Commitment to general review by BCIN

[NLaf]

Can a BCIN holder sign and do the commitment to general review? The Ontario building code says it has to be an "Architect". If a BCIN can prepare, stamp and submit the plans, shouldn't they also be able to do the commitment to general review? Or does an Architect have to be hired to do it for every project that required the commitment to general review?

 

[tmurray]

This is my understanding as someone outside of Ontario.

If an architect is required to be the designer of the building (under the Architects Act), then an architect must complete the commitment to general review.

For the most part, anything that only requires a BCIN for design would not require a commitment to general review form.

 

[NLaf]

This is my understanding as someone outside of Ontario.

If an architect is required to be the designer of the building (under the Architects Act), then an architect must complete the commitment to general review.

For the most part, anything that only requires a BCIN for design would not require a commitment to general review form.

Thanks for the reply, I guess it's different in other provinces. In Ontario a BCIN can design any building so long as they have the correct class of registration. So in no case is an "Architect" required for the design, either one can do the design. However commitment to general review is required for certain buildings and is written that it has to be by an "architect". As example any building with "assembly" occupancy is required to have commitment to general review by an architect but a Large buildings BCIN can do the design and take responsibility for the design. Hopefully some Ontario folks can shed some light.

 

[TheCommish]

For us down south of the Great lakes what is BCIN

 

[NLaf]

For us down south of the Great lakes what is BCIN

Building Code Identification Number. It is a license alternative to an "Architect".

 

[tmurray]

Thanks for the reply, I guess it's different in other provinces. In Ontario a BCIN can design any building so long as they have the correct class of registration. So in no case is an "Architect" required for the design, either one can do the design. However commitment to general review is required for certain buildings and is written that it has to be by an "architect". As example any building with "assembly" occupancy is required to have commitment to general review by an architect but a Large buildings BCIN can do the design and take responsibility for the design. Hopefully some Ontario folks can shed some light.

In that case you might want to reach out to MMAH for an official interpretation on it. My understanding is that an architect is one of the classes of people who can apply for a BCIN, so potentially this is how MMAH manages who can get that class of BCIN.

Your Architect's Act is very similar to ours here in NB where an architect is required for Part 3 design and inspections with exceptions carved out for engineers and building officials. It would make sense for MMAH's BCIN program to be consistent with other provincial acts, otherwise I would have expected the architect's association to challenge the requirements in court as they have done previously.

 

[tmurray]

I had a meeting with some MMAH staff on something yesterday and asked them the question.

Basically, nothing in the Building Code Act requires a commitment to field review form.

Architects are required on all Part 3 buildings in accordance with the Architects Act. Someone who only has a BCIN should not be doing a design to Part 3.

The commitment to field review is generally a requirement of the local jurisdiction, so they could theoretically have a similar form for a BCIN holder.

 

[NLaf]

I had a meeting with some MMAH staff on something yesterday and asked them the question.

Basically, nothing in the Building Code Act requires a commitment to field review form.

Architects are required on all Part 3 buildings in accordance with the Architects Act. Someone who only has a BCIN should not be doing a design to Part 3.

The commitment to field review is generally a requirement of the local jurisdiction, so they could theoretically have a similar form for a BCIN holder.

That's odd. BCIN can absolutely do design for part 3. That's the entire purpose of the additional test and class of license. Large buildings and complex buildings allow for the design and to take responsibility for the permit application of part 3 buildings.

I was talking to some examiners at Markham yesterday and they said that a BCIN can do the design and file the permit but can't do the general review. For buildings that require the general review, the designer has to hire an architect to sign for the commitment to general review. This is insane in my mind, so someone who is qualified to design in accordance to the OBC isn't qualified to verify that the construction is per their own approved drawings?

Apparently it's to avoid lawsuits from the OAA... can't confirm that but it checks. It seems I have my answer and I hope it changes in the future.

 

[tmurray]

That's odd. BCIN can absolutely do design for part 3. That's the entire purpose of the additional test and class of license. Large buildings and complex buildings allow for the design and to take responsibility for the permit application of part 3 buildings.

I was talking to some examiners at Markham yesterday and they said that a BCIN can do the design and file the permit but can't do the general review. For buildings that require the general review, the designer has to hire an architect to sign for the commitment to general review. This is insane in my mind, so someone who is qualified to design in accordance to the OBC isn't qualified to verify that the construction is per their own approved drawings?

Apparently it's to avoid lawsuits from the OAA... can't confirm that but it checks. It seems I have my answer and I hope it changes in the future.

The feeling I have is that some of this is related to a kind of turf war between registered design professionals and MMAH that goes back decades. Architects are responsible for regulating the practice of architecture through their association and have taken legal action against MMAH when they tried to impose some requirements of their own. It seems like MMAH then set up their own licensing regime and exempted architects.

However, the inconsistency in the field review requirements is solely because local jurisdiction required a field review form that MMAH does not endorse/use, so it is kind of logical that it is inconsistent with their licensing regime.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

For us down south of the Great lakes what is BCIN

It's registered designer for buildings that under Code, do not require a qualified designer (engineer/architect/interior designer in some areas.)

In Canada, only Part 3 buildings (large buildings, assembly and other complex occupancies) require engineers/architects. Small things, like little apartment buildings, stores, offices, etc, do not. But enter the pretty picture drawer who hasn't a clue what fire separations are and things get messy.

I'm sure you get folks who draw "pretty pictures" that are full of garbage, and miss a bunch of basic requirements. Folks that learned Autocad or some other program and put out a shingle to design things when they haven't a clue what they're doing.

Ontario has put the "pretty picture" creator out of business by requiring they gain some modicum of training.

I can only hope our province does the same.