contractor responsibility - Electrician Talk - Professional Electrical Contractors Forum

greg crosby · 05-03-2012, 02:55 PM

contract new refurbish and wire new addition of a school? Contractor wants to have a walk through to point out code violations in an area that is to be refurbished. I am expecting a pitch for money. There is nothing in the contract stating fee for code updates. This school was built in 1968 and has had numerous people work on it. What part of the NEC deals with this?

Wirenuting · 05-03-2012, 03:03 PM

Sounds like there are items that need to be addressed before or during his rewiring.
What part of the code you ask? The part that your AHJ had adopted.

Pete m. · 05-03-2012, 03:04 PM

Not sure how the law works in Maine but typically the NEC is not retroactively enforced. Work that was approved retains that approval unless altered.

Violations of a safety related nature may be viewed differently by the AHJ and correction orders could be issued.

Pete

**480sparky** · 05-03-2012, 03:13 PM

If 'refurbish' is part of the contract, then I'd say you should have looked at it before bidding.

k_buz · 05-03-2012, 03:45 PM

I think this is someone involved with the school asking what he should be expecting when the EC walks thru.

That being said, anything not done to code at any time (like unsupported junction boxes, low volt wire running everywhere, or romex above a suspended ceiling, and any number of more examples) would need to be fixed.

**Speedy Petey** · 05-03-2012, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greg crosby

contract new refurbish and wire new addition of a school? Contractor wants to have a walk through to point out code violations in an area that is to be refurbished. I am expecting a pitch for money. There is nothing in the contract stating fee for code updates. This school was built in 1968 and has had numerous people work on it. What part of the NEC deals with this?

The whole NEC deals with this. At least any parts relevant to the wiring done there.

To be honest, I don't know what you are fishing for here.
WHO are you expecting wants money?
Are you doing the electrical work for the reno and new construction?

If an area is to be renovated I would expect that area would be renovated to current standards. Or is it simply a cosmetic renovation?

tkb · 05-03-2012, 06:06 PM

If this was MA, then Rule 3 would apply.

B4T · 05-03-2012, 10:00 PM

Don't fix any code violations.. just sign your name on the letter you give to the EC telling him the wiring is fine..

Just because "other" EC's have worked there and said nothing means nothing.. you are talking about a school.. not a weekend cabin up in the mountains..

Once violations are pointed out.. you just can't throw your hands up in the air.. tell your boss and let him make the decision.. GET IT IN WRITING..

B4T · 05-03-2012, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkb

If this was MA, then Rule 3 would apply.

Thats great.. but what is Rule 3..

Let me guess... CYA..

Chris1971 · 05-04-2012, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B4T

Thats great.. but what is Rule 3..

Let me guess... CYA..

Rule #3. Call Harry.

tkb · 05-04-2012, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B4T

Thats great.. but what is Rule 3..

Let me guess... CYA..

Rule 3 for the MA Amendments to the 2011 NEC.

Additions or modifications to an existing installation shall be made in accordance with this Code without bringing the remaining part of the installation into compliance with the requirements of this Code. The installation shall not create a violation of this Code, nor shall it increase the magnitude of an existing violation.

tkb · 05-04-2012, 10:18 AM

Rule 4 also.

Where an actual hazard exists, the owner of the property shall be notified in writing by the authority enforcing this Code. The notification shall contain specifications of the actual hazard that exists, together with a reference to the rule of this Code that is now in violation. (See M.G.L. c. 166, §§ 32 and 33, for enforcement authority.)

NJELEC · 05-04-2012, 01:48 PM

advisory only...Informative Annex H, 80.9 (C). Sounds like this will be brought to the AHJ's attention and he'll determine the extent of the corrections. I would say depending on the size or value of the addition may determine if the violations are required to be corrected. But like Pete m. said, safety will be the #1 priority during the inspection.

greg crosby · 05-04-2012, 02:53 PM

Thank you for all the responses. I think I should give you guys a little more information. I am an electrcian employee for a school district. The school was originally built in 1968. I have been on staff three years. I have seen many code violations and usually update them when I find them. I know that there are many more that I haven't seen or gotten to.(I have 9 schools and am the only electrician)

A 3 millon dollar renovation and addition is underway. The electrical contractor is working in the area in question and has removed some sub panels and wiring and has rewired some old refurbished rooms and parts of the addition.

