Catching Plan Review Errors in the Field: Challenges for Inspectors

[jar546]

The plight of building inspectors—whether they specialize in building, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, or any other discipline—is a pressing issue in many municipalities. These professionals are often overbooked, with tight schedules that leave little time to thoroughly inspect each job site. This is why a thorough and accurate plan review is absolutely crucial. When a permit is issued, the information on the architectural and engineering drawings needs to be correct and helpful to the inspector in the field.

A building department consists of many parts, but the two key players in this scenario are the field inspectors and the plans examiners. Field inspectors are out on job sites every single day, ensuring that construction work complies with the relevant codes and regulations. Plans examiners, on the other hand, remain in the office, meticulously reviewing and approving permit documents before any work begins. This division of labor is essential, but it also creates potential friction points.

Often, inspectors encounter problems on-site that stem from issues in the drawings that should have been caught during the plan review. When these errors or omissions are discovered, the inspector is placed in a difficult position. They must ensure that the work meets minimum code standards, regardless of what the approved plans indicate. This situation can lead to significant internal issues within the building department.

For instance, if a plan reviewer misses a critical error or approves a drawing that doesn't meet code requirements, it can lead to conflicts between inspectors and contractors. Contractors typically rely on the approved plans and may be understandably frustrated when they are told that changes are needed. This not only delays the project but also increases costs and creates tension on the job site.

Moreover, this internal discord can erode the working relationship between plans examiners and field inspectors. The inspectors may feel unsupported, believing that their colleagues are not providing the necessary foundation for them to do their jobs effectively. This sense of frustration can lead to decreased morale and productivity within the department.

The ripple effects of these issues extend beyond the building department. Contractors and property owners may lose faith in the permitting process, viewing it as inconsistent or unreliable. This can diminish trust in the building department and, by extension, the municipality as a whole.

In smaller municipalities, these challenges can be even more pronounced when the plans examiner also performs inspections. This dual role, while seemingly efficient, introduces a conflict of interest that can undermine the integrity of the building department’s operations. When a plans examiner is also responsible for on-site inspections, the potential for bias and self-protection increases. If an error is made during the plan review process, the examiner-inspector might be tempted to overlook this mistake in the field to avoid admitting fault. This scenario can lead to substandard work being approved and significant code violations being missed, ultimately compromising the safety and quality of the construction.

The dual role of plans examiner and inspector not only creates a conflict of interest but also places an overwhelming burden on the individual. Balancing the detailed, meticulous work of plan review with the physically demanding and time-sensitive nature of field inspections is challenging. The likelihood of errors increases as the individual struggles to manage these competing responsibilities.

Furthermore, this setup can diminish trust among contractors and property owners. When they know that the same person who approved their plans will also inspect their work, they may suspect that any oversights or leniencies are intentional. This skepticism can erode confidence in the building department’s objectivity and fairness.

To mitigate these issues, small municipalities should strive to separate the roles of plans examiner and inspector whenever possible. Even with limited resources, creative solutions can be implemented. For instance, regional cooperation can allow smaller towns to share specialized personnel, ensuring that plan reviews and inspections are conducted independently. Additionally, remote or third-party plan reviews can provide an extra layer of scrutiny, reducing the potential for bias.

Training and professional development are also crucial. Ensuring that all building department staff are well-versed in the latest codes and best practices can help minimize errors during both plan reviews and inspections. Regular audits and peer reviews can further enhance accountability, providing checks and balances that help maintain high standards.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

To mitigate these issues, small municipalities should strive to separate the roles of plans examiner and inspector whenever possible. Even with limited resources, creative solutions can be implemented. For instance, regional cooperation can allow smaller towns to share specialized personnel, ensuring that plan reviews and inspections are conducted independently. Additionally, remote or third-party plan reviews can provide an extra layer of scrutiny, reducing the potential for bias.

I find this the opposite for me. I find more things missing when I don't do the plan review myself.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

In general, I agree. (How can I not? My role in my department is primarily the commercial plan reviewer, although I am licensed as a Building Official and I can legally inspect any aspect of any project.) However, a couple of statements give pause:

For instance, if a plan reviewer misses a critical error or approves a drawing that doesn't meet code requirements, it can lead to conflicts between inspectors and contractors. Contractors typically rely on the approved plans and may be understandably frustrated when they are told that changes are needed. This not only delays the project but also increases costs and creates tension on the job site.

I do my best to avoid such intra-departmental discord by consulting with the field inspectors on things I think may potentially become land mines in the field, and especially when I see something that looks like it meets code but where execution in the field will have to be exactly as drawn to do so. That said, I find the statement that "Contractors typically rely on the approved plans" to be a genuine knee-slapper. It's rare for the contractor to even have a set of unapproved plans on site (even though we remind them at multiple stages of the permitting process that this is a requirement) and, if they do, it's rare for them to look at them for anything other than the horizontal dimensions for laying out the walls and partitions.

