UK Initial Verification on large commercial sites

[SAL]

I'm trying to gauge what the common industry practice is relating to Initial Verification on large commercial jobs.

I've been working as a tester for the last few years in the South East, and when I test an installation, I'm expected to correct any minor faults, which I do.

As any tester will know, there are so many large fit-outs that were first and second fixed on price, or by agency Electrician/Improvers that are quite frankly subpar.

Basically, my question is, when your Managers try to lump you with the responsibility for all minor issues that you didn't manage to pick up during your inspections like bare conductors exposed inside socket plates, do you think that's fair.

I see a problem in the industry emerging where company's are using the testers as a substitute for sound installation.

When you're carrying out an initial verification on a brand new install by an NICEIC/ECA registered firm, surely it's not your duty to examine all the terminations and connections that were supposedly carried out by Gold Card Electricians.
You have to assume that if your tests yielded satisfactory readings, no further invasive inspections are required.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[loz2754]

Deleted

 

[Rockingit]

Interesting post. I'd actually argue it would be the othe way around - no responsible tester is ever going to leave a C1 unrepaired (even a temporary bodge that get's it to a C2!) but no, your job is I&T, not remedials for others on the wham-bam-make-a-buck racket. That's what THEIR guarantee is for, and THEIR insurance, not yours and it's up to the client to chase them and make good, not you chasing behind them making good their shoddy work.

That being said.... would I tighten a termination if I spotted it? Probably, if it was just the odd random blooper.

 

[Dustydazzler]

You are not a repair man , if your job is to inspect & test then the clue is in the title...
(of course if you drop a socket off and the neutrals pop straight out a loose terminal then I would pop them back in and te tighten)

but other than that i would be inclined to take pictures to document shoddy work and hand that in with my test sheets.
asking the bloke to rectify mountains of carp work on your way round the site is a cope out from the original electric contractors imo

 

[Vortigern]

Difficult one. I agree you should not be picking up the slack for poor workers. It does make me wonder who or what the inspections and testing were while the first/second fox was ongoing if any. We are required to inspect principally and test secondarily. I would say the people who did the shoddy work should come back on snagging and sort it out. It is not good practice to take apart installations as it may cause more problems than it solves. I am curious as to how or who spotted live conductors exposed in switch gear? In a large commercial, there will be so many items which would take a very long time to get around to all accessories, are you getting paid accordingly? If so, I guess it would be ok. However you are effectively sweeping under the carpet the first/second fix contractors poor work, which really cannot be a good thing.

 

[streamer]

Do your certificates allow for three signatures ie. one for design, one for installation and one for testing? If so then whoever signs for the installation should be responsible for poor installation work.

 

[SAL]

Do your certificates allow for three signatures ie. one for design, one for installation and one for testing? If so then whoever signs for the installation should be responsible for poor installation work.

The way it's been done on large jobs, at least in my experience is, the job might consist of hundreds of DBs. There is a main Electrical contractor who is registered and has a Project Manager and a Qualified Supervisor who is ultimately responsible for the standard of Electrical work.

The job has been installed over more than a year. There will be a few cardies who have been on the job from the beginning and maybe one tester. However most of the installers will have been subbies from the agencies. Once the job comes to commissioning and handing over, they will bring in a few testers from the agency. It's only then all the F ups will start to become apparent.

Similar thing happened at spurs stadium with the fire alarm. When they came to commissioning it, they found a load of faults.

 

[Dustydazzler]

Been on a few of those big sites where hundreds of different sparks have had a hand in doing the work , it’s not uncommon to then have a different company do the final tests & verifications on site at the end.
that can be a mamouth job by itself if there are loads of errors

see the Spurs stadium comment above

 

[ipf]

It's all being done wrong, IMO. But then, who am I to say, if it's a money saver.
Test and inspection should be carried out at different stages, if different people are involved.
If it's big contracts, some, improved system needs sorting, allowing for signing off at various stages. Especially when using different sparks and contractors. You can give out paperwork with tick boxes but it may get ignored, through ignorance or laziness.
It just gets 'brushed under the carpet' and left to the 'sweeper' to sort out.

It sometimes needs something to go badly wrong, or a near miss, before it's sorted. When the sh** hits the fan.

