About Shortcuts
To the editor:
I am responding to the column, “Who Cuts the Corners?” (Onsite Installer, December 2009). As an installer for more than 25 years, I have seen many jobs where not only were corners cut but outright fraud was practiced by installers. I could list all the shortcuts taken, from shortened trenches, to missing rock depth, and many more, but I am sure everyone knows them and has run into the shoddy workmanship practiced by some unscrupulous individuals within our industry.
Yes, the homeowner is one party involved in the Cheap Charlie jobs. When bids on work come within a couple hundred dollars, there may not be much difference in the finished job if all things are balanced. But when jobs vary by $500 to $1,000, there has to be something missing.
Here, the first red flag should go up, but when price is the only consideration, and not long-term performance of the system, who is to blame if later the system fails? On all designs I do, I also include an estimated bid form listing all materials needed: risers, drop boxes, type of pipe, drainfield material used (chambers, rock, graveless tube, fabric, insulation on pipes) in the system.
I tell the homeowner to be sure to give the copy (one without price) to anyone else who they may have bid on the job, to be sure any other bids they get include those same items, and to compare the bids completely.
New rules that require the installer to follow the design can help, but then the final inspection needs to be checked against the design. Also, the designer’s plans need to be followed, and any changes must be reviewed and approved by the designer and the inspector. The reputation of the installer, and his willingness to own any changes made without authorization, needs to be questioned by the final inspector and the homeowner.
I have inspected systems at the time of sale where I wonder how they were ever approved. On comparing the system to the as-built drawing filed with the local unit of government, only some similarities were present. Systems where there should have been risers added to the tank were found to have none. Drainfield inspection wells that should have been present were not.
I have gone back to systems I designed and bid, but where I did not get the job, only to find many things changed: parts missing (risers, drop boxes, tanks size changed) or other modifications made. I have also seen where pumps have been downsized from high-capacity to just the standard unit, or pumps replaced with a big-box sump pump rather than effluent pump.
On talking to government inspectors on some of the problems, the standard answer seemed to be a shrug of the shoulders and a, “Well, when I inspected, it wasn’t finished, and I didn’t go back.” Here the blame can be put on the contractor as well as the inspector for short-changing the homeowner.
To be a solid industry where the public health comes first, we need cooperation beween the contractors and the inspectors — not as adversaries but working together to install a system that will meet the needs of the homeowner and the public for many years.
In addition, every system should consider the cost ratio. Systems should meet the demands placed on them, but also give performance at the lowest cost. Why price systems with items that are not needed just to increase income, when we will eventually run into the argument the “big pipe” municipal system is cheaper that an onsite system?
I have done site evaluations on property for prospective buyers where I have estimated the cost of system against certain locations. I have told individuals where to site the house to get a proper gravity system. I have also advised against a given lot because of cost of mound or other alternative system where poor soil conditions will not allow a low-priced system. I tell the prospective owner to take the extra thousands of dollars it will cost for a septic system and invest it in a different property.
Orin Koeckeritz
Afton, Minn.
