] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

[Christopher Wright <chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com>]

>Because of these issues I believe that we should expect that there should
>be reasonable compliance with our designs.
No question about that. I'd go further and say full compliance. But I'll 
stick to my guns on the issue of understanding how the work we want is 
actually being done. Fab shops can't read our minds. At best a welder 
only knows what we say, not what we mean. And we certainly can't expect a 
welder to know _why_ we mean something that we haven't actually said. 
That puts to burden on us engineers to be clear and to understand what 
and why we're telling someone to provide a certain detail. Hell, compared 
to the communication, the science is easy. But that's our job.

>I  wonder if the real reason that we adopt the attitude of  compensating
>for contractors non-compliance is the recognition that in many instances
>there is no support from Clients to pay for inspections and to reject the
>work.
Lack of definitive inspection scares hell out of me. It's one of the 
reasons I don't touch building design.

Christopher Wright P.E.    |"They couldn't hit an elephant from
chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com        | this distance"   (last words of Gen.
___________________________| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864)
http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw