• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Building Safety vs. Political Pressure: The Tightrope of Third-Party Inspection Agencies

jar546

jar546

Forum Coordinator
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
11,051
Location
Somewhere Too Hot & Humid
The increasing use of third-party agencies for building inspection and code enforcement services in municipalities presents a multifaceted ethical dilemma. While offering practical solutions, especially for smaller municipalities, this trend has sparked concerns about the integrity of building safety standards, susceptibility to political pressure, and compliance with state statutes.

Stability vs. Vulnerability: Municipal Employees and Third-Party Agencies​

Municipal employees enjoy certain protections under state statutes and collective bargaining agreements, shielding them from direct political pressure and allowing for consistency in enforcing building codes. In contrast, third-party agencies operate under a different set of pressures, with their contracts and livelihoods often hinging on maintaining favorable relationships with the municipalities they serve. This dependency can lead to conflicts of interest, where agencies might feel compelled to align with political interests, potentially leading to overlooked violations and compromised safety standards.

The “Shopping” Tendency of Less Ethical Municipalities​

A worrying trend is the behavior of some municipalities that actively seek third-party agencies more amenable to their directives, often sidelining strict adherence to safety and regulatory standards. This practice is akin to searching for agencies willing to be "led around by the nose" by elected officials, undermining the purpose of building codes and endangering public safety.

Fort Worth, Texas: A Case in Point​

In Fort Worth, Texas, the use of multiple private companies for building inspections was a strategy to address staffing challenges. However, this raised issues about potential conflicts of interest and inconsistent enforcement standards, illustrating the complex dynamics and ethical implications of outsourcing to third-party agencies.

Florida's Private Provider Model: A Unique Challenge​

The situation in Florida introduces another layer to this ethical quandary. Here, private providers are authorized to be hired by contractors for inspections and plan reviews, even when a municipality possesses a full and capable staff. This model, where the contractor is essentially the customer of the private inspection company, epitomizes the "fox watching the henhouse" scenario. The inherent conflict of interest in this arrangement raises significant concerns about the impartiality and rigor of the inspection process. The limited oversight in this program further exacerbates these issues, as it allows for a potentially lenient approach to compliance influenced by the contractor's preferences.

Recommendations for Ethical Governance​

  1. Strengthen Employee Protections and Training: Enhancing job security and training for municipal employees can help uphold impartiality in building code enforcement.
  2. Implement Stringent Ethical Guidelines: Developing comprehensive ethical policies for both municipal and third-party agencies can minimize risks of political and financial interference.
  3. Enforce Transparent Contractual Agreements: Contracts with third-party agencies should prioritize legal compliance and safety over political or financial considerations.
  4. Introduce Robust Oversight Mechanisms: Regular monitoring and audits of third-party agencies, including those in Florida's private provider model, are essential to ensure adherence to ethical standards and building codes.
  5. Public Awareness and Accountability: Encouraging public awareness about these practices and creating channels for accountability can deter unethical behavior.

Conclusion​

The reliance on third-party building inspection agencies by municipalities, while offering logistical benefits, introduces significant ethical challenges. This is further complicated by models like that in Florida, where contractors can choose their inspectors, creating a conflict of interest. Municipalities must adopt comprehensive ethical frameworks, transparent contractual arrangements, and stringent oversight mechanisms to ensure the integrity of the building inspection process and the safety of construction projects. Balancing efficiency, legal compliance, and ethical governance is crucial for maintaining public trust and ensuring the safety of built environments.
 
We use third-party inspectors for specialized projects and currently have two on one project. We meet with them almost everyday to review progress and discuss any issues with the project.
 
A 3rd party agency, contracted by the AHJ is one thing. A third party agency contracted by the applicant is another. But both models, as well as an AHJ employee model are subject to political pressure, unethical individuals, and lackadaisical policy. In all cases, there should be a continual process of peer review of the work being done. There often is not, but the Florida model may need a little extra scrutiny. Your conclusion statement hits it on the head.

Hands down, the most politically "motivated" agency I have worked for was as an AHJ employee. The least was as an AHJ contracted agency. That is just my tiny little piece of experience. However, I fully admit there can be serious questions about what motivates a contracted agency, I have asked them many times. It is an absolute tight-rope for a contracted agency.

There is a commonly held notion that an AHJ agency is not motivated by money. My experiences don't align with that notion, it just manifests in different ways.
 
Both sides, emolyees and 3rd parties are subject to political pressures. Some more then others depending upon the council or person(s) at power.

Florida and it’s opening up the jurisdictions to a qualified 3rd party, From what I understand a Fl AHJ has the power to “check up” on a 3rd parties inspection.
 
Keystone said:
Both sides, emolyees and 3rd parties are subject to political pressures. Some more then others depending upon the council or person(s) at power.

