Ending the Blame Game: Building Departments Deserve Better

Recent posts by @Yankee Chronicler and @IrishEyes on The Building Code Forum have sparked an important conversation about the role of building departments in construction delays. As a building official, I’ve experienced firsthand the frustration of being blamed for delays that are often beyond our control. It’s time to shift the narrative and recognize the real issues at play.

The Real Culprits

While some building departments may struggle with staffing or efficiency, the vast majority are diligent and hardworking. Most delays stem from incomplete or inaccurate submissions by contractors, architects, and permit expediters. When submissions lack the necessary documentation or fail to address review comments adequately, the blame often unfairly falls on the building department.

Architects and Quality Control

A recurring issue is the role of architects in plan submissions. Many are so busy that they delegate most of the work to draftsmen and support staff, only giving a cursory review themselves. This leads to significant errors and omissions that building departments must catch. It’s disheartening to spend hours or days creating detailed review comments, only to see minimal improvements in the revised plans.

Years ago, a post on TBCF highlighted a troubling trend: architects using building departments as their quality control. This revelation changed my approach. Instead of providing exhaustive lists of issues, I started referring to state statutes and emphasizing the architects' responsibility for quality control. When architects called for more details, I reminded them it was their job to ensure their submissions met all requirements.

Basic Submission Failures

Inadequate submissions are another major problem. Contractors and permit expediters often leave sections of applications blank, forget to sign forms, or fail to include required documents. Despite clear and concise review letters, many still call for clarification on basic instructions. This lack of professionalism creates unnecessary delays and frustration for everyone involved.

Submissions Are Getting Worse

IrishEyes, an ICC Certified Permit Technician, recently posted about the increasing frustration with the quality of submissions. According to IrishEyes, the situation is not improving but worsening. The decline in the quality of submissions only adds to the burden on building departments, making it even more challenging to keep projects on track.

The Impact of Online Permitting

The shift to online permitting has brought much-needed transparency to the process. With a digital audit trail, we can see who logged in, what documents were uploaded, and the timeline of submissions and responses. This has made it easier to identify where delays occur and hold the correct parties accountable.

For example, a recent incident involved a homeowner calling to complain about a month-long delay in her permit. After checking the system, I discovered that her contractor had only logged in 46 minutes earlier, uploaded 2 of the required 7 documents, and had not officially submitted anything. It was clear that the problem lay with the contractor, not the building department.

Conclusion

The days of building departments being the scapegoat for construction delays must come to an end. With the transparency and accountability provided by online permitting systems, it’s clear that most delays are due to incomplete or inaccurate submissions by contractors, architects, and permit expediters. It’s time for these professionals to step up, take responsibility, and ensure their submissions are thorough and accurate. Only then can we move forward efficiently and fairly, ensuring that everyone involved in the construction process is held to the same high standards.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Unfortunately we are in the same shape as many other industries. Management has to tip-toe around bad workers, because they are better than no workers.

Sometimes bad workers are worse than no workers. At least with no workers, you don't have to run around fixing their mistakes.

It's bad enough when senior staff have to do subordinates' work. It's more painful when you've paid them to do it, and you get to do it over anyway.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Budgets and unreasonable deadlines are the main reasons my firm submits incomplete plans. I assume that applies to other firms too.

Edit: The reason we submit incomplete plans, rather than just push the deadline out a bit or ask for more money, is my firm expects comments regardless of when we submit. The quicker we get these comments, the better (in the eyes of my supervisors). When you have staff submitting bad plans for decades, you end up with this mindset I guess.

In other words, your firm has made a conscious decision to use the code officials as your quality control department.

 

[arwat23]

In other words, your firm has made a conscious decision to use the code officials as your quality control department.

I wouldn't say that's the reason we do it. When we have budget or reasonable deadlines, we get projects done and rarely have any comments. Like I said, when I receive more than a few comments, I consider it a failure on my part, especially when we submit incomplete plans. We only do this when we "have" to, to keep with the schedule or keep within budget. It's not something we enjoy doing and it's something we try to avoid whenever possible. But poor management or demanding clients prevent me from complete plans the first time on a few projects.

The market is the market. If we want to actually get jobs and stay in business, we need to stay competitive with the architects who don't care if they submit incomplete plans (which seems to be most of them given the number of posts about this on this forum). We're getting better at not submitting incomplete plans, but it still happens on occasion.

Edit: on the bright side, we're REALLY good at answering all the comments fully and rarely have a second round of comments.

 

[Joe.B]

There's been quite a few threads on this and every time I think of adding a point to them, I keep reading and see someone else has already said it, but I had an experience yesterday that would qualify as a "jaw-dropper". This one shocked me though, not so much because of what they said, but the fact that they admitted it out loud, to my face, at the front counter. I'm paraphrasing, but it went something like this:

Me: "Why do you submit incomplete plans?"

Them: "I charge my customer hourly."

Me: "What does that have to do with submitting incomplete plans?"

Them: "If I submit complete, perfect plans on the first go it's hard for me to send them one big bill for all the hours I spent on it. So, I do about a third of the work, submit plans to you and a bill to them. Then you provide comments (making my job easier) and I fix about half of them, resubmit, and send them a bill. Then I will make the bare minimum corrections that could make a passable permit set, resubmit, and send the customer a "final" bill. That way my job is easier, I get paid more, and you look like the bad guy."

