Two Site Visits in Five Months

The facts show failures at three levels:

• Qualifier supervision: Priya is the qualifying party, but two visits in five months on a 60-unit project is not meaningful supervision. The qualifier must manage the work, not merely lend a name. Relying on an unlicensed lead installer's daily reports does not transfer the duty.
• Unlicensed direction: the lead installer directing helpers may be performing contractor-like supervision without a license. The company must ensure on-site work is overseen by the qualifier or a properly licensed or qualified person.
• Code and permit compliance: cable through fire-rated walls without firestopping violates fire-resistance requirements; a fire alarm panel powered from an unpermitted 120-volt circuit adds an electrical permit and scope problem. The contract promised code-compliant work.
• False documentation: the project manager signing Priya's name on inspection requests is falsification. Even if Priya did not sign, the company's records are unreliable, and the qualifier is responsible for the compliance system.

This is not a paperwork problem; it goes to the core licensing condition that the qualifier actually supervise the work.

Summit faces discipline for failure to supervise, incompetence or disregard of building codes, permit violations, and false inspection documentation. Available sanctions include administrative fines, suspension or revocation, probation, corrective work, and costs. Priya's 'I relied on the lead installer's reports' defense is weak: a qualifier may delegate tasks but not the responsibility to verify compliance. She should have a schedule of site visits, review permit inspections, spot-check firestopping, and confirm the electrical work was permitted.

The project manager's forgery is aggravated conduct; the company cannot blame him alone if its culture allowed him to sign for Priya. Mitigation could include self-reporting to the Board, immediate correction, hiring licensed electrical and firestopping contractors, re-inspection, discipline or termination of the responsible employees, and new supervision procedures. Cooperation may reduce penalties but does not erase the violations. Priya cannot avoid discipline by pointing to the unlicensed lead installer, because the lead installer's role is itself evidence that supervision was inadequate.

Summit should treat the withheld payment as a symptom, not the main problem. Before requesting release, it should:

• stop work on the affected systems until the defects are evaluated;
• notify the owner and general contractor in writing, with a correction plan and schedule;
• retain a licensed electrical contractor to permit and correct the 120-volt fire alarm circuit;
• retain qualified firestopping personnel to open, seal, and document each of the 18 penetrated fire-rated walls;
• arrange re-inspection by the local authority and, if required, the fire marshal;
• preserve the original inspection requests, daily reports, and personnel records, because destroying or altering them would worsen the discipline exposure;
• retrain or replace the lead installer and project manager, and assign a qualified on-site supervisor with a documented visit schedule;
• provide the owner with inspection reports, photographs, and a written warranty before seeking payment.

The owner may still withhold payment for incomplete or noncompliant work. Summit's best position is to fix first, document everything, and then negotiate. Asking for money before correction invites further discipline and a construction defect claim.