I can't answer that but I need to ask why this is your problem? Did you agree to provide these in your contract? This harks back to that thread about whose responsible for insuring that the building can hold up the piping. Do we provide and install ceiling tiles because our heads penetrate them? Are we responsible to provide trusses because we hang from them? When I was contracting my contracts excluded, unless specified that they would be included, removing and installing ceiling tiles, painting pipe, being responsible for the strength of the structure vis-a-vis my piping, and about thirty other things that were not direcrtly related to the sysytem and that generals had tried at lerast once to get me to buy for them including providing access panels. I know this is a bit off topic but I'm tired of you guys being asked to pay for stuff beyond your sub-contracting speciality as well as being forced to be the bank in paid when paid contracts and holding company in paid if paid contracts. Somehow the owner and his button man, the architect, have shifted burden completely to the GC who has cleverly shifted it to the subs and suppliers. Something is very wrong in the building industry.
On 7/30/07, Fletcher, Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyone out there had any luck getting relief from a COE spec requiring > an access panel at every grooved coupling located in concealed locations > above hard lids or in walls? > > Ron Fletcher > Aero Automatic > Phoenix, AZ > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
