Ditto:D
I imagine right now Joe and Nick or having one of their heated conversations over the phone again. Will they met a compromise? Stay tuned! Now a word from our sponsor.
My cell phone doesn’t work on Saturdays as I am back up in the Rocky Mountains (9,000 feet high). 
You are just giving Joe a chance to work on his arguments. He just might win this time. I bet Monday will be a very interesting day for you.
Get’m Joe!
My question would be the bulk of the internachi comsop would work and for sections that do not apply such as inspecting a retail office building, just simply put in your contract - excluding 6.5.13 Cooking section or 6.5.12 Life-Safety
Yes?
I must admit the internachi comsop is a lot easier read than the ASTM 2018.
But that’s another thread discussion I’m about to ask.
RT
Marcel.
Where you a Chef in a prior life?
You seem to know that those make up air system used in commercial kitchen are for most parts a gas burner in a duct (no heat exchanger’s) like in large large warehouse? The large volume of air is suppose to dilute the Carbon Dioxide resulting from gas combustion to an acceptable level for workers to be able to breath!
A long term effect of excessive exposure to Carbon Dioxide is lost of memory.
What did I just say…
I’m on this team on this issue;
KISS means running parallel to our NACHI (Res) SOP, non-technical, being able to refer stuff out, etc -
I think we should be gearing this towards storefronts, strip malls, office bldgs, motels . . .
Liability appears to be a biggie, otherwise.
“Recommend evaluation by .(…) for current technical and code compliance within this juristdiction . . .”
OR
supply that (outsource) as a value-added feature.
Well that makes three…~!!!
Fear not.
You will not find anyone on this message board or elsewhere who can actually point to any specific portion of www.nachi.org/comsop.htm that isn’t completely bullet proof in terms of liability.
You will only find those who make general statements that no one of course can defeat. You won’t find them coming back to this thread with anything specific. They’ll make a general statement on whether they like it, are afraid of it, or would use it (pretending that they see something wrong within it)… then run for the hills, never to return. A few others will agree using very short, general posts (pretending that they see it too)… then run for the hills, never to return either.
www.nachi.org/comsop.htm is literally approaching perfection.
That is complete rubbish Nick, you and I had this conversation 2 years ago at the ITA Miami show, I pointed out that I could have no lower liability than agreeing a scope of work with a commercial buyer and producing a report that matches than scope. You agreed!!
I fail to see how mandating a broad SOP decreases liability when all commercial inspections are performed to an agreed scope of work.
BTW this has nothing to do with ASTM it is simple common sense based on 2 parties with equal standing coming to a contractual agreement as to what is going to be inspected and how.
Regards
Gerry
Actually Gerry, I couldn’t agree with your post more. It is technically dead on. If my client and I agree within the scope of work agreement for me to only inspect one light bulb on the third floor and I do just that… I am pretty much liability-free.
The SOP is a base from which the client and inspector agree to deviate from.
Nick, your SOP requires:
That is why it doesn’t work for me and guys like Dale who do these inspections in the real world, the ComSOP as it stands is a dangerous liability.
Regards
Gerry
Gerry, read our “home” inspection Code of Ethics 1.1. http://www.nachi.org/code_of_ethics.htm
You never want to insist that an inspector abide 100% by any SOP… that is demanding perfection.
Substantial compliance permits an A minus. When I was in school if I got an A minus… I passed.
Nick you are missing the point, your “inspecting a 3rdfloor light bulb” could never be defended in court as being is “substancial compliance” with Nachi’s Commercial standards, no chance no way, neither could 90% of the work I do!!
Regards
Gerry
Inspecting a light bulb is 100% in compliance with www.nachi.org/comsop.htm if that is all you and your client agreed to do in the scope of work agreement.
I see the confusion though and don’t want it to ocurr again.