 

[ipf]

Been on a few of those big sites where hundreds of different sparks have had a hand in doing the work , it’s not uncommon to then have a different company do the final tests & verifications on site at the end.
that can be a mamouth job by itself if there are loads of errors

see the Spurs stadium comment above

Talking of the Spurs situation, we did plenty work at WH Lane a few years ago. Loads of additions, where details were required. I found it one of the best sites for acquiring existing certificates and EICR info. In most places it's a waste of time even asking.
I'll bet it's gone down a peg or two in the new stadium.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Turn this around a little, what does your insurance cover? If you only have PI for testing than that is all you do, the problem is if you are a registered spark and not just a tester and have an all encompassing insurance, then you have to look at your contract to carry out the work, if its just inspection and testing then that is all you should do, it could be argued that your intervention on a loose connection cause other maybe significant problems and that you are liable.

 

[mattg4321]

Sounds like my idea of hell. Testing unknown work for initial verification. EICR is bad enough.

How are you meant to test an installation for initial verification when you don’t even know who installed the bloody thing.

It’s one of the things that is fecking this country. So much short term thinking and big firms wanting to have their cake and eat it. Not many firms have loads of guys on the cards because they don’t want to pay them sick/holiday pay etc. They don’t want to pay them proper money either, so anyone decent starts up on their own. End result, a lot of bigger firms no longer have the man power and have to use agencies for everything whose trades are always of unknown quality and often poor quality as anyone decent has usually set their own business up.

As long as they’re making money they don’t care. Most of these agency guys should really be on the cards somewhere and accountable to someone if their work isn’t up to scratch.

 

[Dustydazzler]

Most big sites now are predominantly agency workers from literally every nationality you can think of.
Some of the big sites you literally have no idea who installed what and when.

Yet this is deemed totally acceptable as long as some poor sh muck signs off the test sheets.

Yet on a domestic job the same person has to be responsible for everything and signing off your mates 6 month old rewire is deemed irresponsible

the mind boggles

 

[ipf]

Sounds like my idea of hell. Testing unknown work for initial verification. EICR is bad enough.

How are you meant to test an installation for initial verification when you don’t even know who installed the bloody thing.

It’s one of the things that is fecking this country. So much short term thinking and big firms wanting to have their cake and eat it. Not many firms have loads of guys on the cards because they don’t want to pay them sick/holiday pay etc. They don’t want to pay them proper money either, so anyone decent starts up on their own. End result, a lot of bigger firms no longer have the man power and have to use agencies for everything whose trades are always of unknown quality and often poor quality as anyone decent has usually set their own business up.

As long as they’re making money they don’t care. Most of these agency guys should really be on the cards somewhere and accountable to someone if their work isn’t up to scratch.

As is the case, if the larger firms aren't employing electricians, it results in low man power, with apprentices and their training standards declining. As is happening, the downward spiral...it just gets worse.

 

[Lister1987]

EAWR Regulation 29 sticks out here for me. If the place went up in flames and you signed it off as kosher and the cause is traced to the electrics YOU signed off, you're up the swanny.

Your job is IV (In short the I&T go/no-go for it to enter service) and, much like an EICR in the respect of making sure everything is to code. If you spot a minor infraction and can fix it there and then, you can do that, if however there are things wrong and you can not fix them you don't sign it off, instead you compile a schedule of tests, much like an EICR, detail the shortcomings.

---- hits the fan, you get dragged into court because your name get dropped in it; You can produce paperwork that shows you found faults, shows you reported them and shows you strongly advised that the Installation was unfit to be put into service and that you were not willing to sign it off (cite EAWR regulations individually against infractions).

2 things will happen; The client will be grateful for your honesty and thorough approach, they'll appreciate you putting it in phases they understand [EAWR Regulations instead of BS7671 regulations - Because the big HSE guy for the firm knows -----all about BS 7671 131.4.1.1 & 526.5, but you can bet your --- they understand EAWR Regulations 4 (Systems of work), 5 (Strength and Capability), 10 (Connections) and 16 (Competency)] or you'll get the sort of client that frankly you don't want to be working with; the sort that pressures you, second-guesses you, thinks they are the Electrician and if they turn out to be the latter just get paid and walk away, or pass on to a DCA to chase for you.

Whichever way you go, you know that you did everything you should have done so if ---- does hit the fan, you weren't the dumbass that ok'd it for service, knowing it was unsafe.

 

[Lister1987]

Should also add I'm not a fan of the 2 team approach; 1 installs and another tests, toouch room for problems (yes yes you do 2 seperate teams so the inspection is impartial but it's -------s)