ENFORCE28427 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Yol. 8, No. 8 Page 2 August 1988 owners view testing and inspection as an ~^,dertaking which simply duplicates some- thing they are entitled to in any event. They are confident they will be protected by contract documents which cover every detail and contingency. They look to local building inspectors to assure compliance with codes. And they fully expect the design team to fulfill its obligation to safeguard the quality of the work. A Fos in the Henhouse If testing is perceived as little more than an 'unnecessary, but unavoidable expense, why not make the general contractor respon- sible for controlling the cost? It may pro- duce a savings, and it certainly eliminates an adminstrative headache. If contractual obligations dealing with the project schedule and budget can be enforced, surely those governing quality can tie enforced, as well. Possibly so, but who is going to do it? Same testing consultants will not accept CQC work. The reasons they give come from firsthand experience. They include: 1) inadequate to barely adequate scope, 3) 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; and 5) suppression of low or failing test results. This ought to be fair warning to any owner. Keeping Bath Hands an the Wheel The largest part of the problem, from your point of view, is one of artful persuasion. It you cannot convince your client of the value of independent testing and inspection, no one can. Yet, if you da 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 where it belongs and, in the process, prevent the owner from compromising his or her interests in the project as well as yours? Consider these suggestion_=: 1. ?ut the issue on an early agenca. It needs dour attention. Anticipate the owner's nclination to avoid dealing xi[h testing and inspection, and explain its importance to the success of the project. Persist, if you can, until your client agrees [o hire the testing laboratory independently and to establish an adequate budget [o meet the anticipated costs. A testing consultant hired by the owner cannot be fired by the general con- tractor for producing less than favorable results. 2. Tailor the testing requirements carefully. Scissors and paste can be you* 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 preconstruction testin¢ con- ference. It can be an essential element of e~tective coordination. Include the owner, the general contractor, major subcontrac- 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 participents. 4. 'Monitor tests and inspections closely. Make certain your field representative is present during tests and inspections, 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 it they are required. 5. Finally, keen your client informed. With- out your help, he ar she is hat likely to understand what Che test results mean, nor will your actions in response to them make much sense. If additional testing is called for, explain why. Remember, it is an unex- oe^_ted and, possibly, imbudgeted additional cost for which you will .^.eed to pave the way. In this sense, independent testing and insoec*.ion r_sn serve an important, secondary purpose. You might view .t as ~ communica- 'icns resource. Use it In 'his wait, and it gust may •.~ield ~tnemected dividends. THE ?ROFESSiONAL !_7ABILiT`! ?ERSPECTIVE