Why Building Departments Must Scrutinize Stamped Drawings

In my decades of experience in building departments across various municipalities, one issue continues to alarm me: the automatic approval of submitted drawings simply because they bear the stamp of an architect or engineer. This practice, often justified by excuses of limited resources or directives from higher-ups, is nothing short of pure laziness. It poses significant risks and is a disservice to the community we are sworn to protect.

Let's address the common excuses first. I frequently hear that some building departments, especially smaller ones, have to pick and choose which plans to review due to staffing constraints. Others claim they are directed to approve any drawings from Registered Design Professionals (RDPs) without question. Such practices are among the most dangerous in our field. It's crucial to remember that everyone, including architects and engineers, can make mistakes. Blindly trusting their submissions without verification is a recipe for disaster.

At the very least, building departments should require a copy of the calculations from the RDP. When a structure is not being built prescriptively according to the building code, it's entirely reasonable to demand the calculations for all engineered areas. Why is this necessary? Simply asking for these calculations provides legal documentation on how the building was designed. It ensures that the design has been carefully considered and verified.

As building officials or plans examiners, we have every right to require these calculations. If you encounter resistance, it's often because the RDP did not thoroughly perform their job. Should they question the purpose of submitting these calculations, explain that they are needed for official record-keeping or for review by your staff Professional Engineer (PE). If your department lacks a staff PE, these calculations can be reviewed by an engineering firm contracted by your municipality. By making this request, you signal to the RDP that your department is serious about building safety.

Over the years, I’ve seen numerous examples where this diligence has paid off. We frequently find errors in RDP submissions—errors that could have severe consequences if left unchecked. For instance, we've encountered incorrect dimensions for Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) or specifications for built-up girders that don't meet code requirements, even when interpolating code tables.

Our department uses a PE to review structural submissions due to our high wind zone. It's rare for him to approve drawings on the first pass. If a licensed structural PE finds issues with submissions from other engineers and architects 90% of the time, imagine what might be missed if drawings are automatically approved without such scrutiny.

I urge all plans examiners and building officials to reconsider the practice of auto-approving stamped drawings. At the very least, request the calculations if you lack the resources for a full PE review. For larger projects, peer reviews are warranted and can catch critical errors before they become costly or dangerous issues.

Let's prioritize building safety and integrity. Our communities depend on us to ensure that every structure meets the highest standards. Don't let the stamp of an RDP be a free pass. Make it a starting point for thorough and diligent review.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Illinois is not one of those. If you are a small town, its up for grabs if a code compliant structure will be built. You can hire anyone you want to be the Building Official, plan reviewer or inspector. Or simply just make them sign a form stating that the structure will meet code. I'm talking down state rural areas.

That wasn't the question. The questionwas whether state law requires that building permit (and inspection) fees remain with the building department, or if municipalities or counties are allowed to siphon off money from building permit fees to use as part of general fund income to finance activities unrelated to code enforcement.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Relevant story from my neck of the woods:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/engineer-building-plans-reviews-1.7253239

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Relevant story from my neck of the woods:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/engineer-building-plans-reviews-1.7253239

From the article:

Steele said in his experience as an engineer before becoming a professor, there are more chances for peer reviews to catch potential errors in plans at companies that have more than one engineer.

"Someone who's running their own company, they don't have employees. They're doing the design work, the analysis work by themselves, and are ultimately taking responsibility for that work," Steele said.

"They don't have a requirement for internal peer review because they have no internal peers to perform such a review. And what that means, generally speaking, is that the individual needs to be twice or three times as diligent."

I have worked with many engineering firms in my career (structural, mechanical, and electrical) and I can't think of a single one -- of any size, in any discipline -- that required a second licensed PE within the firm to perform a peer review of another engineer's design. It makes a nice sound bite to imply that larger firms with multiple licensed engineers have the resources to cross-check each other's work, but the reality is that time is money, so to do that they would have to increase their fees, which would mean losing projects to firms that don't perform in-house peer review.

 

[Mark K]

How can a building official who is not an registered architect or engineer understand or enforce the building code which was written to be used by architects and engineers?

 

[mtlogcabin]

Because it wasn't written by architects and engineers
Yes I have contracted with engineers to do peer reviews when I know it is beyond our ability in house.

 

[ICE]

How can a building official who is not an registered architect or engineer understand or enforce the building code which was written to be used by architects and engineers?

