Perhaps the most expensive projects that people take on are construction projects. Sometimes, these are very high in cost, and also very important in how they affect their local communities. They may also take a long time to finish, even up to two years. As built structures, they are regarded as permanent. This is why problems arising in the building or use of the completed structure should always be properly investigated through construction deficiency investigations in order to understand how they came about.
Amenities such as the power might be non-functional. Sometimes, the structure itself is defective. Building is expensive, and the structure is supposed to last indefinitely, but collapses or structural failures are not unheard of. The accompanying threat to the lives and property of residents is self-explanatory. It is thus necessary for investigators to incorporate some principal questions into their inquiry.
As a primary administrative matter, they need to investigate whether the project in its commencement stage was ever inspected or approved by the local building authority. Were the final plans submitted to the authorities? And if they were indeed submitted, was the latter's approval forthcoming? Then again, in the case of approved plans, did the contractor actually stay with what the authorities approved, or did they attempt to alter or adapt the plans according to their own specification? Absent approval is a very serious problem, because the authorities can, in extreme situations, order that the offending work be entirely demolished.
Furthermore, the building of unapproved plans, or even structures which never had plans, is illegal and can be punished by law. A fine is usually the penalty, but where the illegal work has collapsed or caused other problems, the criminal sanction might be more severe because the contractor did not seek legal permission to commence.
Building regulations are not mere administrative fine print, either. Some contractors might say that the regulations are the priority of historians who are trying to preserve local heritage, or over-concerned residents who have a specific architectural preference. This is not usually the case. Most regulations are aimed at maintaining building safety, as well as the residents' safety, and should never be ignored. This can easily put the safety of building users at an unnecessary risk.
Then there are the materials used. This is more technical issue, and not one which the layperson can properly assess. Untrained workers do not know how to choose the right materials for the job. As an example, concrete presents technical questions to the contractor. Are they using enough concrete? Are the foundations deep enough? Does the concrete need to have steel reinforcing bars? All of these factors affect the strength of the structure. Yet they are basic engineering questions that the contractor should be able to answer.
Another issue concerning the workers is their level of qualification. Were they qualified to perform the tasks that they had in the project? Experience is not enough. The authorities may require that all workers are adequately qualified to work on the project, and may then take a dim view of the project if unqualified workers were employed there.
The technical specifications of the disaster need to be investigated in conjunction with these more primary inquiries. People can sometimes see very easily what the problem was, such as an inadequate structure or incorrect material usage. However, the actual cause of the problem's presence is what the investigators should focus on, since that is what the affected community is more concerned about.
Amenities such as the power might be non-functional. Sometimes, the structure itself is defective. Building is expensive, and the structure is supposed to last indefinitely, but collapses or structural failures are not unheard of. The accompanying threat to the lives and property of residents is self-explanatory. It is thus necessary for investigators to incorporate some principal questions into their inquiry.
As a primary administrative matter, they need to investigate whether the project in its commencement stage was ever inspected or approved by the local building authority. Were the final plans submitted to the authorities? And if they were indeed submitted, was the latter's approval forthcoming? Then again, in the case of approved plans, did the contractor actually stay with what the authorities approved, or did they attempt to alter or adapt the plans according to their own specification? Absent approval is a very serious problem, because the authorities can, in extreme situations, order that the offending work be entirely demolished.
Furthermore, the building of unapproved plans, or even structures which never had plans, is illegal and can be punished by law. A fine is usually the penalty, but where the illegal work has collapsed or caused other problems, the criminal sanction might be more severe because the contractor did not seek legal permission to commence.
Building regulations are not mere administrative fine print, either. Some contractors might say that the regulations are the priority of historians who are trying to preserve local heritage, or over-concerned residents who have a specific architectural preference. This is not usually the case. Most regulations are aimed at maintaining building safety, as well as the residents' safety, and should never be ignored. This can easily put the safety of building users at an unnecessary risk.
Then there are the materials used. This is more technical issue, and not one which the layperson can properly assess. Untrained workers do not know how to choose the right materials for the job. As an example, concrete presents technical questions to the contractor. Are they using enough concrete? Are the foundations deep enough? Does the concrete need to have steel reinforcing bars? All of these factors affect the strength of the structure. Yet they are basic engineering questions that the contractor should be able to answer.
Another issue concerning the workers is their level of qualification. Were they qualified to perform the tasks that they had in the project? Experience is not enough. The authorities may require that all workers are adequately qualified to work on the project, and may then take a dim view of the project if unqualified workers were employed there.
The technical specifications of the disaster need to be investigated in conjunction with these more primary inquiries. People can sometimes see very easily what the problem was, such as an inadequate structure or incorrect material usage. However, the actual cause of the problem's presence is what the investigators should focus on, since that is what the affected community is more concerned about.
About the Author:
You can visit www.deanjvlahosfaia-associates.com for more helpful information about Important Questions In Construction Deficiency Investigations.
No comments:
Post a Comment