Self-Certification Program??

[ICE]

In San Bernardino county plans are not checked if stamped by an architect or engineer. Well that was some years ago and I don’t know if that’s changed. I knew an inspector that went to work there and couldn’t handle dealing with the messed up plans. He didn’t last an entire year. Last year I met an individual that said his last day as a solar company representative was that day. He had been hired as an inspector for SB County. He was clueless about anything electrical.

 

[ADAguy]

And their E & O Carriers will continue to insure them? "Duh" So no more inspectors too?
Is this a residual effect of the rise of the CM's?

 

[steveray]

Seems like you guys are seeing the issue from only one side. Have you ever thought the judicial system, lawyers, and lawsuits can serve to put those architects out of business (and often do)? If Architects play fast and loose, their license is on the line and it's not that easy to obtain one in the first place.

We welcome your perspective noob!....It's hard to give someone else's opinion. I think that we are just of the opinion that the code knowledge on the design side is not where we would like it to be to where we think it might be a good idea. And the complications that could or would arise during inspections would be vast and expensive. For example, I met with a contractor the other day (plans prepared by a RDP) with a commercial vehicle garage that was over 5000 ft with no sprinklers planned. If that permit got issued and was caught on inspection that building might never get finished because of that giant change order and who is footing that bill?

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Had a project of my own a few years ago and hired a certified architect to meet me at the job site. He was an older guy. He asked me what book I was holding, I said the IBC. He said "let me see it, I never saw one of those".
Architects are not required to take update classes here. We are going from the 2009 to the 2015 codes and the residential architects are clueless about the changes and it is not my job to teach them.

 

[mtlogcabin]

and it is not my job to teach them.

In my office it is our job to "teach" everyone the code. We do it very day through plan review and inspections. If the goal of the building department is to have safe code compliant buildings when you issue the CO then the entire building department staff needs to be part of the "team" that is designing and building the building. Sure it gets frustrating to see the same guys making the same mistakes 4, 5, maybe even 6 times before they start to do it correctly but once they do every building after that gets easier and easier to achieve compliance. I am fortunate to work in a small jurisdiction and therefore 80% of our projects are built by the same DP's and contractors.

We are not an "enforcement" arm of government, we are a "compliance" arm of government. Our goal as a department is to work with a DP and/or contractor to help and guide them into achieving compliance with the codes starting with the design through construction phase until the project is complete. The process is sometimes a long educational one and sometimes it is an easy review and inspections because all the parties involved in the project have been "taught" the code and what is expected.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I get paid to do plan reviews not to teach the code even if I had time. I could "teach" them something wrong by mistake. I only need to say "plans do not comply with section XXXXX". Then maybe they will buy a new code book and tech themselfs.

 

[JBI]

Until quite recently Architects and Engineers were not introduced to the 'Codes' in college/university. Some schools are now transitioning to either electives or curriculum requirements for Code specific courses.
Historically they studied the various Referenced Standards (like ASCE7).
They all know that exits must be provided, but the standards don't really discuss how many, how wide, or how far apart the exits must be.
That's what the Codes do, they fill in the blanks.
I see an increasing number of DP's taking Codes classes, and in my home state those courses are accepted as CEU's for the DP's.

 

[Sifu]

Briefly saw a news story following up on the Boeing Max 8 investigation last night, all I heard as I walked by was "in the past, airline manufacturers have largely been allowed to self-certify their airplanes"..............................

 

[SCBO1]

He was an older guy. He asked me what book I was holding, I said the IBC. He said "let me see it, I never saw one of those".

Rick, I hope you didn't shown him your Building Code Scrolls"

 

[Self-Certification]

I'm very involved in self-certification in Phoenix, AZ. Some surrounding jurisdictions allow it as well, many times basing their requirements on Phoenix's program guidelines.

Have well over 300 submittals since 2014, commercial & residential. It's pretty much eats up our time such that I don't take on much architectural work these days, if any.

- Family Dollar and similar retail (8,000sf+)
- Medical marijuana TIs
- Medical family practice TIs
- Fuel canopies & kiosks
- Bars/Restaurants TIs & new builds
- Residential (remodels and new construction, some over 10,000sf)
- Residential townhomes & duplexes
- Model homes (aka standard plans)

The program does require me to retain 3rd party reviewers certified by the City to handle structural and electrical over 400 amps.