I also disagree with your conclusion here:

In smaller municipalities, these challenges can be even more pronounced when the plans examiner also performs inspections. This dual role, while seemingly efficient, introduces a conflict of interest that can undermine the integrity of the building department’s operations. When a plans examiner is also responsible for on-site inspections, the potential for bias and self-protection increases. If an error is made during the plan review process, the examiner-inspector might be tempted to overlook this mistake in the field to avoid admitting fault. This scenario can lead to substandard work being approved and significant code violations being missed, ultimately compromising the safety and quality of the construction.

. . .

To mitigate these issues, small municipalities should strive to separate the roles of plans examiner and inspector whenever possible. Even with limited resources, creative solutions can be implemented. For instance, regional cooperation can allow smaller towns to share specialized personnel, ensuring that plan reviews and inspections are conducted independently. Additionally, remote or third-party plan reviews can provide an extra layer of scrutiny, reducing the potential for bias.

I have done plan reviews on a third-party basis. I do not regard it as an adequate substitute for in-house plan reviewers. I know from my own, first-hand experience that price is the primary criterion for selection of third-party plan reviewers. I have turned down more than one plan review because the municipality wasn't willing to pay what I was asking -- and my proposal was significantly less than what the ICC would have charged for a non-structural plan review. I have also had municipalities ask me to work directly for the contractor rather than for the municipality, which I consider to be a HUGE conflict of interest. Rather than get caught up in that, I have declined involvement in such projects.

There have been comments in other threads on this site from people who work for third-party agencies to the effect that their agencies may not encourage doing a thorough job because doing the job too well (i.e. well enough) results in complaints from contractors, which equates to not being hired for future projects.

I regard third-party plan review and third-party inspection as anathema.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

The dual role of plans examiner and inspector not only creates a conflict of interest but also places an overwhelming burden on the individual. Balancing the detailed, meticulous work of plan review with the physically demanding and time-sensitive nature of field inspections is challenging. The likelihood of errors increases as the individual struggles to manage these competing responsibilities.

I have no idea where you gained this impression from, but I cannot disagree vehemently enough.

First off, I have no idea how you're stating that doing both creates a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest occurs when the performance of one's duties affects the financial interests of oneself or a person connected to one's family. Doing a plans review and an inspection in no way creates a conflict.

Secondly, one of the most challenging issues many professions face is the disconnect between the desk jockeys and the people in the field. When I worked in the newspaper biz as a managing editor, I made it a habit to go and do the fieldwork the reporters had to do, using the gear that they were provided. How could I understand their working conditions unless I put boots on the ground?

The same holds true for inspections/reviews. As someone who spends a crapton of time in the field, I know first hand what issues are typically arising on the construction site. An example would be a modern trend of placing sinks under windows. Ho hum, right? Well, sink plumbing has to be ventilated, which requires pipes, and plumbers end up drilling big 'ol holes through king and jack studs under lintels. It became such a problem that our plans review templates now include language at the plans review stage warning of this.

I have encountered so many problems with field inspections of exit shafts that as a plans reviewer, if an exit shaft is part of a design, I will NOT release the permit until there is a breakout/detail of the exit shaft to (hopefully) guide the builder on a path that avoids the kind of failures I've seen in the field.

Thirdly, as the reviewer of all my permits, I am more familiar with the details of each project. If there is an odd design, Alternative Solution, etc., I know about it beforehand, and while I may have to refresh my memory with a quick re-read before I go onsite, I won't have to spent a half-hour as an uninformed field inspector reading those documents prior to an inspection. In other words, its more efficient.

Lastly, you overlook the very real resource cap of small AHJs. We have four inspectors (two full-time; two part-time) ... but only one is trained to deal with large/complicated buildings and certain high-end occupancies.... trying to split inspection/plans review in that case would create significant liabilities.

 

[steveray]

There is a distinct advantage to having 2 different people work on the same thing....Different perspectives lead to disagreements, disagreements lead to discussion, discussion leads to learning.....

Is it perfect and comfortable...No....But it is necessary....Whether that be inspector and contractor, reviewer and inspector, or reviewer and designer....We are better when we communicate effectively...

 

[Inspector Gadget]

There is a distinct advantage to having 2 different people work on the same thing....Different perspectives lead to disagreements, disagreements lead to discussion, discussion leads to learning.....

Absotively posulutly. That's why our office has monthly meetings, and moreover, why I'll reach out for second opinions.

One of the things I do on a regular basis is dive into judgments/decisions made elsewhere (in my case, BC, Alberta, Ontario) for guidance. I guess what I'm saying poorly is that even though I may be responsible for plans reviews/inspections on the same file, I don't isolate myself from other views/interpretations.