The Inspector and the Friendly Contractor
A plumbing inspector has conducted rough-in inspections for a mid-sized mechanical contractor for eight years. The contractor's foreman regularly leaves coffee and occasionally a $40 gift card at the job trailer; the inspector has accepted coffee but declined gift cards. During a rough-in inspection of a 24-unit apartment building, the inspector notices that a section of DWV piping in three units lacks proper slope and one vent is incorrectly sized. The foreman says the crew will 'fix it before cover' if the inspector will 'write it up as minor' so the project stays on schedule for a lender draw deadline. The inspector's supervisor has told staff that re-inspection fees hurt contractor relations and should be waived 'when reasonable.'
1. What should the inspector do about the deficiencies and the foreman's request?
Read the worked answer
The inspector must document the deficiencies as found: slope and vent sizing are code violations with real drainage and health consequences, and 'fix before cover' is a promise, not a compliance status. Writing them as minor to protect a draw deadline misrepresents the inspection record and could expose the department and the inspector to liability if the defects are later concealed. The correct action is to issue a written correction notice identifying each unit and deficiency, require re-inspection after correction, and refuse to characterize the findings as minor. The foreman's request is an attempt to influence an official act, and the inspector should note it factually. The inspector should also decline further gifts or gratuities beyond trivial courtesy items, and should not accept the coffee arrangement as a routine entitlement.
2. How should the inspector handle the supervisor's instruction to waive re-inspection fees?
Read the worked answer
The inspector should follow the written fee schedule and any adopted policy, not an informal verbal instruction. If the supervisor wants discretion, that discretion must be exercised consistently and documented. The inspector should raise the conflict in writing: ask whether a formal fee-waiver policy exists, and if not, request that the instruction be put in writing. Waiving fees selectively for a long-standing contractor while charging others is a fairness and ethics problem even if no money changes hands. If the supervisor insists, the inspector should escalate through the department's chain of command or ethics officer, and should keep personal notes of the instruction. The principle: inspection decisions and fee decisions must be defensible to any similarly situated contractor.