The Verbal Footing Approval and the Missing Record
On a Friday afternoon you inspect the footing excavation for a one-story residence. The forms are set and the rebar is in place, and you tell the superintendent, "This looks fine, you can pour." Your tablet's inspection application has been down since morning, so no result is entered. The footings are poured Saturday. Ten days later, survey information and the foundation contractor's own photographs show that one corner of the footing was over-excavated to roughly 30 inches deep and backfilled with loose soil before the pour; the approved plan shows a 12-inch footing bearing on undisturbed soil. The contractor tells the owner, "The inspector approved it, so it's on him." Your supervisor asks for your file.
1. What should the record of that footing inspection have contained, and what does its absence mean for the contractor's claim?
Read the worked answer
What a defensible record contains:
- Permit number, site address, date, and arrival/departure times.
- Inspector name and certification number.
- Exact scope: footing excavation, form dimensions, reinforcement size/spacing/cover, bearing soil condition, and the plan sheet and detail compared against.
- Observations and measurements with locations, not adjectives.
- Result - approved, approved with corrections, or denied - and the specific corrections required.
- Photographs, ideally with a scale, of each footing run.
- Who was present and what was said, if anything material.
- Weather and site conditions where they bear on the work (soil moisture, frost, standing water).
What the gap means: a verbal statement is not a permit action and is not a record. It does not amend the approved plans, and it cannot authorize a bearing condition the approved plans do not show - an inspector has no authority to accept unexcavated or backfilled bearing strata in place of the design. Without an entry, there is nothing establishing what you actually observed.
Practical consequence: you cannot defend the approval and should not try. The condition is unverified, and the burden shifts to the permit holder to demonstrate compliance through the design professional. Say that plainly in the file rather than arguing about who said what.
2. Draft the substance of the follow-up entry documenting the over-excavation. What should you deliberately not write?
Read the worked answer
Substance of the entry (factual, dated, neutral):
- Date of this visit and that it is a follow-up to the footing inspection of [date].
- That the footing was poured on the Saturday following that inspection, before any result was recorded.
- That the inspection application was unavailable on [date] and no written result was issued; state this once, factually, without excusing or dramatizing it.
- What is observable now: the over-excavated corner, its location, the depth (approximately 30 in.) as reported by survey and confirmed from the contractor's photographs, the loose backfill, and the plan requirement of a 12-inch footing on undisturbed soil.
- That the as-built condition differs from the approved plan and that the bearing capacity of the affected area has not been established.
- The action required: written evaluation and repair detail from the design professional of record, submitted to the building official, with any resulting inspection before backfill or slab.
- Reference to attached photographs and their file names.
Do not write: speculation about why the corner was over-excavated; opinion about the contractor's honesty; a reconstruction of what you "must have" seen on Friday; conclusions about bearing capacity you are not qualified to make; or a backdated entry. Do not write that the work was "approved" - it was not, in any record that exists.
3. Beyond this job, what should change in your practice when the inspection application fails?
Read the worked answer
Immediate fallback: a paper field-inspection form or a notebook entry written on site, timed, signed, and photographed, then transcribed into the system when it returns.
Mark the late entry honestly: when you enter the result after the outage, note the actual time of the inspection and that the entry was recorded later because the application was down. Never backdate to the inspection time and never enter a result for something you did not see.
Tell someone the same day: a quick message to the supervisor that the app is down and that inspections are being captured on paper protects the whole team and gets the outage fixed.
Do not issue approvals you cannot record: if the system is down and a pour is imminent, the safe course is to tell the superintendent that the footing is acceptable on the basis of what you observed but that the approval will be issued as a written record the same day or the next business morning, and that pouring before that record exists is at the contractor's risk. That converts a hallway conversation into a documented, time-stamped expectation.
Recognize the pattern: the disputed-inspection complaint almost always traces to a missing or vague record, not to a wrong technical call. The record is the product; the site visit is only the input.