2007-03-20_PERMIT FILE - C1996083

Home Browse Search

a'l'l 11Cler NEWSLETTER ~ u - - Insurance Corporation Brokers Since 1905 700 Broadway, Suite 1035, Denver, CO 80203 •303/837-8500 THE PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY PERSPECTIVE VoL 8, No. 8 Copyright 1988 August 1988 WHO ffiRES THS TESTING LABORATORY! L~ r~ LJ It is one of those relatively small details in the overall scheme of things. Independert testing may be required by local building codes, or it may be insisted upon by lenders. Additional testing can usually be ordered by the design team during construction. What- ever the source of the requirement, many owners perceive it to be an unnecessary burden-an additional cost imposed principal- ly for someone else's benefit. Resist this inclination where you can. It is not in your client's best interests, and it is certainly not in yours. There are important issues of quality and even more important issues of life safety at stake. In the complex environment of today's construction arena, it makes very little sense for either of you to give up your control of quality control. Yet it happens altogether too often. What does this have to do with you? You may be the only one in a position to in- fluence the use of testing and inspection services so they become more, rather than less likely to contribute to a successful out- come. There seems to be en almost irresist- ible inclination on the part of some owners to cast aside their potential value to the project in favor of the administrative and financial convenience of placing responsibili- ty for their delivery into the hands of the general contractor. What's Behind this MisadventureT The culprit seems to be the Federal Govern- ment. In the 1960's, someone came up with the idea that millions could be saved by eliminating the•jobs of Federal workers en- gaged in construction inspection. The pro- curement model used to support this stroke of genius was the manufacturing segment of the economy, where producers of goods pur- chased by the Government had been required for years to conduct their own quality assur- ance programs. The result was a trendy new concept in Federal construction known as Contractor Quality Control (CQC). It was a dumb idea. Costs were simply shifted from the Federal payroll to capital improvement budgets. Government contrac- tors, selected on the basis of the lowest bid, were handed resources to assure the quality of their own performance. Some did so; many did not. All found themselves caught up in an impossible conflict between the demands of time and cost, on one hand, and the dictates of quality, on the other. CQC was opposed by the Associated General Contractors of America, by independent testing laboratories, by the design profes- sions, and by those charged with front-line responsibility for quality control in the Federal Agencies. Eventually, even the General Accounting Office came to the con- clusion that it ought to be abandoned. But, once set in motion and fueled by the per- vasive influence of the Federal Government, the idea spread-first to state and local governments; finally, to the private sector. Why would the private sector embrace such an ill-conceived notion? Because so many Binder Hey: Professional Practises