PERMFILE44640 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Vol. 8, No. 8 •;~.vn?r; vi=~' :as::n, .~r.~: ~nspe^tion as an :ndertsking ',v^i~_.^. sirup! ~ duplicates so:ne- t:"1~!lo then are entitled [o in any event. They are confident [hey will be protected by contract documents which cover every detail and contingency. They look to local building inspectors to assure compliance with codes. 4nd they fully expect the design team to ful`ill its obligation to safeguard the quality of the work. A Foa in the Henhouse [f testing is perceived as little more than an 'unnecessary, but unavoidable experue, why no[ make the general contractor respon- sible for controlling the cost? It may pro- duce a savings, end it certainly eliminates an edminstrative headache. If contractual obligations dealing with the project schedule and budget can be enforced, surely those governing quality can be enforced, as well. Possibly so, but who is going to do it? Some testing consultants will not accept ~QC work. The reasons they give come from firsthand experience. They include: 1) inadequate to barely adequate scope, ~) . selection based on the lowest bid; 3) non- negotiable contract terms inappropriate to the delivery of a professional service; 4) intimidation of inspectors by field super visors; end 5) suppression o[ low or [ailing test results. This ought to be fair warning to any owner. Keeping Both Hands on the Wheel The largest part oC the problem, from your point of view, is one of artful persuasion. If you cannot convince your client of the value of independent testing and inspection, no one can. Yet, if you do not, you are likely to find yourself responsible for an assurance of quality you are in no position to deliver. How can you keep quality control ~ihere it belongs and, in the process, prevent the owner from crompromising his or her interests in the project es well as yours? Consider t ~ese suggestions: • Put the issue on an early agenda. It needs your attention. Anticipate the owner's inclination to avoid dealing with testing end Page 2 4u~st 1988 inspection, and edam is importance to the success of the oro;ect. Persist, i` you can, until your client sg-ees to hire the testing laboratory independently and to establish an adequate budget to meet the anticipated costs. 4 testing consultant hired by the owner cannot be fired by the general con- tractor for producing less than Cavorable results. ?. Tailor [he testing requirements carefully. Scissors and paste can be your very worst enemies. Specify what the job requires, retain control of selection and hiring, make certain the contractor's responsibilities for notification for scheduling purposes are clear, and require that copies of all reports be distributed by the laboratory directly to you. 3. Insist on a reconstruction testin con- ference. It can be an essenttal element o e ective coordination. Include the owner, the general contractor, major subcontraN tors, the testing consultant, and the design team. Review your requirements, the pro- cedures to' be followed, and the responsibili- ties of each of the parties. Have the testing consultant prepare a conference memoran- dum for distribution to all participants. 4. Monitor tests and ins ections closel . Make certain your field representative is present during tests and irupectiotu, so that deficiencies in procedures or results can be reported and acted upon quickly. Scale back testing if it becomes clear it is appropiate to do so under the circumstances; do not hesitate to order additional tests if they are required. 5. Finally, keep your client informed. With- out your help, he or she is not likely to understand whet the test results mean, nor will your actions in response to them make much sense. [f additional testing is called for, explain why. Remember, it is an unex- pected and, possibly, unbudgeted additional cost for which you will need to pave the way. In this seree, independent testing and inspection can serve an important, secondary purpose. You might view it es a communica- tions resource. Use it in this way, end it just may yield unexpected dividends. THE PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY PERSPECTIVE