Should Building Inspectors Have Hands-On Contractor Experience?

Should Building Inspectors Have Hands-On Contractor Experience?​

Building inspectors play a vital role in ensuring that construction projects comply with local building codes, safety regulations, and design standards. However, an ongoing debate in the construction industry centers on whether inspectors should have prior hands-on experience as contractors in fields such as framing, plumbing, electrical, or mechanical work. This question raises important points about inspectors' qualifications and their ability to balance technical knowledge with practical experience.

Inspectors with practical, hands-on experience in a construction trade can bring significant benefits to their role. For example, an inspector who has worked as a mechanical contractor might easily spot deficiencies in HVAC systems or identify faulty installation of plumbing components. Contractors often appreciate inspectors with field experience because they are seen as more relatable and practical, understanding both the challenges and shortcuts that may be taken during construction. This hands-on experience can make inspections smoother and less confrontational, as the inspector is seen as someone who "has been there" and understands the trade-offs contractors face.

On the other hand, inspectors are primarily tasked with enforcing building codes and ensuring safety, not solving construction problems. It is argued that a strong understanding of the codes—gained through education, certifications, and on-the-job training—can be just as valuable as years of hands-on trade experience. Many jurisdictions require that inspectors maintain continuing education in building codes to stay current, ensuring they can effectively enforce standards even without direct contractor experience. Additionally, some building inspectors come from non-trade backgrounds, such as architecture or engineering, yet still perform their jobs effectively through training and mentorship. These professionals argue that code knowledge, attention to detail, and critical thinking are the most essential skills for an inspector, rather than years of hands-on trade experience.

Contractors may sometimes feel frustrated if they believe their inspector lacks real-world construction experience, especially when disagreements arise over the interpretation of codes. Yet, inspectors are required to adhere strictly to building codes, and even experienced contractors must follow these guidelines, regardless of how unnecessary or impractical they may appear in some cases. Conversely, it’s worth noting that not all contractors have expertise in every trade, and specialized inspections often require a broader understanding of the entire construction process.

Ultimately, the key to effective building inspections might not solely depend on prior field experience but on a combination of code expertise, continuous education, and effective communication with contractors. Building inspectors, with or without trade experience, need to collaborate with contractors to ensure that both parties are working toward the common goal of creating safe, compliant buildings.

The real question is: How important is hands-on experience for building inspectors? Is it essential for inspectors to have worked in the field, or is a deep understanding of building codes enough to ensure compliance and safety? This is where the dialogue begins.

---

References:​

1. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Construction and Building Inspectors” https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/construction-and-building-inspectors.htm
2. Crest Real Estate, “The Role of Construction Building Inspectors and the Importance of Permit Expediting” https://www.crestrealestate.com/
3. HomeGauge, “Does Construction Experience Benefit Home Inspectors?” https://www.homegauge.com
4. CareerExplorer, “What Does a Building Inspector Do?” https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/building-inspector/
5. Acuity, “Tips on Working with Building Inspectors” https://www.acuity.com/

 

[tmurray]

While the engineers and architects should listen to the inspectors, the inspectors lack the perspective and training of the Architects and engineers. Without this perspective and training the inspectors are incapable of understanding the code.

So when architects and engineers become inspectors, they loose this training? Becoming an architect or an engineer is the only way to develop code training?

Your statement is so flawed it borders on ludicrous.

 

[jar546]

While the engineers and architects should listen to the inspectors, the inspectors lack the perspective and training of the Architects and engineers. Without this perspective and training the inspectors are incapable of understanding the code.

I'll take the bait since you are on another trolling expedition. Your comment comes off as pretty condescending. Inspectors don’t need to be engineers or architects to do their jobs effectively. They’re trained to interpret and apply the code practically, not theoretically. While architects and engineers design to the code, inspectors ensure it's followed in the field. Mutual respect between all roles is key here, not dismissing one over the other.

 

[TheCommish]

I disagree Mark.

Yes RDPs have training and yes they have perspective on the codes, however to make the statement "Without this perspective and training the inspectors are incapable of understanding the code." is a disservice to most building officials.