Approximately 10%-15% of our projects are randomly audited by the City, by way of them performing an actual plan review on projects we've already reviewed and which are already permitted and/or are under construction. Except for our very first project back in 2014, no audits have come back with a "fail" status, though the City has caught a few items here and there that I missed.

I will say that the time savings factor is a huge plus for projects to start construction sooner than later.

As I'm sure most of you are aware there are cities around the country (Chicago, New York, Phoenix, etc.) that are allowing Architects to go through training and then certify that their plans are code compliant. Have you been involved with a municipality that has an initiative like this? If so please advise how you were involved with that municipality, and share your experiences.

 

[fatboy]

"It's pretty much eats up our time such that I don't take on much architectural work these days, if any."

So...........you don't actually do the design work.

When you are saying "self-certification", you are really talking about you are doing third-party, a pre-plan review? that gets the plan review expedited?

 

[Self-Certification]

"It's pretty much eats up our time such that I don't take on much architectural work these days, if any."

So...........you don't actually do the design work.

When you are saying "self-certification", you are really talking about you are doing third-party, a pre-plan review? that gets the plan review expedited?

I guess to put it another way, we are providing 3rd party plan review services. In this state, that would be similar to a Stantec or a Willdan that contract directly with the municipalities.

However, the self-certification program does not limit me to self-certify only work we prepare nor do we contract with the JHA. We review complete sets of drawings as prepared by other architects, engineers, etc. This year, out of the 40 or so projects we've self-certified, we have been the AOR only a handful of times.

Hope that answers your question.

 

[Yikes]

Just checking back on this one. City of Los Angeles Mayor Bass has directed Building and Safety to do a 15 day study on whether self-certification would help with the post-wildfire rebuild. Report was due yesterday, but I haven’t heard anything.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

In my office it is our job to "teach" everyone the code. We do it very day through plan review and inspections. If the goal of the building department is to have safe code compliant buildings when you issue the CO then the entire building department staff needs to be part of the "team" that is designing and building the building. Sure it gets frustrating to see the same guys making the same mistakes 4, 5, maybe even 6 times before they start to do it correctly but once they do every building after that gets easier and easier to achieve compliance. I am fortunate to work in a small jurisdiction and therefore 80% of our projects are built by the same DP's and contractors.

As an assistant building official/plan reviewer, my primary duty is to ensure safety -- which means doing my best to ensure that the construction documents adequately demonstrate that the finished construction (if completed in accordance with the approved construction documents) will comply with code requirements. Teaching has nothing to do with it. If design professionals and contractors learn from being corrected, that's a fringe benefit -- but teaching is not the goal or the duty.

As someone who also holds a license as an architect and who worked as an architect for many years, I feel that I also have somewhat of a duty to my profession to educate where and when possible, but it's certainly not a legal duty. My plan review letters are a bit more verbose than many I've seen from other departments. That's because I attempt to give the design professionals a bit of a nudge in the right direction. (Along with citing the applicable code sections for each item, so the design professional can look it up and possibly even learn.) Reality has shown me, however, that I'm wasting time and energy trying to be helpful, because the design professionals don't even read most of what I write. If I cite a dozen problems in a plan review, it's not at all unusual for the "revised" drawings to not even address half or more of the issues.

We are not an "enforcement" arm of government, we are a "compliance" arm of government. Our goal as a department is to work with a DP and/or contractor to help and guide them into achieving compliance with the codes starting with the design through construction phase until the project is complete. The process is sometimes a long educational one and sometimes it is an easy review and inspections because all the parties involved in the project have been "taught" the code and what is expected.

There is no meaningful distinction between "compliance" and "enforcement." Our state statute that creates the role of Building Official says the BO is the person who "enforces" the building code.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Just checking back on this one. City of Los Angeles Mayor Bass has directed Building and Safety to do a 15 day study on whether self-certification would help with the post-wildfire rebuild. Report was due yesterday, but I haven’t heard anything.

Self-certification was an unmitigated disaster when New York City tried it.

