Rebar Cover Nonconformance Before an Elevated Slab Pour
During a scheduled rebar inspection for a 40-cubic-yard elevated slab, the CA observes primary beam bars at 1.5 in. clear cover instead of the 2 in. shown on the structural drawings. The contractor's foreman says the chairs were set from a shop drawing marked for reference only and refuses to delay the pour because the concrete truck is on site. The inspector's daily report notes the condition at 7:40 a.m.; the pour is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. The testing agency is present and has already approved the formwork. The contract states the architect may reject nonconforming work and require special inspection, but may not direct the contractor's means and methods; the owner retains stop-work authority. The CA has no written authorization to stop the pour, and the contractor's superintendent is off site.
1. What is the CA's immediate authority and action?
Read the worked answer
The CA should not physically stop the contractor's forces or direct the workers; the contract gives stop-work authority to the owner. The CA should immediately notify the architect of record and owner in writing that nonconforming cover exists on the beam bars and that a pour is scheduled, state the observed dimensions and locations, and request that the contractor's superintendent or QC representative hold the pour pending review.
If the contractor refuses, the CA should record the refusal and ask the owner to decide whether to issue a stop-work order. The CA may reject the nonconforming work if the contract gives the architect that authority, and should issue a nonconformance report. The testing agency should be told in writing not to approve the affected placement; the CA should not instruct the inspector to ignore the condition.
2. What should the field report contain, and what should it not contain?
Read the worked answer
The field report should be factual and time-stamped: location, member, observed cover, specified cover, method of measurement, names of persons present, the shop drawing marked for reference only, the contractor's refusal, and the communications to the owner and architect. It should distinguish observation from instruction.
It should not state that the CA directed the contractor to stop, should not criticize means and methods beyond the nonconformance, and should not accept the foreman's interpretation of the drawings without the architect's review. Attach photographs and the relevant drawing excerpt if permitted by the contract; do not rely on memory. The report should also note that the concrete truck was on site and that the pour had not started at the time of observation.
3. If the pour proceeds, what follow-up and payment consequences should the CA anticipate?
Read the worked answer
If the pour proceeds, the CA should continue documenting and should not certify the affected work. After the pour, the nonconformance remains; the structural engineer must determine whether the cover deficiency affects durability or fire resistance and whether exposure, repair, or replacement is required.
The contractor bears the cost of correction if the work does not conform, subject to the contract's correction and warranty provisions. The owner should be advised of the potential schedule and cost consequences, and the CA should issue a formal nonconformance report and track it to closure. Payment for the affected slab should be withheld until the engineer accepts the disposition.
If the contractor claims the drawings were unclear, the architect should resolve the interpretation in writing through an RFI response or supplemental instruction, not through a field argument.