As a contractor I have experienced a very unique situation where work performed in a home is inspected by a 3rd party inspector, but the contractor cannot be on the premises.  Besides Energy Upgrade California, has anyone experienced this inspection protocol by any state, municipal, or local juristictions that require inspections for work performed?

Views: 218

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Usually the 3rd party guys want the contractor to be there along with relevant subs, to make fast corrections and facilitate communication, and make for less traffic to the home. 

 

It will only take about 6 months and multiple trips before the 3rd party realizes it is futile to do it otherwise. Just my 2 pence prediction.

Unfortunately, the multiple trips has been on the contractor's part since the 3rd party guys are the trusted source of reliable findings.  Corrections cannot be made until QAQC inspector files a 'Review Memo' 3 days after the field inspection!  
You are right that traffic is increased at the home that discourages homeowners from participating in the program.  You are also right that just over 6 months of participation and multiple trips by my company we realize it is futile to not be present for 3rd party inspections.  Anyone else having similar issues with Energy Upgrade California QAQC processes? 

"Inadvertently making quality unsustainable." Like contractors need to be given the run around, to then offer rebates to consumers, all the while the contractor foots the bill. That model will fail. I have seen it fail in the recent past.

 

I think the premise is that they are doing a good thing, but all that results is a dissatisfied contractor, and the homeowner scratches their head about the experience.

 

I think and believe implicitly that quality needs to be headed off with better "installer" training and assistance. Also, allowing them time to do quality, as in double the hours allowed, and then bring the speed up after they do it the right way. Get the QA guys paid to do a lot of that that type of mentoring, and a little of the after done, in home inspection.

 

Otherwise its like saying "the way to make a nice car, is by sending it back to the dealer to get it fixed on a recall."

My concern is the triple win being developed by the Trainer, QA guys, and Utilities at the expense of the home performance contractor.  

1) If a QAQC comes back with discrepancies then they have to inspect more contractors' work than the contracted 20%.  Win for the QA guys!

2) If a QAQC comes back with discrepancies then the trainer has to do some retraining of contractors which means they will need increased funding to support this additional training.  Win for the Trainer!

3) If a QAQC comes back with discrepancies then the homeowner has to dedicate additional time to the program and loses confidence in the contractors' work ultimately leading to not moving forward or narrowing the scope of work.  Win for the utilities because they pay less rebates!

I wonder if EUC has figures on how much money is spent on administration, i.e. contracting trainers and QC guys and on awarded rebates to homeowners.  It would be really cool to see which regions/utilities are having the most success, i.e. administration to reward ratios.

Every time a QAQC finds something wrong it self validates the QAQC job. Been there and done that.

 

You need to fervently lobby, that if the program does not work for the contractors, then the best ranks will abandon ship.

 

The contractors are the valuable partners, and are the most important part of any program.

 

Good luck.

RSS

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Twitter

Latest Activity

Profile IconAshley Noreuil, Fred Smith and Peter Moncada joined Home Energy Pros
41 minutes ago
George Matthews commented on George Matthews's event Proof is Possible Tour by the Home Performance Workshop
"Here is the flyer for the Advanced Techniques and Tools in Home Performance Friday October 7th at…"
12 hours ago
George Matthews posted an event

Proof is Possible Tour by the Home Performance Workshop at Truitt and White Lumber Conference Room

October 7, 2016 from 9am to 1pm
Building Energy Performance Testing is sponsoring the Proof is Possible Tour to come to the San…See More
13 hours ago
George Matthews replied to George Matthews's discussion Shortridge 8400 Flowhood for A/C airflow testing in the group Energy Auditing Equipment for Sale, Trade or to Purchase
"Here are the pics of the flowhood and airdata manometer"
Saturday
Sarah Holloway posted a photo
Friday
Joe Urycki added a discussion to the group Energy Auditing Equipment for Sale, Trade or to Purchase
Thumbnail

TEC blower door and UEI combustion analyzer for sale

For sale is one used TEC Minneapolis blower door system: Includes model 3 fan with rings A and B,…See More
Friday
John Nicholas replied to Kevin Emerson's discussion Studies re: radon mitigation and energy efficiency
"The Nay side is well represented with the links already posted. I presented a neutral side, with…"
Friday
Ray Lehman replied to Kevin Emerson's discussion Studies re: radon mitigation and energy efficiency
"Hey John, Thanks for the information.  Very good empirical data. While I agree that running…"
Friday

© 2016   Created by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service