How can the anchor of the chain be a mere building inspector? Could it be that it's not as mysterious as some make it out to be?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

How can a building official who is not an registered architect or engineer understand or enforce the building code which was written to be used by architects and engineers?

Building codes are written to be used by architects, engineers, building officials, building inspectors, and building owners. Building codes are written to codify (express in writing) currently accepted minimum standards for safe and healthy buildings.

The codes set down the parameters, not the processes. Simple example: the IBC says the minimum live load for floors of offices is 50 pounds per square foot. That's pretty easy to understand. The code doesn't tell anyone how to achieve that -- that's a structural engineering problem. Once upon a time structural engineers did those calculations by hand. Then someone invented the slide rule, which simplified the process but the formulas remained the same. Somewhere along the way structural engineering changed the way the factors of safety are applied, but the formulas still remained basically the same -- shear is still shear, and bending moment is still bending moment.

I wonder if most younger engineers today have ever even seen a slide rule, let alone know how to use one. Most structural engineering today is done by computer. On a residential scale, for example, we can use the standard formulas to calculate the required shear and bending moment (and deflection) in a main carrying girder in a house. We can then look up LVLs and see what size LVL will sustain those loads. But designers don't do that. They go to software from Weyerhauser or Louisiana-Pacific or wherever, plug in a few numbers, and the software spits out a report that tells the designer what size LVL to use. Large buildings are designed the same way, using far more sophisticated software.

The role of the building official, building inspector, and plan reviewer is not to re-engineer the building. Licensed design professionals are licensed under the "police power of the state" for the sole purpose of ensuring professional competence. The most we can hope for is for the plan reviewer to verify that the raw parameters used by the engineer are the correct parameters, and to ask dumb questions. The required live load for offices, to use the above example, is 50 psf. BUT, the code also requires that special loads be accounted for. So, if I'm looking at a plan for a multi-story office building and the floor load is cited as 50 psf, the first question is "Did you provide for 80 psf in corridors?" If so, where is that reflected in the construction documents?

Then I look at the plans and I see that in one space of the fourth floor is an archival document vault with a fire-resistance rating of 3 hours and reinforced concrete walls and cap to protect against unauthorized entry. That's heavy, but the design of the floor under that space is the same as the floor for the rest of the story. I don't need to know how to design a floor to support a concentrated (or localized) load -- all I need to know is that there's an unusual loading condition. So I ask the engineer to verify that the exceptional load was properly accounted for. Maybe the rest of the floor slab is over-designed, which is a good thing. Maybe the floor under the vault wasn't properly designed (maybe the architect and owner neglected to tell the engineer there would be a vault on the fourth floor), so the engineer has to go back to the drawing board.

Our job as plan reviewers is not to redesign, it's to verify. At some point, we (and the process, and the public) have to rely on the state (or province, or national) licensing boards to ensure that the people holding design professional licenses are competent.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

How can a building official who is not an registered architect or engineer understand or enforce the building code which was written to be used by architects and engineers?

The question that's better asked is how can engineers or architects not understand code which was written to be used by engineers and architects?

 

[tmurray]

The question that's better asked is how can engineers or architects not understand code which was written to be used by engineers and architects?

And apply it so poorly that we lowly building officials can see the errors.

Is this a systematic failure in the training, certification, and ongoing education for all registered design professionals?

It certainly seems so where we see the same issues in both US and Canada.

 

[Sifu]

Is this a systematic failure in the training, certification, and ongoing education for all registered design professionals?

Work ethic, ambition, commitment, pride, energy, professional responsibility.....

Not all, but more than it should be.

 

[tmurray]

Work ethic, ambition, commitment, pride, energy, professional responsibility.....

Not all, but more than it should be.

I meant all is in engineers, architects, and interior designers, not each person in the profession. My original post would have benefited from increased clarity in that regard.

 

[rktect 1]

That wasn't the question. The questionwas whether state law requires that building permit (and inspection) fees remain with the building department, or if municipalities or counties are allowed to siphon off money from building permit fees to use as part of general fund income to finance activities unrelated to code enforcement.

Well, our municipalities do actually siphon off permit fees and spend wherever they feel like spending it. Yes, they go to the general fund specifically for that. It started when the AICP planners started taking over/merging their departments with building departments. They are no longer Building departments. I have a division of building safety under the umbrella department called Community Development Department. Its not a good system but since the state does not control it and most of our municipalities are home rule, they can pretty much do whatever they want. And when the economy tanks, even though we have permit fees still coming in, the first people to be let go are from building departments. So.......... fun, yes?