 

[ICE]

Given that plans have historically been submitted for review with a boatload of mistakes, it seems odd that the AHJ would throw caution to the wind and trust that self-certified plans are free of mistakes. If LA City adopts self-certification as a way to get the most work done in the shortest time frame for the burned area, they will set a precedent that will bleed into other areas. Inspectors will be the bad guys when they write corrections on already built mistakes.

 

[steveray]

To me it just comes down to who is responsible for everything that goes wrong in the future? Does the self-certifier go to jail for manslaughter when the electrical fire kills someone on something they overlooked? If so, I am good....

 

[BN4537]

To me it just comes down to who is responsible for everything that goes wrong in the future? Does the self-certifier go to jail for manslaughter when the electrical fire kills someone on something they overlooked? If so, I am good....

Not really good enough for me, I don't think that would be a deterrent to ignoring code provisions. If an RDP is comfortable just saying "It's fine, I've been an RDP for 20 years", I don't think they worry about potential jail time either. It's just human nature not to worry about something until it starts happening frequently enough to people that are like you to scare you into being careful.

 

[bill1952]

To me it just comes down to who is responsible for everything that goes wrong in the future? Does the self-certifier go to jail for manslaughter when the electrical fire kills someone on something they overlooked? If so, I am good....

Whose responsible if not self certified?

There are few code requirements for theatre systems and equipment, and I doubt there are many plan reviewers who have any idea what they are looking at when reviewing them. Not every project but I used to hire someone - a competitor - to review my and and specs - before the final issue. It made sense working solo. Besides inevitable for me spelling and grammar, we'd have interesting design discussions.

 

[steveray]

Whose responsible if not self certified?

Ultimately the courts will decide....But I can tell you that the municipality will be around long after an RDP or contractor and we have better insurance....

 

[bill1952]

Ultimately the courts will decide....But I can tell you that the municipality will be around long after an RDP or contractor and we have better insurance....

I think you get my point, whether building department or self certified, no building official gets manslaughter.

 

[Yikes]

My grandfather was a practicing architect 100 years ago. He designed many residential homes, all of them in an era when “plan check” for houses consisted solely of recording the size of the home for property tax assessment purposes. In other words, it was functionally self-certification.
Those homes are still standing and are considered very valuable (and historic).

I have to wonder what happened to the industry to get where we are today. And does an intensive plan check on SFRs actually foster a climate of laziness and lack of a sense of responsibility on the part of the designers? If the guardrails and oversight of plan check were removed, is the ethics (and increased litigation potential) enough to get the industry “scared straight”?

Or are modern SFRs so much more sophisticated in structural and MEP design that architects are simply not up to the task, as compared to 100 years ago?

 

[mtlogcabin]

There is no meaningful distinction between "compliance" and "enforcement."

COMPLIANCE, noun [See comply.]

1. The act of complying; a yielding, as to a request, wish, desire, demand or proposal; concession; submission.

2. A disposition to yield to others.

3. Obedience; followed by with; as compliance with a command, or precept.

4. Performance; execution; as a compliance with the conditions of a contract.

ENFO'RCEMENT, noun The act of enforcing; compulsion; force applied.

1. That which gives energy or effect; sanction. The penalties of law are enforcements.

2. Motive of conviction; urgent evidence.

3. Pressing exigence; that which urges or constrains.

4. In a general sense, any thing which compels or constrains; any thing which urges either the body or the mind.

5. A putting in execution; as the enforcement of law.

 

[mtlogcabin]

no building official gets manslaughter.

.And in September, attorneys for Pitkin County and the city of Aspen, as well as the International Code Council and the Colorado Municipal League, filed a brief arguing for dismissal of the case against Peltonen, on the basis that the county’s implementation of a building code is voluntary and shields the inspector from any civil or criminal liability.

Judge drops criminal cases in Aspen carbon monoxide fatalities

ASPEN - The criminal cases against a subcontractor and a former Aspen building inspector, both indicted by a grand jury for the carbon monoxide poisoning deaths of a Denver

www.aspentimes.com

Relatives sue over CO deaths at Aspen-area home

DENVER -The combined failures and negligence of contractors, property owners and Pitkin County building inspectors led to the carbon monoxide poisoning deaths of a Denver family of four at

www.aspentimes.com