# contractor responsibility



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

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. (Nov 19, 2011)

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 (Sep 20, 2007)

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


----------



## k_buz (Mar 12, 2012)

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 (Jan 10, 2007)

greg crosby said:


> 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 (Jan 21, 2009)

If this was MA, then Rule 3 would apply.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

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.. :thumbsup:


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

tkb said:


> If this was MA, then Rule 3 would apply.


Thats great.. but what is Rule 3.. :blink::blink:

Let me guess... CYA.. :laughing::laughing:


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

B4T said:


> Thats great.. but what is Rule 3.. :blink::blink:
> 
> Let me guess... CYA.. :laughing::laughing:




Rule #3. Call Harry. :whistling2:


----------



## tkb (Jan 21, 2009)

B4T said:


> Thats great.. but what is Rule 3.. :blink::blink:
> 
> Let me guess... CYA.. :laughing::laughing:


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 (Jan 21, 2009)

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 (Oct 19, 2010)

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 (May 2, 2012)

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 (Apr 12, 2009)

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 (Nov 19, 2007)

NJELEC said:


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


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



Rehab Code said:


> *** 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
> ...


http://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/codes/codreg/pdf_regs/njac_5_23_6.pdf


Its a short read...only 163 pages.


----------



## greg crosby (May 2, 2012)

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 (Mar 12, 2012)

> 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 (Feb 26, 2011)

greg crosby said:


> 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 (Mar 11, 2007)

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.


----------



## greg crosby (May 2, 2012)

Thank you for responses. I think I have not been clear about the question.
1. General Contractor gets 3 million dollar contract to; renovate and add on to school building built in 1968.
2. Electrical contractor gets bid for all electrical work to to wire all areas to be renovated and additions.

should EC wire all additions and renovations to existing code?
What if any, would be the need for a walk through to "point out existing code violations"?


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

the electrical contractor just picked a number out of thin air ? Or did he bid based on a set of contract documents : plans and specifications.

Even if he picked a number out of thin air, he must have qualified his bid with inclusions and exclusions. You need to review whatever contract documents exist, be it contract or plans and specs, and see what is not included. My bet is that the code violations are not included.


----------



## Celtic (Nov 19, 2007)

greg crosby said:


> Thank you for responses. I think I have not been clear about the question.
> 1. General Contractor gets 3 million dollar contract to; renovate and add on to school building built in 1968.
> 2. Electrical contractor gets bid for all electrical work to to wire all areas to be renovated and additions.
> 
> ...


IMHO...
If the bid is accepted, the EC gets to wire/rewire the entire place IF the scope of the job was detailed in a bid package supplied by others who have completed the task of "pointing out existing violations".


----------



## Cujo (Feb 4, 2012)

greg crosby said:


> Thank you for responses. I think I have not been clear about the question.
> 1. General Contractor gets 3 million dollar contract to; renovate and add on to school building built in 1968.
> 2. Electrical contractor gets bid for all electrical work to to wire all areas to be renovated and additions.
> 
> ...



It would depend on the terms of the contract. If it was included in the contract to bring all existing installations up to modern code, then it is likely the consulting company that was used (likely) would outline what needed to be done.

If its not in the contract then the EC could be trying to get extras to fix certain things.

EC should rewire to new code.


----------

