InterNACHI releases new Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Property.

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Originally Posted by gromicko

I am not saying to choose from a menu Nick, just catogorizing the scope to achieve a proper and equitable fee with the Client fully aware of what he is paying for. Thats all.

But if you observe something that would indicate that they might not be and they are found later that they are not, what is the client going to do? That is the big question.

Maybe not in Maine.

I fully understand that and that is my point, how do you protect yourself with agreements that clearly identify that it is just a visual walk through and not be held responsible for something that fails.

First word out of a Client. "Well, judge, I had a professional Commercial Inspector inspect my building and the roof is sagging, the windows are all cracked, the gate valves are leaking and an odor is coming out of the floor drains. etc. The inspector said he was paid for what he saw and did not see these things.
Just pulling your chain Nick.
I am just afraid that some of our Inspectors in the Association will get in trouble when faced with the right people clients.


Marcel
</IMG></IMG></IMG>

[Michael Larson]

Jist received the goodies package today. Some Environmental concerns books, Mike Holt book, NACHI tribbles and a LED flashlight.
Thanks to NICK, Lisa and I-NACHI.

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Me too!
Thanks Nick and Lisa

J.Bushart, I got some tribbles to give away at the next Missouri chapter meeting.

[John Cahill]

The SoP beginning is a great start at gathering ideas. The easy part is done.

Please watch this you tube clip starting at 2:24 and ending at 3:58.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dTB_HUR0MA

[John Cahill]

Well golly, I did not mean to kill the thread. Take each paragraph and try to reduce the wording. The doc is great but it borders on becoming a procedure rather than a standard. Its great for an association to create a standard and better for each company to create the procedure. Too much procedure by the association promotes a commodity.

I am a poor writer but I can appreciate good concise writing when I see it because its easy to read. Your final product should be sparse and easy to read.

Just a thought. No criticism on a lot of well done work.

[Nick Gromicko]

Once we add the green building checklist, we're probably going to rename it to include the words "document pack" or something.

[John Cahill]

Well that's a good thought. You might be developing a standard within a standard. That can be a great thing. For example, write your scope to apply to all activities then parse applicable items into separate products each having their own SoP. An example in residential would be like having a separate optional SoP for thermal imaging or pools. Then the client can choose the product that fits their requirements.

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Originally Posted by jcahill

Well that's a good thought. You might be developing a standard within a standard. That can be a great thing. For example, write your scope to apply to all activities then parse applicable items into separate products each having their own SoP. An example in residential would be like having a separate optional SoP for thermal imaging or pools. Then the client can choose the product that fits their requirements.

John, would the question be defining the Product or rather defining the scope?
Wouldn't a breakdown of the scope for Inspection be more realistic than a walk-thru of observed items with a make shift SOP to match what was observed?

Break down and itemized scope is the way to go. Inspect, Assess, and report all or nothing. If you want to walk around and observe and note what you see, what will happen to all the items that was not inspected and therefore not observed?

Give the Client a chance to choose from a strategic list of exactly what he whats inspected. If he chooses a fly by, well make sure that is defined as such and worth what it reads. Fly by and only observed on the way. Could one honestly call that a Commercial Inspection.

Let us not forget the definition of an Inspection, and let it be camouflaged by an SOP.

Marcel

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by mcyr

John, would the question be defining the Product or rather defining the scope?

I believe the Scope defines the product.

Originally Posted by mcyr

Wouldn't a breakdown of the scope for Inspection be more realistic than a walk-thru of observed items with a make shift SOP to match what was observed?

Not really. Most SoP defines the minimum requirements in a guideline format. A procedure expands on the SoP to provide the "breakdown". Some choose to incorporate both into a single document however it tends to reduce the number of persons willing to adopt the product. Comprehensive documents tend to represent what a very small majority want others to do.

Originally Posted by mcyr

Break down and itemized scope is the way to go. Inspect, Assess, and report all or nothing.

If that's the way you want to inspect I support you 100%. The SoP should offer the same choices for all.

Originally Posted by mcyr

Give the Client a chance to choose from a strategic list of exactly what he whats inspected.

I think you are agreeing with me that the SoP might be able to contain optional inspections to offer. We agree the client should have a choice.

Originally Posted by mcyr

If he chooses a fly by, well make sure that is defined as such and worth what it reads. Fly by and only observed on the way. Could one honestly call that a Commercial Inspection.

Specific / prescriptive standards do not cause quality. A prescriptive SoP is a piece of paper used after the fact to defend or prosecute.

Inspector 1 produced a comprehensive 80 page report on a building for $500 over a period of 8 hours. Inspector 2 drove up and asked the buyer "did you see that the building is falling off the cliff? Then Inspector 2 and the buyer stood on the beach and watched the building fly by.

Originally Posted by mcyr

Let us not forget the definition of an Inspection, and let it be camouflaged by an SOP.

The definition of an inspection is defined by the scope of the standard. A well written SoP does not need a specific definition for the word inspection.

Just my opinions. Proceed as you desire.

[jtedesco1]

9.1.6

...... profits or other benefit from from real estate agents, brokers or any third parties ........

Find: thirdparty and change to third party

Find: herefrom and change to here from

Find: reorting and change to reporting

I used my Microsoft spell checker

[Nick Gromicko]

Thank you Mr. T.!

[Jeffrey S. Campbell]

6. Restroomss


too many s'ssss'sssss....

[Mike Nelson]

Nick,
on section 5.3, I would consider adding "maintenance records or logs" as these are an extremely valuable tool to all involved. Well done.

[Nick Gromicko]

Mike, done, thanks.

[rstrahan]

This is an interesting thread. It's VERY hard to model a standard anything like a home inspection. In addition to a huge variety of construction techniques, you are spanning a thousand types of occupancies.

I do a lot of commercial. It's the wild west. I would NEVER do one without exhaustively interviewing the potential buyer about their concerns. 9/10 commercial buyers are cheapskates and not worth dealing with.

The reasonable buyers are fantastic clients, but often they care about all sorts of stuff that is not particularly technical. You find yourself counting parking spaces, reviewing traffic studies, mapping the competition, etc.

Be sure you disclaim suitability unless you really know commercial code. If they are converting the occupancy, they will be dealing with an AHJ who doesn't necessarily want to play.

Inspectors should not be specifying repairs, much less costing them out.

1. We generally ain't qualified.
2. It's a violation of the Engineering Act here to specify repairs in a commercial building unless your a P.E. Dunno about other states.

The way my contract deals with the risk/benefit equation is easy. Client acknowledges the inspection and report are NOT intended to reduce their risk as a purchaser of real property. Market forces overwhelm building condition in commercial valuations.

RS