Florida and it’s opening up the jurisdictions to a qualified 3rd party, From what I understand a Fl AHJ has the power to “check up” on a 3rd parties inspection.
Click to expand...
When a municipality has its own building official and staff and using a third party agency to supplement, there is definite oversight regardless of the state you live in. When a third party performs all of the duties of the building department, they are under pressure to keep their contract. Municipal employees, other than those appointed have more protection although there can be some level of political pressure.
 
jar546 said:
When a municipality has its own building official and staff and using a third party agency to supplement, there is definite oversight regardless of the state you live in. When a third party performs all of the duties of the building department, they are under pressure to keep their contract. Municipal employees, other than those appointed have more protection although there can be some level of political pressure.
Click to expand...
what protections do Municipal employees have? Maybe in a large city but in a City of 10k there is a lot more political pressure present. I had the Mayor hand me a blank permit application and tell me to fill it out for him, had the city administrator tell me to find a way to say yes.
 
jar546 said:
When a third party performs all of the duties of the building department, they are under pressure to keep their contract.
Click to expand...
100% agree. I am fortunate that that pressure doesn't make it to me. In fact, when issues have arisen in the past I have been told that because the exposure and scrutiny is elevated I have no choice but to do the job as the code dictates. No more, no less. Most of the time the pressure I feel is self-imposed: the pressure to do my best, to be fair, to be realistic, and to keep the ball rolling. (The last one may garner some debate, but it would be a lie to say it doesn't exist.)
 
I was interviewed for an in-house inspector's job in Allentown PA about 7 years ago. The mayor was being charged for some kind of conspiracy at the time. The last question the interviewer asked me was would I pass inspections if the mayor told me too. I said no. They wanted to hire me, but I didn't take the job. I'm glad I didn't.
The rest is here:
www.justice.gov

Former Allentown Mayor Sentenced in Pay-to-Play Scheme

www.justice.gov www.justice.gov
 
I live in a community where the opposite occurs:
The in-house planners (and to a lesser extent, plan checkers) are under tremendous pressure from certain city councilpersons who have received donations from developers. At the same time, these communities cannot afford the long-term pension loads, so they look to 3rd party consultants to do the reviews. The third party plan check consulting firms are actually one step removed from the pressure of the councilpersons, and since these firms serve many communities, they developers can't always threaten to just take their development money elsewhere.

This experience generally occurs on medium size, low tax revenue projects for example a 100 unit apartment building.
When a major retailer or hotelier dangles sales tax or occupancy taxes in front of the city council, I can only imagine the political pressure.
 
After I retired from LA County I was hired by a 3rd party agency. The company has 1500 employees working in most of the country. My role was filling in for inspectors that were temporarily unavailable. I went to eight cities in SoCal. I was dismayed by the dismal performance of the inspectors. The company quit sending me.

It's not that I complained or voiced an opinion...no, not at all. I wrote a boat load of corrections and the AHJs are not used to that. Now that's not political pressure and apparently none is required. Why they do such a poor job of it escapes me.
 
Since when are third-party agencies considered special inspectors? Talk about thread drift. This is why it is difficult to maintain relevant content. People are directed here by google because of the title, then 3 comments in, we are talking about stuff that has nothing to do with the title. Start another damn title instead of drifting so far off course, we aren't even in the same ballfield.
 
If special inspectors aren't third party, what are they? They don't work for the AHJ, and they inspect. Ergo, they are third-party inspectors.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
If special inspectors aren't third party, what are they? They don't work for the AHJ, and they inspect. Ergo, they are third-party inspectors.
Click to expand...
Third-party agencies sign contracts with municipalities to provide full building code administrative services. In many cases, they assist where needed. They may provide a building official, plans examiners, inspectors, and permit techs, or they may only provide inspections. Third-party agencies rely on their signed contracts with municipal governments and walk a very thin line between doing what is right and following the statutes and keeping their contracts while under political pressure.

Special inspectors are typically employees of engineering firms that provide specific inspections for the owner of a property and perform welding inspections, concrete testing, geotechnical soil analysis, and other engineering-specific tests and inspections.

Then there is Florida, which has another group called private providers who work directly for contractors doing their plan review and inspections which I covered in an article I wrote here on TBCF.
 
Jar, please consider that your use of terminology (third-party) may be specific to your location or understanding.

Others are expressing that it is not consistent in their locations.

Third-party simply means "a person other than the principals".
 
jar546 said:
Special inspectors are typically employees of engineering firms that provide specific inspections for the owner of a property and perform welding inspections, concrete testing, geotechnical soil analysis, and other engineering-specific tests and inspections.
Click to expand...

