8.6 Maintenance vs. 8.11 Inspections

Here’s an important elevator history lesson for you. Flash back to 2014 when a change in Washington State elevator code interpretation briefly turned a niche industry, in a small corner of the Pacific Northwest, upside down! At the time, this code change was the topic of almost every elevator maintenance meeting that I was involved in at the time. It created all sorts of uncertainty for Washington State building owners and huge revenue potentials for the elevator companies. And then…it just went away. The code changes, that is. Not the new revenue for the elevator companies. To the best of my abilities, this is my personal recollection and why you may want to continue reading:

DEFINITIONS

First, we need to start with some definitions. As we have covered in previous posts, ASME A17.1 is the elevator code. There are two elevator maintenance sections that we will discuss in this post – 8.6 Maintenance and 8.11 Inspections.

• Section 8.6 – Elevator Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Testing. This section identifies the elevator maintenance and elevator testing requirements. After an elevator is installed, it must remain in compliance with Section 8.6. This is done by entering into an elevator maintenance agreement with an elevator company to ensure code compliance. The elevator company uses a Maintenance Control Program (MCP) to keep records of examinations, maintenance, cleaning, lubrication, adjustments, repairs and testing of/to the elevator.

• Section 8.11 – Elevator Periodic Inspections and Witnessing of Tests. This section covers the periodic (annual) inspections of the elevator. Since the beginning of time, these inspections were performed by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). In our case, that’s either the State of Washington Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) or the City of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI). Periodic (annual) inspections are completed and a list of code deficiencies (corrections), or items that do not comply with 8.6, is added to a report, often referred to as an Elevator Inspection or Code Report.

Although you might not know the code sections, but if you are responsible for an elevator, you probably understand the concepts, you hire an elevator maintenance company to perform 8.6 Maintenance and the State (L&I) or the City (SDCI) shows up once a year to perform 8.11 Inspections.

WHAT CHANGED?

In 2014, when the next version of elevator code was adopted (ASME A17.1-2010), the State of Washington decided that it was now the responsibility (through enforcement of the newly adopted code), of the elevator companies to also perform 8.11 Inspections, (in addition to 8.6 Maintenance that they were previously already performing). Remember, 8.11 has historically been performed by the AHJ. In addition to that, the State wanted all MCPs to address every line item in both 8.6 and 8.11. For example, if Section 8.6 had a requirement stating, “Required signs and data plates that are damaged or missing shall be repaired or replaced” (which it does – 8.6.1.6.7), then the MCP must have a check box for that specific maintenance task. In addition, the elevator maintenance company had to have a specific procedure on how to perform that specific maintenance task. Obviously checking a data plate is a simple task with this example. If the data plate hasn’t changed or been damaged, there is nothing more to do. Typically, other elevator maintenance tasks start with a visual inspection, and add cleaning / adjustments, if necessary based upon the elevator’s inherent design, environmental conditions, age and so forth. However, this new code enforcement required each elevator company to draft new MCPs and procedures, which needed to be reviewed and approved by the State of Washington. If the elevator mechanic did not follow the procedure, as written by the elevator maintenance company, he/she could not sign off on that task.

One could easily argue that the elevator maintenance companies should have already been completing the 8.6 Maintenance tasks if they had a maintenance agreement with 8.6 included. And that is a valid argument. On the other hand, 8.11 Inspections were new to the elevator companies and required significantly more resources to develop, implement and complete. Furthermore, it was possible additional elevator mechanics were needed to complete the maintenance inspections and office support staff were needed to administer and record results.

DOES THIS IMPACT YOU? HYPOTHETICAL ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY RESPONSE

While there were several legitimate elevator company costs associated with performing the new 8.11 Inspections, many elevator maintenance companies saw this as an opportunity to pump up their profits. Maintenance Contracts (aka Service Agreements) were reviewed and put into three general categories:

1. Find customers who already had 8.11 written into their contracts (rare) or “sensitive” customers who would not respond well to any changes to their agreements and may potentially cancel said contract.

2. Find customers whose contract terms were coming to an end (for example: within the next 6 months). Some elevator maintenance companies then used the upcoming term expiration as an opportunity to renegotiate a new, often five-year / long term renewal. Some maintenance prices were increased for some contracts to compensate for 8.11, while other contracts may have added 8.11 coverage in exchange for a long new term contract without or with minimal increase. Typically, the approaches depended on how much the customer was paying. If the monthly maintenance price had escalated enough year over year, an elevator company may have used it as an opportunity to extend the term with “no” increase.

3. This is the big category. Most maintenance customers received an Addendum to have their maintenance company add 8.11 to their contract coverage. In exchange, their maintenance cost was increased by $50, $75, $150, some were over $300 per elevator per month! In addition to this potential increase in customer costs, some contract or agreement addendums had a section buried in the fine print that automatically extended the existing term for an automatic roll-over long term. Again, typically it was another five-years and may not have been clear through discussions but only through careful contract review. Some elevator companies sold thousands of these addendums to their maintenance customers, adding potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to their monthly maintenance revenue.

Here are some examples:

An example of an “MCP Addendum” to add 8.11 Inspections for an increase in monthly price.

Some elevator maintenance companies by adding 8.11 Inspections to a new maintenance contract used "Special Considerations” or “Exclusions” - these contracts were likely increased and extended for five-years.

8.11 IMPLEMENTATION

Obviously, some elevator companies used that added potential revenue to add resources and implement systems to ensure that all their new contractual commitments were being met. Key word, some. RECORD SCRATCH…Nope. Shortly after some elevator companies increased all their customer’s monthly costs accordingly. However, the Chief Inspector of the State, Jack Day, who spear-headed the code change, left his position. After his departure, all the code changes, including 8.11 Inspections requirements for elevator maintenance companies just went away. As of today, MCPs do not even have a section for 8.11 Inspections, just 8.6 Maintenance and Testing. So where is your money going?

2024 MCP with no sign of 8.11 Inspections

Another MCP with no 8.11 Inspections to be found.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

If you signed a contractual addendum in 2014 or 2015 to perform 8.11 Inspections or if you signed a new elevator maintenance contract around the same period with 8.11 language included somewhere, you are probably paying for Inspections that you never received. That’s 120+ months of extra billing at $50, $75, $100+ per month per elevator. That adds up.

While I am not a lawyer and this is only my personal opinion from experience in the elevator industry, it might be worth taking a closer look at your contract history. Compare your contract to your MCP to see if you are receiving the Inspections that your company is contractually obligated to perform. Hint…if it’s not in the MCP, it likely didn’t happen. And don’t let “it’s not required by code” now… be an excuse. Because you’re paying for it if it has been in your contract over the past 10 years…again I’m not a lawyer, this is just my personal opinion and observation.

Confused? Contact Sean.