 

[Mark K]

Building codes are written to be used by architects, engineers, building officials, building inspectors, and building owners. Building codes are written to codify (express in writing) currently accepted minimum standards for safe and healthy buildings.

The codes set down the parameters, not the processes. Simple example: the IBC says the minimum live load for floors of offices is 50 pounds per square foot. That's pretty easy to understand. The code doesn't tell anyone how to achieve that -- that's a structural engineering problem. Once upon a time structural engineers did those calculations by hand. Then someone invented the slide rule, which simplified the process but the formulas remained the same. Somewhere along the way structural engineering changed the way the factors of safety are applied, but the formulas still remained basically the same -- shear is still shear, and bending moment is still bending moment.

I wonder if most younger engineers today have ever even seen a slide rule, let alone know how to use one. Most structural engineering today is done by computer. On a residential scale, for example, we can use the standard formulas to calculate the required shear and bending moment (and deflection) in a main carrying girder in a house. We can then look up LVLs and see what size LVL will sustain those loads. But designers don't do that. They go to software from Weyerhauser or Louisiana-Pacific or wherever, plug in a few numbers, and the software spits out a report that tells the designer what size LVL to use. Large buildings are designed the same way, using far more sophisticated software.

The role of the building official, building inspector, and plan reviewer is not to re-engineer the building. Licensed design professionals are licensed under the "police power of the state" for the sole purpose of ensuring professional competence. The most we can hope for is for the plan reviewer to verify that the raw parameters used by the engineer are the correct parameters, and to ask dumb questions. The required live load for offices, to use the above example, is 50 psf. BUT, the code also requires that special loads be accounted for. So, if I'm looking at a plan for a multi-story office building and the floor load is cited as 50 psf, the first question is "Did you provide for 80 psf in corridors?" If so, where is that reflected in the construction documents?

Then I look at the plans and I see that in one space of the fourth floor is an archival document vault with a fire-resistance rating of 3 hours and reinforced concrete walls and cap to protect against unauthorized entry. That's heavy, but the design of the floor under that space is the same as the floor for the rest of the story. I don't need to know how to design a floor to support a concentrated (or localized) load -- all I need to know is that there's an unusual loading condition. So I ask the engineer to verify that the exceptional load was properly accounted for. Maybe the rest of the floor slab is over-designed, which is a good thing. Maybe the floor under the vault wasn't properly designed (maybe the architect and owner neglected to tell the engineer there would be a vault on the fourth floor), so the engineer has to go back to the drawing board.

Our job as plan reviewers is not to redesign, it's to verify. At some point, we (and the process, and the public) have to rely on the state (or province, or national) licensing boards to ensure that the people holding design professional licenses are competent.

So if the construction documents say the live load is 80 Psf but the members were not designed for those loads it is ok?

Licensed engineers can make mistakes but you assume they do not. So why do we require plan checkers to check the CD's? Plan checkers are not licensed by the state.

ASCE-7, which is a part of the building code, is written by engineers. Is it assumed that engineering is so simple that anybody can understand engineering documents?

So if the building official does not understand engineering but hires an engineer to review application the reviewer becomes the defacto Building official??

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

So if the construction documents say the live load is 80 Psf but the members were not designed for those loads it is ok?

Of course not.

Licensed engineers can make mistakes but you assume they do not. So why do we require plan checkers to check the CD's? Plan checkers are not licensed by the state.

I never said or implied that engineers don't make mistakes, and I certainly don't assume that to be the case.

In my state, plan checkers ARE licensed -- either as plan reviewers, assistant building officials, or building officials. Plan checkers are not licensed (at least, are not required to be licensed) as architects or engineers. Plan review is not and never has been intended to be a complete peer review if the technical aspects of the design. It's basically a checklist to attempt to verify that the designers at least used the correct parameters in performing their design.

Chapter 16 is included in the ICC plan review form for the IBC. That's the summary of the level of detail a plan reviewer is expected to look at. Nowhere does the ICC plan review form call for the plan reviewer to check the structural engineer's calculations.

ASCE-7, which is a part of the building code, is written by engineers. Is it assumed that engineering is so simple that anybody can understand engineering documents?

