Home Inspector Pro does it again!

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Jim write:

There he goes again. Where do you get this stuff Jim?

From here, where you said...

Originally Posted by gromicko

ASTM's isn't a commercial standards of practice at all. It doesn't tell the inspector what to do. It doesn't tell the inspector what not to do. A liability grenade in the hands of every fool using it.

...and here, where you said...

Originally Posted by gromicko

ASTM used to gouge inspectors $59 a pop for EACH use of their lousy commercial SOP until we came up with a better one www.nachi.org/comsop.... and gave it to the entire industry for free.

...and here, where you said...

Originally Posted by gromicko

ASTM requires an inspector to do that which is totally abhorent

...and here, where you said...

Originally Posted by gromicko

ASTM over implies and far under delivers. Might as well just give your client your house now.

[Joe Farsetta]

Nick,

ASTM E2018-08 (or 01, or 99) is pretty much the defacto standard for performing commercial property condition assessments, worldwide.

It is a voluntary guide, which also states that one need not follow it to perform a proper PCA. Right there, ASTM recognizes and accepts that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Why you refuse to acknowledge the ASTM model as a good model is ponderous.

For the life of me, I cannot understand the need on your part to continually bash this standard. If anything, our job as an association is to provide guidance to our members wherever we can. Slamming an internationally recognized standard for the sake of NOTHING is NOT where we need to be going. COMSOP is an acceptable alternative, but will likely never displace the ASTM model, nor should it.

If anything, it should be a complimentary model, which intertwine with one another. The flexibility of ASTM, in conjunction with some of the task-oriented sections of COMSOP makes them great partners. This is why I push an understanding of BOTH models and teach my students to comply with both.

THAT is true power, without having to choose one over the other. That is TRUE direction, backed by knowledge, aimed at the benefit of inspectors, and not to the detriment of another organization's product.

Right now, many engineers are drawing a line in the sand with regard to the performance of a commercial inspection. MAny believe that they are the only ones qualified. Discounting their claim may be easy or hard, depending on where things shake out and where the battles are fought. We ain't speaking about a residential inspection, here. When one thinks that the range of what constitutes a commercial endeavor, as opposed to a residential setting, anyone can see where their argument can and will go.

In reality, there are big dollars at stake. We do not help ourselves by showing up to the dance waving a piece of paper we call a standard, and using it to slam something developed by the foremost standards body worldwide. We will look foolish.

ASTM, ANSI, ans ISO walk in lock-step. They are backed by ICC and NFPA to name a few. As we currently reference many of what ASTM already crafts, we will look all the more foolish by arbitrarily dismissing their E2018 standard in the manner we do. In reality, it makes absolutely zero sense at this point in time.

Again, it's an argument we truly risk losing, and an argument we shouldnt be making. We can speak to our strength, experience and wisdom, and not appear to be stamping our feet.

When we make unsubstantiated statements like this one:

A liability grenade in the hands of every fool using it.

we look like idiots.

[Nick Gromicko]

Jim, you will note in ALL your quotes from me that were not made on this thread... ALL of them were attacking their so called Commercial SOP, not ASTM.

ASTM's SOP is not an SOP.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

You can title a poorly written, liability ridden, Scope of Work permission document a Commercial SOP, but it's still a poorly written, liability ridden, Scope of Work permission document.

Joe Farsetta can name all the other good things ASTM has done till the cows come home, but it won't change that their commercial SOP is unusable. A liability grenade in the hands of every fool using it.

www.nachi.org/comsop.htm

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by gromicko

A liability grenade in the hands of every fool using it.

www.nachi.org/comsop.htm

Allow me to be as a question.

Care to share all the lawsuits that must have happened from inspectors using ASTM and the scope of work agreement?

[James H. Bushart]

Hhhhmmmmm.

Your comment as to how ASTM (the organization) has "gouged" the public by charging them for their "lousy" SOP was meant to be complimentary, I suppose.

Oh, well. It doesn't matter.

Apparently Joe's request for a reasonable and professional stance on this issue has (typically) fallen upon deaf ears.

It will prove to be NACHI's loss, but then...it really matters little to those who will be continuing to compete and win jobs using the industry accepted standard.

We "fools" who use it will continue to take our chances with the same organization recognized all over the exact same world that scratches its head and asks "What is a natchey?"

[Nick Gromicko]

Jim writes:

take our chances with the same organization recognized all over the exact same world

And "takin chances" is exactly what I call it too.

All that world recognition of the organization that piecemealed (from hundreds of special interests) that goofy, mis-titled ASTM Commercial SOP that you claimed to have abided by (impossible to abide by BTW) when you performed that commercial inspection for the plaintiff won't save your **** in court.

What are you planning to tell the Judge? "Your honor, rule in my favor because more people have heard of ASTM than InterNACHI"

Please, don't make me laugh.

Remember though. Whatever SOP you tell your client you are abiding by... you'd better abide by! Have you read ASTM's SOP? You are really going to calculate repair costs?

Anyway... The document that would have kept you out of court to begin with is the clearly written InterNACHI Commercial SOP. It is straightforward. It tells you what to do. You tell your client what your are going to do it. Then you go out and do it. It provides your client with the information that is likely more valuable to him/her than the fee you have to charge for acquiring it for him/her. A win/win. It is beautiful.

And use our accompanying documents too: www.nachi.org/comsop.htm

Or not. I don't care. Try that "Bushart's most name recognition" defense strategy of yours. ROTFLMAO Who knows, maybe you've come up with somethin' there that the legal profession hasn't thought of yet.

