like Public Works than the building department. How well was the information put out?
If your bid was based on a plan that showed your downspout idea, then the owner should pay for any building department changes.
John
Edited 9/2/2009 5:57 pm ET by JohnCujie
Details of your contract aside, it seems you are asking for advice not nitpicking.
Regardless of what your contract says you can always bill the client for the extra work--if they will pay it is another issue.
I have some clients that won't pay a dime more than the contract price and they don't care what happened to increase the price. I protect myself from these clients by stating what I am going to do pretty specifically and anything outside of this scope of work isn't in my bid and would have to be done by someone else or they will pay extra if they want me to do it.
I have had other clients that are much more reasonable and wouldn't question writing a check for the additional work.
You ligitamately didn't anticipate this so when you made the contract there wasn't a meeting of the minds as to who would pick up the cost of this.....a judge could sort it out, but you don't want that!
I'd stand firm that the drain is not within your scope of work and that if the existing drain is deamed inadequate by the inspector that you aren't going to pick up the bill to fix it. Of course it helps to stand firm if the client has already written a check for a large portion of the work....if you are stuck until you get a final inspection I'd give the client a great deal on the work....give them something to feel like you are giving them a break.
Next time have a specific scope of work!
While I may not be happy with the additional cost, it would not occur to me as the homeowner that the contractor would be wholly responsible for paying for such an item.
Sure it would be great if the contractor knew and understood every single new rule as it came out... and every nuance that each building inspector brought to the table. However, since that is not even remotely realistic you cannot pretend that things work that way. An expectation of professionalism yes, but to expect that the contractor is all knowing is absurd.
Besides... what is the issue ? If contractor knew about it ahead of time, the cost would simply have been included in the original bid, and the homeowner would have paid for it anyway.
At least in this type of scenario the homeowner and contractor could strike a special deal/price on this portion of the work so that neither party is wholly responsible.
Kivi,
i think you are one of the few posters approaching the crux of the matter! contractor executes a contract-- a specified scope of work for a specified price. the additional work---doesn't appear to be what was specified and contracted for. when you think about it-the building code has nothing to do with this issue, really. the disputed work was beyond the contracted scope of work----for whatever reason---could have been a zoning issue---could have been a homeowners association mandate--- could have been anything we can all play couldashouldawoulda all we want--- but it all comes back to---what was actually contracted for?
stephen
"At least in this type of scenario the homeowner and contractor could strike a special deal/price on this portion of the work so that neither party is wholly responsible."
This is the way that we like to deal with this type of conflict. It has the great advantage that we will get paid with a minimal amount of fuss and maximum amount of mutual respect.
I want to note that three solutions were left out of this and other discussions brought about by your dilemna.
1. You can ask if an engineer's letter will suffice.
2. I have frequently asked the building inspector to meet with me for a varaince or an interpretation of the code on something I was un sure of.This has always resulted in a positive solution or at least a minimum of a request for an engineers letter.
3. Our current codes are in a changover from one set to another and often have conflicting interpretations.My inspectors have gone as far as opening all 4 sets and tried to help me find the solution that will work best for me.He has showed me the back seat of his car full of code books commercial and residential and said that he does not fully comprehend half of it and has no expectation of me knowing everything.
So with the building slow down they are taking the time to come meet us and help us devise the best solution and update us on the new seismic codes etc.
ANDYSZ2
PS I HIT spellcheck and when I went back I deleted my first writing that was much more detailed but I didn't have the heart to be as thorough this time please forgive me.
WHY DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY THAT BEING A SOLE PROPRIETOR IS A REAL JOB?
REMODELER/PUNCHOUT SPECIALIST