So the question I’ll ask the attorneys tomorrow is can they come up with some language to modify 3.2 to include or reference
4.3.1 Sample language for use when defining the scope of work: "The inspection will be performed in accordance with InterNACHIcomsop-2008 except that… " so that someone reading 3.2 doesn’t assume that a change made in the scope of work agreement puts the inspector out of compliance with the SOP, regardless of how drastic the change.
I don’t know the answer but I’ll know by tomorrow evening.
Good call Gerry.
At least we are on the same page Gerry, I would never use nachi’s standard of practice, or even try and explain to a client how it was dreamed up by a few folks because they felt like someone needed it…
…wild…:shock:
Lawsuits are the least of my worries, I have never had a client say “Hey, you didn’t do what we agreed on in writing”…Never, I can write, read, and so can all my clients, inspect just what is agreed upon, nothing more, and nothing less…start tossing Nicks standards of practice in their face and they will be looking for a new inspector…!!!..:twisted:
Hi to all,
Couldn’t agree more, I really see no need for a “home inspection” style SOP, ther just is no need for it and having one increases liability, those who want a ComSOP see it as a road map for performing Commercial inspections, and the’re wrong, there isn’t a road map as every building is different and every buyer or leasor has their own needs.
In fairness, I can see using the standard SOP when doimg small commercial or split use com/res especially if I feel that the client does not know what they need, or if they are not normally dealing with commercial property, but for the most part that ain’t my market.
Regards
Gerry
Dale or Gerry,
Would you ever consider using a InterNACHI comsop if it were overhauled?
Do you disagree with the InterNACHI comsop from top to bottom? Or is it certain sections like 6.5.11 or 6.5.12 that you disagree with?
Is it certain words like The inspector should ‘‘inspect’’ versus ASTM The field observer should ‘‘observe’’
Or do you feel that a PCR is needed or should be included as a baseline standard?
Is InterNACHI wasting time trying to build a better comsop/baseline standard or at least something one would consider using?
Thanks,
RT
Hi Ray,
that is a very good question, and I’m not sure I have the answer!
Here’s the issue, how can anyone write an SOP that can be ignored when needed? As I’ve said my inspections are based on a clients requirements, the parties I contract with know what they want, we are “parties of equal standing” that is not the case when you contract for a residential inspection.
Regards
Gerry
Ray, there is no need for any commercial standards made up by a home inspection association that most people doesn’t even know exists in the first place in my opinion for starters, and I guess Gerry must have the same clients I have, they know what they want, and it’s put in writing, it will be a cold day in hell before I ever start showing a client some pieces of paper of what Nick Gromicko thinks the commercial standards of practice should or will be in the United States of America…it makes me laugh even thinking such a thing, no offense to Nick, but he should stick with the houses, get the used house salesman in the United States to know his association even exists regarding homes, let alone commercial buildings. And no offense to any new inspectors here, or other folks who have never inspected a commercial building, believe me I get phone call after phone call from nachi members wanting to make great money inspecting this type of property, but many have not mastered home inspections yet, or have done very few.
I have my own standards of practice, it is what the client wants inspected in writing, nothing more and nothing less, if you want to follow what ASTM has to offer, its spelled out quite clearly, a mutual agreement between both parties in writing regarding the scope of work…it works well believe me, so I have no need for Nicks standards.
The whole thing is a fiasco in my opinion, waste of time and effort.
You have to inspect what your client wants inspected, forget about ASTM, forget about nachi, if you keep yourself in this jungle of words you will be spending more time trying to figure out what the hell these bizarre standards are saying instead of inspecting, and when you find a client who ever heard of the ASTM standards much less Nicks, let me know, because I have never run into anyone who ever heard of the ASTM standards EVER…so why confuse something which does not require confusion.
I bet all the nachi cheerleaders will be using it, and I bet they will be the first to go out of the commercial inspection business, or be in court, before they even finish a few reports.
Good luck to everyone…!!..but be careful out there if you don’t know what your doing!!.. no SOP will help anyone in that department.