ASCE-7 is "part of" the building code as a reference standard. It is not the code. ASCE-7 has the same relationship to the building code as NFPA 13, the NFPA standard for automatic sprinkler systems. But building officials are not required or expected to do a deep dive into the hydraulic calculations for a sprinkler systems.

At some point, we have to assume -- absent red flags -- that a licensed structural engineer has the minimum level of competence to design a safe building. Assessing the engineer's competence is the purview of whatever state agency licenses design professionals in your state. It is not the purview of the building officials.

So if the building official does not understand engineering but hires an engineer to review application the reviewer becomes the defacto Building official??

No, the reviewer IS (not "becomes") a consultant to the building department. The building official is still the AHJ.

We also have to recognize that responsible professionals can disagree. Example: early in my career I was the drafter for an 80,000 square foot factory building. Our [outside] structural engineer called for a series of 'X' braces in the roof structure. The client objected to the cost. They said they had just built essentially the same building in another state, farther north with a greater snow load, and the metal roof deck welded to the structure provided all the lateral bracing required. My boss brought in another structural engineer we worked with for a second opinion. That engineer concurred with the owner. The first engineer thereupon admitted that, yes, using the roof deck satisfied the code but he was "more comfortable" adding the additional bracing.

The owner laid down the law: give us what the code requires and no more, or you're fired and we'll bring in another engineer. The original engineer deleted the added bracing.

Engineers can disagree. Suppose we hire (as a consultant) a structural engineer to do a peer review of a project. He says there are issues. We submit his report to the engineer-of-record, who reviews his calculations and says "He's wrong. I stand by my design." Now what? The building official is still the AHJ, and now he has to make a determination as to which engineer's opinion to accept. Whaddaya do -- hire a THIRD engineer to provide yet another opinion, and decide on the basis of majority rule?

At some point, that becomes an unworkable process. Yes, engineer's make mistakes, but it is not the responsibility of a building official or a plan reviewer to completely replicate the structural design process as part of the plan review. All we can do -- and all we are required to do -- is perform a spot check that attempts to identify obvious errors. Beyond that, policing the engineers is the responsibility of the licensing boards.

 

[Mark K]

Of course not.



I never said or implied that engineers don't make mistakes, and I certainly don't assume that to be the case.

In my state, plan checkers ARE licensed -- either as plan reviewers, assistant building officials, or building officials. Plan checkers are not licensed (at least, are not required to be licensed) as architects or engineers. Plan review is not and never has been intended to be a complete peer review if the technical aspects of the design. It's basically a checklist to attempt to verify that the designers at least used the correct parameters in performing their design.

Chapter 16 is included in the ICC plan review form for the IBC. That's the summary of the level of detail a plan reviewer is expected to look at. Nowhere does the ICC plan review form call for the plan reviewer to check the structural engineer's calculations.



ASCE-7 is "part of" the building code as a reference standard. It is not the code. ASCE-7 has the same relationship to the building code as NFPA 13, the NFPA standard for automatic sprinkler systems. But building officials are not required or expected to do a deep dive into the hydraulic calculations for a sprinkler systems.

At some point, we have to assume -- absent red flags -- that a licensed structural engineer has the minimum level of competence to design a safe building. Assessing the engineer's competence is the purview of whatever state agency licenses design professionals in your state. It is not the purview of the building officials.



No, the reviewer IS (not "becomes") a consultant to the building department. The building official is still the AHJ.

We also have to recognize that responsible professionals can disagree. Example: early in my career I was the drafter for an 80,000 square foot factory building. Our [outside] structural engineer called for a series of 'X' braces in the roof structure. The client objected to the cost. They said they had just built essentially the same building in another state, farther north with a greater snow load, and the metal roof deck welded to the structure provided all the lateral bracing required. My boss brought in another structural engineer we worked with for a second opinion. That engineer concurred with the owner. The first engineer thereupon admitted that, yes, using the roof deck satisfied the code but he was "more comfortable" adding the additional bracing.

The owner laid down the law: give us what the code requires and no more, or you're fired and we'll bring in another engineer. The original engineer deleted the added bracing.