There are on both sides of the isle, many that do not have the proper training, knowledge, field experience or temperament to be to be a good BO. I think that being able to read, comprehend, analyze, follow the whole code which requires knowledge of the whole code path not just the one section, think critically and articulate the requirements of the code, including all the reference material at necessary to make a good BO.

In Massachusetts to become a BO you needs to have in accordance MGL c. 143. section 3
Each inspector of buildings or building commissioner shall have had at least five years of experience in the supervision of building construction or design or in the alternative a four year undergraduate degree in a field related to building construction or design or any combination of education and experience which would confer equivalent knowledge and ability, as determined by the board. In addition, such person shall have had a general knowledge of the quality and strength of building materials; a general knowledge of the accepted requirements for building construction, fire prevention, light, ventilation, safe exits and the requirements of section thirteen A of chapter twenty-two and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto pertaining to accessible design standards; and a general knowledge of other equipment and materials essential for safety, comfort, and convenience of the occupants of a building or structure.

Likewise Plumbing, Gas and electrical inspectors each have to a master license in their trades.

Having field experience can give credibility to the BO or other inspector, providing the field experience is not based on hack master construction, rather a study an understanding of the codes and good workmanship.

While many RDPs have code knowledge, I find more than a few draw nice pictures without practical experience to build a project. Many have lamented that RDPs should have 5 years experience building before their license is granted. For example we have drivers Ed for a motor vehicle license not just book learning and a test, the trades require an apprenticeship before they get a license. with may more credential professions requiring experience, training, with a requirements for both practical and written testing.

So I am going to cast my vote for yes inspectors should should have field experience, yes they and should subject to testing for code knowledge and required to have structured continuing education to keep up their credentials and no RDP don not make good inspectors.

Remember common sense is not to common these days.

 

[steveray]

While the engineers and architects should listen to the inspectors, the inspectors lack the perspective and training of the Architects and engineers. Without this perspective and training the inspectors are incapable of understanding the code.

That is the funniest thing I will hear all day....And now I need to clean the coffee off my monitor....

 

[ICE]

Having field experience can give credibility to the BO or other inspector, providing the field experience is not based on hack master construction, rather a study an understanding of the codes and good workmanship.

My field experience did not teach me about code compliance and I doubt that many you are any different. So what did I gain from field experience that I consider a benefit to an inspector?
1. I know the physical rigors of working in the outdoors. From 10° below to 110° above. Wind and rain. Hail and snow. Sand in everything and knee high mud.
2, The camaraderie of looking out for each other. That includes beers after work.
3. Being taught and teaching.
4. The experience of having used practically every tool that has been created. From that I know what can be accomplished and what is not possible.
5. Witnessing viable solutions to problems and the thought process that got us there.
6. The sense of accomplishment as we roll up and look at what we did that day.

Those six items, and there's more, are not available to those that have never worked in the trades. If you've never been there, a mailbox that appears in front of a tract house in the frame stage will not have meaning for you. No engineer is going to risk a bloody nose defending a coworker and nobody pulls off a practical joke better than a construction worker.

Something many inspectors do not recognize is the humanity. They think that they are there to judge the code compliance and nothing more. An inspector is also judging the workman for the work did not do itself. The work and the worker are equals in importance. Big ole tough, burly Brents' have feelings too.

If you lack the experience of being a construction worker you can't assume those six+ items within yourself. While that does not stop one from being an inspector, it makes a difference.

 

[Mark K]

Building inspectors base their opinions on the approved construction documents and the adopted building regulations. Building inspectors do not adopt the regulations.

 

[jar546]

Building inspectors base their opinions on the approved construction documents and the adopted building regulations. Building inspectors do not adopt the regulations.

Right, just like engineers and architects design buildings based on codes and standards they didn’t create either. They’re not adopting the regulations—they're working within them. Seems like everyone’s just doing their job within the system, wouldn’t you say?

 

[jar546]

Building inspectors base their opinions on the approved construction documents and the adopted building regulations. Building inspectors do not adopt the regulations.

