We enforce the codes so that they comply.
-
Welcome to The Building Code Forum
Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
Self-Certification Program??
- Thread starter Joker
- Start date
arwat23
SAWHORSE
I've seen many designers use plan check as a "get out of jail free" card to use to get a client to pay more, or as quality control. "The city is being unreasonable and strict and..." type of stuff, or maybe their fees were lower so they could get the job while underestimating (intentionally or not) the time and cost to get drawings up to snuff. I think if plan check was removed, or at least altered a bit, it could scare some designers after a few years. Those first few years would be brutal though / lawyers would love it.
I also blame Revit a bit. Everyone I know who started their careers with Revit or another BIM program are way too confident with the software. They take whatever numbers / data Revit spits out at fact and rarely checks them, at least in my experience.
Four people are dead because an inspector did not verify CO detectors. A great many jurisdictions are accepting a form signed by the property owner that smoke and CO alarms are installed per California Residential Code. Residents have no clue what the code requires. When they find out the price they refuse. I have been handed the form and then found that there were no alarms....I'll go out on a limb and guess that it happens 100% of the time..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 Denverwww.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
The point is that self-certification seems to be a lack of respect for the technology that saves lives.
bill1952
SAWHORSE
Amen!
(only a lot!)
Yikes
SAWHORSE
Revit can greatly increase efficiency.
If you a good architect, it can multiply the effectiveness of your good work.
If you are bad or lazy, it will spread your chaos at a much faster / more efficient rate. I can't tell you how many times a junior staff person has copied the wrong door type / fire rating over and over again.
This is a gruesome analogy, but I'm reminded of a few years ago when a little boy was out on a gun range with an automatic weapon. He was too small to hold it properly. The recoil made him fall after the first shot, and the subsequent spray of bullets killed his instructor behind him.
The weapon itself was very efficient, but it he hands of an unqualified user, it was efficient in the wrong direction.
Revit can be like that.
If you a good architect, it can multiply the effectiveness of your good work.
If you are bad or lazy, it will spread your chaos at a much faster / more efficient rate. I can't tell you how many times a junior staff person has copied the wrong door type / fire rating over and over again.
This is a gruesome analogy, but I'm reminded of a few years ago when a little boy was out on a gun range with an automatic weapon. He was too small to hold it properly. The recoil made him fall after the first shot, and the subsequent spray of bullets killed his instructor behind him.
The weapon itself was very efficient, but it he hands of an unqualified user, it was efficient in the wrong direction.
Revit can be like that.
steveray
SAWHORSE
Looks like that really only got dropped on statute of limitations so they will act faster next time.....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
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
Until they do....
Inspector Gift
SAWHORSE
Were CO detectors required at the time Peltonen did the inspection?
According to one news report, the inspection of the residence was conducted in 2005. What Code edition did they inspect under. Here in Oregon, we did not have a requirement for C/O Detectors until 2011.
According to one news report, the inspection of the residence was conducted in 2005. What Code edition did they inspect under. Here in Oregon, we did not have a requirement for C/O Detectors until 2011.
steveray
SAWHORSE
Whether manslaughter is in play or not the consequences are real...For instance, we just had a Town in the State settle a wrongful death suit for $375,000 for a child drowning in a pool that the department had not inspected or approved.....The property owner got hit for $2mil...There is a fine line between incompetence and negligence and I will keep hoping to stay on the right side of that one...... 
Sifu
SAWHORSE
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,391
My recollection on this case was that there was no code adopted which required CO detection or alarms (maybe no code at all?). I also believe that a law was enacted statewide, and deemed of statewide importance, that required them as a result of this case.
I don't think CO alarms came in to the IRC until 2009.
Sorta like that. It was a young girl. She did not fall. The recoil caused the gun to swing around and kill the instructor.
Yankee Chronicler
REGISTERED
IMHO it's an open question as to whether professional liability insurance even covers self-certification.
Those among us who are architects or engineers probably know that professional liability insurance coverage is not open-ended. The insurance companies insure A/Es for performing the sorts of tasks architects and engineers customarily perform, and to the "ordinary standard of care." The way design and construction are currently set up in the United States, a design professional's seal and signature is NOT a guarantee that the construction documents are correct, adequate, or fully in compliance with all code and regulatory requirements. ALL the seal and signature means is that the document bearing the seal and signature was prepared by the design professional, or under his/her direct supervision.