Around here, virtually all concrete sampling; welding inspections; soils testing (during construction, not geotechnical investigations pre-design); masonry inspections; structural steel fabrication, erection, and bolting inspections; cold-formed metal framing inspections; and spray-applied fire-resistive materials inspections are all performed by technicians working for independent ("third-party") testing laboratories, not by employees of the the architect or the structural engineer of record.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Around here, virtually all concrete sampling; welding inspections; soils testing (during construction, not geotechnical investigations pre-design); masonry inspections; structural steel fabrication, erection, and bolting inspections; cold-formed metal framing inspections; and spray-applied fire-resistive materials inspections are all performed by technicians working for independent ("third-party") testing laboratories, not by employees of the the architect or the structural engineer of record.
Click to expand...
Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe 'third-party" can have more than one meaning and that meaning can slowly change over time because the ways of the industry are also changing?

States like Pennsylvania call authorized companies that are certified in building code administration, inspections, and plan review 'third-party' agencies and even have special rules and regulations for them.
www.dli.pa.gov

Home

www.dli.pa.gov www.dli.pa.gov

Florida follows suit with a clear separation between third-party inspection agencies and private providers. It is even baked into Florida's statutes with specific verbiage such as:
(a) Procedures and qualifications for approval of third-party plan review and inspection agencies and of those who perform inspections and plan reviews.

California has a program along with Kansas, Texas, Colorado, New Jersey, and Ohio, and the list continues. They all refer to these private building code inspection companies as third-party agencies in their state statutes. This is becoming the norm. Companies like Bureau Veritas work in all 50 states in the union providing building code and other services as a third-party agency.

But there's more. Many of these services are performed by architectural and engineering firms that create a separate entity specific to building code administration. Why not, right? Some are already performing special inspections as a 'third party' who works directly for building owners, but the new entities they create sign contracts with municipal governments to provide building code services as a third-party agency as outlined in state statutes.

So maybe 20 years ago, third-party inspectors worked for a company, often an engineering firm that provided special inspections; however, over the past two decades the growth of a new for-profit industry that became embedded in state statutes as 'third-party' agencies has changed the landscape and verbiage we use. Go to a commercial job site in almost any state and the site supervisor will know the difference between the municipal inspector, third-party inspector, and special inspector because they are all different in the eyes of today's landscape.

If these terms are not in the region or industry you work in today, they certainly will be in the very near future. We all have to change with the times in order to understand our industry and jobs just a little bit better. For now, third-party has two meanings on job sites, but soon, there will only be one. There is a difference between what we have traditionally called something and what state statutes officially recognize.

Speaking of changing with the times. How about some of these terms? Are some of them even relevant anymore?

Blueprints: Are they blue anymore? Who still uses this term? How long has it been since the original was even used?

Joist: It used to be any horizontal member, even a beam. The real term today has changed and is more specific.

Draftsman: Slowly changing to CAD Technician/Designer.

Lastly, it was brought to my attention that there was some confusion as to the use of the terms as I define them today. I clarified the context of the post so the thread could continue with the original subject in mind and yet here we are still debating what this thread was never intended to discuss. Even after clarifying the meaning of the post, we continue in another direction taking away from the actual discussion intended to improve the content of this forum. Thanks for that. Now I am going to take my cranky a@# to bed and hopefully wake up in a better mood tomorrow.
 
Jar, I think the issue is that you keep going back to your definition. Others have indicated that there is other applicable meanings of third-party.
jar546 said:
Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe 'third-party" can have more than one meaning and that meaning can slowly change over time because the ways of the industry are also changing?
Click to expand...
I think we all recognize this. Hence the discussion from those here that are elaborating and sharing the history and use of terms.
jar546 said:
If these terms are not in the region or industry you work in today, they certainly will be in the very near future.
Click to expand...
You seem to be trying to push down the other use of the term third-party and only favor the context with which you use it. It's great that you have a accepted meaning in your region, but your region does not set the norm for the whole nation or world. Perhaps it will catch on, maybe it wont.
jar546 said:
Speaking of changing with the times. How about some of these terms? Are some of them even relevant anymore?

Blueprints: Are they blue anymore? Who still uses this term? How long has it been since the original was even used?

Joist: It used to be any horizontal member, even a beam. The real term today has changed and is more specific.

Draftsman: Slowly changing to CAD Technician/Designer.
Click to expand...
And this isn't thread drift?
 
Over the years, I have worked alongside 3rd party contract inspectors from a half dozen companies. Several were top notch and plenty were wacko. I see a future with 3rd party inspectors taking over the realm. They are expendable with just a phone call. There is no pension, 401k, vacation and sick leave. The jurisdiction isn't responsible for education or DEI training... that last one is paramount. But the best part about using contractors is the hiring process... there isn't one and the bar is so low that it's in the dirt. If Charles Manson had been paroled with an ICC certification... the 3rd party outfits would have offered him a signing bonus.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top