Engineers can disagree. Suppose we hire (as a consultant) a structural engineer to do a peer review of a project. He says there are issues. We submit his report to the engineer-of-record, who reviews his calculations and says "He's wrong. I stand by my design." Now what? The building official is still the AHJ, and now he has to make a determination as to which engineer's opinion to accept. Whaddaya do -- hire a THIRD engineer to provide yet another opinion, and decide on the basis of majority rule?

At some point, that becomes an unworkable process. Yes, engineer's make mistakes, but it is not the responsibility of a building official or a plan reviewer to completely replicate the structural design process as part of the plan review. All we can do -- and all we are required to do -- is perform a spot check that attempts to identify obvious errors. Beyond that, policing the engineers is the responsibility of the licensing boards.

The reason for plan checking is to verify if the design complies with the code including reference standards. This is not the same as designing the building

Licensing boards assess whether the design professionals have minimal skills while the building departments deal with specific buildings for the purpose of protecting the public.

 

[tmurray]

The reason for plan checking is to verify if the design complies with the code including reference standards. This is not the same as designing the building

Licensing boards assess whether the design professionals have minimal skills while the building departments deal with specific buildings for the purpose of protecting the public.

Your focus is on structural engineering. What about electrical engineering? Mechanical engineering? Fire protection engineering? Geotechnical engineering?

Do building departments need to hire one of each engineering disciplines?

 

[rktect 1]

How can the anchor of the chain be a mere building inspector? Could it be that it's not as mysterious as some make it out to be?

For some, its still a mystery. Even with code commentary I have seen some "special" inspectors working out there.

 

[steveray]

And what this means is that whatever portion of the building permit fees DON'T go to the building department become an inequitable tax, from which all residents of the jurisdiction benefit but only those who take out permits pay. That's inequitable and, in the U.S., probably unconstitutional.

BTW...Madison got sued by the builders and it got granted class action status for unfair trade practices as we are a monopoly and all....I'll send you the summary if you remind me...We just need more builders to step up....

https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Builders-file-suit-against-Madison-11650906.php

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

BTW...Madison got sued by the builders and it got granted class action status for unfair trade practices as we are a monopoly and all....I'll send you the summary if you remind me...We just need more builders to step up....

https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Builders-file-suit-against-Madison-11650906.php

I remember that case. That's the town that was also sued because the building official assigned clerks and other unlicensed personnel to do plan reviews and inspections.

I wonder if it's coincidental that Westbrook was mentioned. Around that time, the Westbrook first selectman was approving building permits and issuing certificates of occupancy, even though he was not licensed as a building official or assistant building official. Much hilarity ensued when building owners learned that their building permits and certificates of occupancy were illegal and invalid.

 

[Sifu]

I wonder if it's coincidental that Westbrook was mentioned. Around that time, the Westbrook first selectman was approving building permits and issuing certificates of occupancy, even though he was not licensed as a building official or assistant building official. Much hilarity ensued when building owners learned that their building permits and certificates of occupancy were illegal and invalid.

Sadly, I think this type of thing is very common.

 

[Mark K]

I remember that case. That's the town that was also sued because the building official assigned clerks and other unlicensed personnel to do plan reviews and inspections.

I wonder if it's coincidental that Westbrook was mentioned. Around that time, the Westbrook first selectman was approving building permits and issuing certificates of occupancy, even though he was not licensed as a building official or assistant building official. Much hilarity ensued when building owners learned that their building permits and certificates of occupancy were illegal and invalid.

In the states I am aware of the state does not license building officials and inspectors.

 

[Mark K]

And apply it so poorly that we lowly building officials can see the errors.

Is this a systematic failure in the training, certification, and ongoing education for all registered design professionals?

It certainly seems so where we see the same issues in both US and Canada.

Do we sometimes give inspectors authority over things they lack knowledge of?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

In the states I am aware of the state does not license building officials and inspectors.

I know of some.

Connecticut calls it "licensed."

Massachusetts and Minnesota call it "certified," but it's effectively the same thing as a license. If you don't get certified and keep it current, you can't be a building official in Massachusetts or Minnesota.

New York State certifies building safety inspectors and code enforcement officials.

Washington (state) has an accreditation, but I haven't figured out if it's mandatory or optional.

I expect there are more.

 

[tmurray]

Do we sometimes give inspectors authority over things they lack knowledge of?

My former boss who is a professional engineer was asked about this and his response was, if the engineer cannot explain it in a way that my building inspectors can understand them, then the engineer does not know enough to be claiming it meets code in the first place.