The role of the building department is the "checks and balances" role -- our job as code officials is to check the construction documents to verify that they comply with the code. From the 2021 IBC:
The building official, therefore, is the party/entity with the final responsibility for ensuring that construction documents comply with codes -- not the architects and engineers. Now, take the building department out of the mix and ask/require the design professionals to self-certify that their work fully complies with all code and regulatory requirements, and that's a level of responsibility they've never had before (except, for a time, in New York City). My guess is that self-certification, if insurable at all, will result in higher insurance premiums, which in turn will result in higher A/E fees. It will probably also mean that design professionals pay more attention to code compliance, which will mean longer times to complete working drawings and -- again -- higher fees.
Self-certification is not the panacea politicians want it to be. IMHO, it's a terrible idea.
Last edited:
It seems doubtful that the grand jury would indict the inspector if the only issue was a missing CO detector that was not required. The defective flue was a possibility also.
City of San Diego has a professional certification prog5ram for tenant improvements that works well. It is pretty limited to what qualifies, but it is simple and efficient.
www.sandiego.gov
Professional Certification for Office Tenant Improvements
This information bulletin explains the process for the Professional Certification program for office tenant improvement building permit projects.
www.sandiego.gov
steveray
SAWHORSE
Yankee Chronicler
REGISTERED
City of San Diego has a professional certification prog5ram for tenant improvements that works well. It is pretty limited to what qualifies, but it is simple and efficient.
Professional Certification for Office Tenant Improvements
This information bulletin explains the process for the Professional Certification program for office tenant improvement building permit projects.
Looking at the list of what elements CAN'T be included, what it boils down to is essentially allowing self-certification for work that in many states could be designed by interior designers or unlicensed building designers.
Yankee Chronicler
REGISTERED
You are correct.
steveray
SAWHORSE
Don't think I understand how this works?City of San Diego has a professional certification prog5ram for tenant improvements that works well. It is pretty limited to what qualifies, but it is simple and efficient.
Professional Certification for Office Tenant Improvements
This information bulletin explains the process for the Professional Certification program for office tenant improvement building permit projects.
Actually, the inspector performs a plan check. In LA County there is no engineer plan check for ADU or most solar. The inspector is supposed to perform the plan check in the field as he does the first inspection. And no I’m not kidding. The solar project is done before an inspector sees it. The ADU might be checked at the under slab plumbing inspection. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings but the majority of the inspectors are not up to it.
This is like we did it years ago. Most residential plans were three pages and were plan checked over the counter. Anything under 600 sqft only had a site plan and that site plan was just for the area of the addition. If a beam was required we got the largest piece of lumber that would fit. There was far less code to deal with so we got things built.
Inspector Gadget
REGISTERED
100 years ago, there were two kinds of builders:
1) people who built stuff and didn't know what they were doing. Those have long, long gone.
2) People who were highly capable.
These days, #2 is really rare. Hence the "Job security" thread.
Yankee Chronicler
REGISTERED
I grew up in and still live in New England. I'm surrounded by houses that were built before the American revolution. -- round it off to 250 years. These houses are still standing, and still being lived in.
The dreck being built today will be lucky to last 50 years.
The dreck being built today will be lucky to last 50 years.
Yikes
SAWHORSE
Assuming that is true, what changed that made highly capable people rare? Did the increasing scope of oversight of plan check inadvertently send a signal that capability wasn’t essential, because the city would be the one providing quality control in regards to public safety?
I’ve heard that the increasingly sophisticated suite of safety features of cars - air bags, crumple zones, antilock brakes, collision avoidance radar and adaptive cruise control, have only served to make the average driver more reckless, and give permission to be distracted. I wonder if externalizing the perceived* responsibility for plan check to the AHJ is a partial cause (not merely correlation) for increased carelessness by RDPs.
*Don’t get me wrong, I say “perceived” because of course I know the RDP bears responsibility for safe design, not the plan checker.
P.S. In really bureaucratic building departments such as LADBS, where you need initial plan check in order to generate the “clearance summary worksheet” for all the other departmental approvals, my clients often pressure me to turn in a bare-bones plan check set ASAP, just to get in the queue. They figure that a backcheck will be inevitable anyway, and we can clean up messes on the second pass. If the city switched to concurrent review, I suspect fewer developers would play this game.
steveray
SAWHORSE
We started devaluing physical labor and the people that do it.....
Yikes
SAWHORSE
I lament the lack of societal respect for physical labor. But are you saying that the non-physical labor of RDPs has become careless in order to accommodate the decline in construction quality from a physical labor force that had gone careless?
Or are you saying that devaluing physical labor eventually leads to an overall zeitgeist of laziness and shortcuts, and RDPs have been swept up into it along with everyone else?