Now he wants to have a walk through to discuss code violations in the remaining work area with my boss who is never wrong but knows nothing about wiring codes.

My concern is; who's responsible?? This could cost the taxpayers many dollars. I am not trying to avoid work for me(job security) but I am a taxpayer in this district so I am concerned. I want to go to the walk-through as informed as possible.

wildleg · 05-04-2012, 03:12 PM

it is up to the ahj as to whether or not the violations need to be addressed, unless they are specifically addressed in the code or the local laws. It is very possible that the contractor is not only doing the right thing, but also covering his azz in order to avoid any liability for specific code violations that they may have uncovered, but which are not being paid to be fixed, as well as liability for life safety issues that may not be covered under the terms of the contract. It is normal for there to exist code violations that are not addressed in contract, yet should be fixed. It is the schools responsibility to fix them, if needed, especially if they involve life safety. The school, after all, opened up the can of worms by having the work done. If the items should have been addressed in the contract documents, then the school should be looking to the contracting officers, architects, or engineers for reasons why the items were omitted. JMO

Celtic · 05-04-2012, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJELEC

advisory only...Informative Annex H, 80.9 (C)

Rehab Sub-Code might take precedence here [if the job was in NJ]:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rehab Code

*** This file includes all Regulations adopted and published through the ***
*** New Jersey Register, Vol. 43, No. 21, November 7, 2011 ***
TITLE 5. COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
CHAPTER 23. UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION CODE
SUBCHAPTER 6. REHABILITATION SUBCODE
N.J.A.C. 5:23-6
This document is provided as a courtesy only; the official
Administrative Rules of the State of NJ are available through
LexisNexis, the publisher licensed by the NJ Office of Administrative
Law, or through your local public library.
Page 1 of 163
§ 5:23-6.1 Introduction; using this subcode
(a) This section is a guide to the use of the rehabilitation subcode. It should not be interpreted as
containing substantive requirements and it is not intended to be cited for enforcement purposes.

2. Traditionally, the New Jersey Uniform Construction Code has made the requirements that are
applicable to new buildings also apply to buildings whose use is changed; applicable to buildings undergoing
rehabilitation with the extent of the requirements depending on the amount of money being spent on the
building; and to some extent applicable to existing buildings that have an addition constructed. Buildings
whose use was changed and buildings receiving rehabilitation costing more than 50 percent of the
replacement cost of the building were required to comply with all the provisions of the Uniform Construction
Code for new buildings.

http://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/code...jac_5_23_6.pdf

Its a short read...only 163 pages.

greg crosby · 05-07-2012, 02:41 PM

so when an electrician sees a violation he has to fix it but a contractor just points out the violations in the area he has contracted to work in and he is covered?!!?? This is a 3 million dollar renovation of a school the was built in 1968.

k_buz · 05-07-2012, 02:44 PM

Quote:

so when an electrician sees a violation he has to fix it

This is where you are wrong. An electrician doesn't HAVE to fix it, but may be required to by the AHJ.

Salvatoreg02 · 05-07-2012, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greg crosby

so when an electrician sees a violation he has to fix it but a contractor just points out the violations in the area he has contracted to work in and he is covered?!!?? This is a 3 million dollar renovation of a school the was built in 1968.

Bottom line is it all depends on the scope of work in the plans. Violations are always extra, depending on the type of language used in the contract it could sway the other way.

Perfect example, we did a small office space in CT which was wired with romex when it was orginally built. The building was 5 stories. Which was allowed then but not now. Now the town no longer allows Romex in anything other then dwellings or less then 3 stories, so we had to use MC for all our new installs. We didn't have to replace the romex even though it is considered a violation today.

brian john · 05-07-2012, 05:27 PM

If it is not in the contract, not in the job specifications, than it would not get fixed, unless you have local regulations requiring this.

The EC may be fishing for extras, the EC may have genuine concerns and want to bring some real issues to your attention. Do the walk through and see what happens.

Any school we did pretty much everything was required in the SPECIFICATIONS to be brought up to current code.