Oh wait, If forgot Captain Obvious. The codes are actually developed by a mix of building officials, inspectors, plan reviewers, contractors, architects, and engineers who sit on committees and work together. So, while inspectors may not ‘adopt’ the regulations, they’re definitely involved in the process—right alongside engineers like yourself. It’s a team effort, even if some seem to forget that.

 

[Inspector Gift]

(This is in Appendix A of the code when I was hired first hired over 20 yrs ago.)

- EMPLOYEE QUALIFICATIONS -

A101.1 Building official. The building official shall have at
least 10 years’ experience or equivalent as an architect, engineer,
inspector, contractor or superintendent of construction,
or any combination of these, 5 years of which shall have been
supervisory experience. The building official should be certified
as a building official through a recognized certification
program. The building official shall be appointed or hired by
the applicable governing authority.

A101.2 Chief inspector. The building official can designate
supervisors to administer the provisions of this code and the
International Mechanical, Plumbing and Fuel Gas Codes.
Each supervisor shall have at least 10 years’ experience or
equivalent as an architect, engineer, inspector, contractor or
superintendent of construction, or any combination of these,
5 years of which shall have been in a supervisory capacity.
They shall be certified through a recognized certification program
for the appropriate trade.

A101.3 Inspector and plans examiner. The building official
shall appoint or hire such number of officers, inspectors,
assistants and other employees as shall be authorized by the
jurisdiction. A person shall not be appointed or hired as
inspector of construction or plans examiner who has not had
at least 5 years’ experience as a contractor, engineer, architect,
or as a superintendent, foreman or competent mechanic
in charge of construction. The inspector or plans examiner
shall be certified through a recognized certification program
for the appropriate trade.

 

[Mark K]

Oh wait, If forgot Captain Obvious. The codes are actually developed by a mix of building officials, inspectors, plan reviewers, contractors, architects, and engineers who sit on committees and work together. So, while inspectors may not ‘adopt’ the regulations, they’re definitely involved in the process—right alongside engineers like yourself. It’s a team effort, even if some seem to forget that.

I have participated in the adoption of building codes but have not heard of groups of building inspectors participating in the code adoption process. The loudest voices are those of engineers and architects. some of the reference standards, such as ASCE-7, are developed by engineers without involvement of inspectors or contractors.

The claims of what is claimed to be obvious is not supported by reality

 

[Mark K]

We need to appreciate the roles of the building official and the design professional in responsible charge. The building official considers the findings of the inspector. The design professional can have personal liability if the construction documents are not consistent with the code.

The inspector is not personally liable if he misses something

 

[tmurray]

Building inspectors base their opinions on the approved construction documents and the adopted building regulations. Building inspectors do not adopt the regulations.

They are adopted by politicians. Are you arguing that politicians know more about building regulations than inspectors?

 

[tmurray]

I have participated in the adoption of building codes but have not heard of groups of building inspectors participating in the code adoption process. The loudest voices are those of engineers and architects. some of the reference standards, such as ASCE-7, are developed by engineers without involvement of inspectors or contractors.

The claims of what is claimed to be obvious is not supported by reality

How do you know they weren't involved? Did the agency managing the adoption process directly state that, or is this your assumption?

Your are likely suffering from a logical fallacy called faulty generalization. You are claiming that building inspectors do not take part of the code adoption process because you have not personally seen it.

Unless you have been part of the team managing the adoption process, you would have no idea how consultations take place with the various stakeholder groups, other than what your stakeholder group experienced.

I have a Memorandum to Executive Council for code adoption headed to my cabinet shortly. Here is my consultation list. Very few were joint consultations.