LOL

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Jim writes:

And "takin chances" is exactly what I call it too.

All that world recognition of the organization that piecemealed (from hundreds of special interests) that goofy, mis-titled ASTM Commercial SOP that you claimed to have abided by (impossible to abide by BTW) when you performed that commercial inspection for the plaintiff won't save your **** in court.

What are you planning to tell the Judge? "Your honor, rule in my favor because more people have heard of ASTM than InterNACHI"

Please, don't make me laugh.

Remember though. Whatever SOP you tell your client you are abiding by... you'd better abide by! Have you read ASTM's SOP? You are really going to calculate repair costs?

Anyway... The document that would have kept you out of court to begin with is the clearly written InterNACHI Commercial SOP. It is straightforward. It tells you what to do. You tell your client what your are going to do it. Then you go out and do it. It provides your client with the information that is likely more valuable to him/her than the fee you have to charge for acquiring it for him/her. A win/win. It is beautiful.

And use our accompanying documents too: www.nachi.org/comsop.htm

Or not. I don't care. Try that "Bushart's most name recognition" defense strategy of yours. ROTFLMAO Who knows, maybe you've come up with somethin' there that the legal profession hasn't thought of yet.

LOL

You have no data to prove any of your hyperbolic claims, Nick.

Like everything else, it's all smoke.

Provide proof for any of your claims. How many lawsuits in 2007 were filed and lost by inspectors using ASTM standards? Give the same stats for your brand new, untested standard.

Without that information, you have nothing but a sales pitch.

[bkelly1]

HMMM, something has happened within the top or elite of nachi here. I am seeing some attacks and a turn from those who use to vigorously defend it. Whats going on, what happened here?

[Joe Farsetta]

All that world recognition of the organization that piecemealed (from hundreds of special interests) that goofy, mis-titled ASTM Commercial SOP that you claimed to have abided by (impossible to abide by BTW) when you performed that commercial inspection for the plaintiff won't save your **** in court

Nick,

Maybe you should take my class, so I can point out some of the flaws within COMSOP

Like I have said, knowledge is power, and one needs to understand the SOP they have signed up for.

BTW, where did you get the idea that the ASTM model is somehow not defensible? I have more problems with COMSOP in major areas, including our definition of commercial property, our inclusion of life and safety issues, our checklist or guide in this area, and numerous other areas.

I give E2018 the same viewthat I give COMSOP; that is, both are good and both are not so good. I teach the plusses and minuses.

[Nick Gromicko]

Be careful Joe, Jim typically attacks vendors for telling us why their product or service might be useful.

Anyway, I'd say having to calculate repair costs is a pretty big ASTM "minus." No thanks, I'll pass. I'm an inspector, not a commercial roofing estimator.

And after thinking about Jim's "most name recognition" legal defense strategy, I have decided to contract with Paris Hilton and have her author my SOP. She has more name recognition than ASTM and InterNACHI combined. It's brilliant! LOL.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Be careful Joe, Jim typically attacks vendors for telling us why their product or service might be useful.

Anyway, I'd say having to calculate repair costs is a pretty big ASTM "minus." No thanks, I'll pass. I'm an inspector, not a commercial roofing estimator.

And after thinking about Jim's "most name recognition" legal defense strategy, I have decided to contract with Paris Hilton and have her author my SOP. She has more name recognition than ASTM and InterNACHI combined. It's brilliant! LOL.

There are inspectors who calculate and provide repair costs with residential as well as commercial inspections as an additional service to their clients.

Utlizing the ASTM standard allows an inspector to do either/or. If the client and he agree that he will, the provision is there. If the client and he agree that he won't, he does not have to.

Again...you have hyperbolized to fit your argument. There is no "requirement" in the ASTM SOP to provide repair costs anymore than there is a "requirement" for a NACHI member to walk a roof.

[relliott]

Originally Posted by jbushart

There are inspectors who calculate and provide repair costs with residential as well as commercial inspections as an additional service to their clients.

Utlizing the ASTM standard allows an inspector to do either/or. If the client and he agree that he will, the provision is there. If the client and he agree that he won't, he does not have to.

Again...you have hyperbolized to fit your argument. There is no "requirement" in the ASTM SOP to provide repair costs anymore than there is a "requirement" for a NACHI member to walk a roof.

Anyone have a direct link to ASTM SOP ?

[James H. Bushart]

Bob -

No links, since one must purchase a copy of this standard.

ASTM's standard takes into consideration (where NACHI's fails) the fact that a "commercial" facility can be anything from a five unit residential dwelling to a football stadium...a strip mall to the Empire State Building.

Accordingly, it provides that any modification to it that is mutually accepted by the inspector and his client and specified in writing, will meet its standard.

In Nick's world of hyperbole and spin...there can only be one way...the NACHI way. In our world outside of the NACHI Tv studio, things are quite different.

For instance...why would a NACHI home inspector inspect a six unit dwelling differently than a four unit dwelling? How much actual modification to the standard NACHI or ASHI SOP is actually required....unless, of course, the client is wanting to place an emphasis on something our SOP does not. A modification made to the NACHI SOP, written down and agreed to by both parties, instantly becomes an ASTM approved standard.

What is wrong with that?

[Linas I. Dapkus]

Originally Posted by relliott

Anyone have a direct link to ASTM SOP ?

Check your mail Bob.

[relliott]

Originally Posted by ldapkus

Check your mail Bob.

Thanks

Interesting subject.
(deserves its own thread though)