New Brunswick Association of Fire Prevention Officers (NBAFPO)​

Plumbing Safety Advisory committee (PSAC) comprised of TIS inspectors, plumbing contractors, city inspectors and local unions​

Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of New Brunswick (APEGNB)​

Architects Association of New Brunswick (AANB)​

Association of Interior Designers New Brunswick (IDNB)​

New Brunswick Building Officials Association (NBBOA)​

Canadian Home Builders Association of New Brunswick (CHBA-NB)​

Ability New Brunswick​

Regional Service Commissions and Municipalities​

New Brunswick Coalition for Disabled Persons​

Canadian Nation Institute for the Blind​

Canadian Hard of Hearing Association​

Inclusion New Brunswick​

Agricultural Alliance of New Brunswick/National Farmers Union in New Brunswick​

Mechanical Contractor’s Association of Canada​

 

[Inspector Gadget]

I have participated in the adoption of building codes but have not heard of groups of building inspectors participating in the code adoption process. The loudest voices are those of engineers and architects. some of the reference standards, such as ASCE-7, are developed by engineers without involvement of inspectors or contractors.

Well, now you *have* heard of inspectors being part of the Code process.

 

[tmurray]

View attachment 14439

Well, now you *have* heard of inspectors being part of the Code process.

The actual breakdown for proper balance in the code development process (regulator = building inspector):

 

[Inspector Gift]

The 2024 IBC states:

"A person shall not be appointed or hired as
inspector of construction or plans examiner who has not had
at least 5 years’ experience as a contractor, engineer, architect,
or as a superintendent, foreman or competent mechanic
in charge of construction."

(2024 IBC, Appendix A, A103)

 

[Mark K]

What may be true in Canada is not necessarily true in the US

 

[tmurray]

What may be true in Canada is not necessarily true in the US

You did not reserve your claims to any specific country/jurisdiction.

 

[Mark K]

The 2024 IBC states:

"A person shall not be appointed or hired as
inspector of construction or plans examiner who has not had
at least 5 years’ experience as a contractor, engineer, architect,
or as a superintendent, foreman or competent mechanic
in charge of construction."

(2024 IBC, Appendix A, A103)

Appendix A is not mandatory unless adopted by the jurisdiction. In the context of California it has not been common for local jurisdictions to adopt appendix A

 

[Yikes]

That is the funniest thing I will hear all day....And now I need to clean the coffee off my monitor....

I think it is fair to say that building inspectors concentrate on the "what" of prescriptive design rules, and engineers and architects are (hopefully) taught the "why" of design intent. Each has its own strengths, and complement each other.

Early in my career, I had a home remodel job where a sloping roof rafters came down low over a new 3'x5' vestibule over a 36"x80" back door. Bottom of rafters 85" high. I used a single 4x4 header where you would normally have top plates. The inspector said no way, every framed wall must have top plates.
Prescriptively he was generally correct, in that top plates provide lateral rigidity and vertical load transfer onto the studs for most walls. But he couldn't envision the header serving the same function - - he didn't get the "why". It took an extra consultation with the BO to convince him it was acceptable.

But I wanted to prevail on technical merits, not on the 'who are you to question my expertise' approach. We need inspectors who are not intimidated to at least ask thoughtful questions.

Meanwhile, contractors and laborers - who have construction experience but not much code nor design training - are more likely to pick up intuitive common sense, a sort-of "street smarts". I've had called from them where they say "something doesn't feel right about the size of this beam", and they've intuitively picked up on an engineer's error.

 

[bill1952]

For me it would depend some on if a carpenter with 5 years experience was inspecting an IRC building or a 250,000 SF 10 story IBC building.

 

[jar546]

We need inspectors who are not intimidated to at least ask thoughtful questions.

Amen

 

[tbz]

I was at code hearings I believe in Cincinnati during the 2001 IRC supplement hearings.

I was talking during a break with a group in the room about how little I have found that Architects truly know anything about building codes and stated for all the education they go through how do they come out with such little knowledge on codes.

At that time I got a lecture from someone I still to this day have high respect for, I wont mention his name directly, but the firm he worked for represented the AIA for decades.

He explained in very simple terms they don't teach building code in school purposely to new architects.

My jaw dropped, he went on to tell me, if they did they would never be free to design if they are held to a restrictive box.

Thus, graduating with an architectural degree might be different now, I am not sure, but I was informed by highly respected architects that Architects make the worst inspectors by training.

Not my words - Their words....

 

[tmurray]

He explained in very simple terms they don't teach building code in school purposely to new architects.

Similar here. They don't teach architects codes at all. Engineers only see the structural part of the code in their coursework.