Me: <Jaw, meet floor>

 

[arwat23]

There's been quite a few threads on this and every time I think of adding a point to them, I keep reading and see someone else has already said it, but I had an experience yesterday that would qualify as a "jaw-dropper". This one shocked me though, not so much because of what they said, but the fact that they admitted it out loud, to my face, at the front counter. I'm paraphrasing, but it went something like this:

Me: "Why do you submit incomplete plans?"

Them: "I charge my customer hourly."

Me: "What does that have to do with submitting incomplete plans?"

Them: "If I submit complete, perfect plans on the first go it's hard for me to send them one big bill for all the hours I spent on it. So, I do about a third of the work, submit plans to you and a bill to them. Then you provide comments (making my job easier) and I fix about half of them, resubmit, and send them a bill. Then I will make the bare minimum corrections that could make a passable permit set, resubmit, and send the customer a "final" bill. That way my job is easier, I get paid more, and you look like the bad guy."

Me: <Jaw, meet floor>

To just straight up admit that to the "bad guy"... Idk if I should be impressed by the confidence they had in telling you that or embarrassed that there's a "professional" out there who acts like that.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Them: "If I submit complete, perfect plans on the first go it's hard for me to send them one big bill for all the hours I spent on it. So, I do about a third of the work, submit plans to you and a bill to them. Then you provide comments (making my job easier) and I fix about half of them, resubmit, and send them a bill. Then I will make the bare minimum corrections that could make a passable permit set, resubmit, and send the customer a "final" bill. That way my job is easier, I get paid more, and you look like the bad guy."

Me: <Jaw, meet floor>

The PE who likes to play architect about whom I have complained in other threads is sort of like that. In his case, however, I don't think he intentionally submits incomplete plans. He has a monumental ego, so I'm certain he thinks his plans (which are generally illegible) are perfect. But we do know that he charges his clients by the hour to correct his errors, and we do know that he blames us for requiring "extra" work.

The ultimate downside to this approach is that he never makes an attempt to do everything right. If he only corrects the things you comment on, anything you miss during plan review will never make it into the drawings.

 

[IrishEyes]

A big problem I see is at intake. When permit techs take in plans without even a glance the clock starts. By the time it gets to me, days or weeks have passed. It lands in my work queue and gets in line. It could be there for another week or two. So by the time I let them know I can't do a review, weeks have gone by. When I say I need structural plans, or a code analysis, or MEP's etc. they ask why it took 3 weeks to tell them. That is a legitimate question. I have learned to combat this by trying to do a quick cursory look the day I get the review. If something needs addressed, they at least find out earlier. So I end up doing an intake review, which IMO should have happened AT INTAKE.

I am not excusing the ridiculous state we are in with the quality of plans and lack of work ethic on the submitter side. But maybe refusing bad work up front would help condition the submitters. By shuffling crap forward, passing the buck, expecting someone else to be the bad guy, we are enabling this state of affairs.

Not all permit technicians are trained to look at the plans, understand what has been submitted and what else to ask for. They are initially trained on the basic paperwork requirements. There should be additional training when it comes to items like that. If they are not even glancing at paperwork that is being handed in, that is a staffing and training issue. I have been doing this for over 12 years and although I am not a plan reviewer, I can see some issues with plans that are submitted but I am very careful as to how I respond or what I suggest. That suggestion will solely be based on the scope of work provided and if what was submitted is matching that. Outside of that, I do not make any suggestions and that is left up the plan reviewer. If the contractor takes days or weeks to respond to my initial comments and it takes longer to get to the plan reviewer, that is out of my hands.

 

[Mark K]

The suggestion that things would go faster if the original submission was complete assumes that the plan checkers comments are predictable. Not all plan checkers are predictable.

 

[jar546]

The suggestion that things would go faster if the original submission was complete assumes that the plan checkers comments are predictable. Not all plan checkers are predictable.

Design professionals should submit drawings that will get one predictable comment. Approved as submitted.

 

[arwat23]

Design professionals should submit drawings that will get one predictable comment. Approved as submitted.

I firmly believe that isn't always possible (although that depends on the jurisdiction). A lot of my plan reviews go through 3rd-party agencies who have, on more than a few occasions, gone out of their way to "find" comments.

Just recently, I received a over 5 comments for one TI project that made no sense. They were asking for info that was already provided in the plans. It wasn't hidden info either. The info they were asking for was smack dab in the center of a nearly empty sheet. It would have been hard to miss. It just wasn't in the format they wanted I guess. I've never been called out for this before. I was able to get them dismissed because the CBO agreed with me. Plans resubmitted with a few changes per the other comments. Should be smooth sailing now.

Except not. After that, the same 3rd-party reviewer had a new comment, asking for something that isn't explicitly required by code and has never been asked of us for any TI project, ever (in over 30 years). The CBO, again, said the info we provided on our plans was sufficient to determine compliance with what was being asked, but the plans examiner refused that argument and demanded we add the info.

Sometimes you just can't predict what the comments will be.

 

[Sifu]

Not all permit technicians are trained to look at the plans, understand what has been submitted and what else to ask for. They are initially trained on the basic paperwork requirements. There should be additional training when it comes to items like that. If they are not even glancing at paperwork that is being handed in, that is a staffing and training issue. I have been doing this for over 12 years and although I am not a plan reviewer, I can see some issues with plans that are submitted but I am very careful as to how I respond or what I suggest. That suggestion will solely be based on the scope of work provided and if what was submitted is matching that. Outside of that, I do not make any suggestions and that is left up the plan reviewer. If the contractor takes days or weeks to respond to my initial comments and it takes longer to get to the plan reviewer, that is out of my hands.

I don't mean to imply that permit techs do plan review. That is not their job, and it rarely works out if they do. What I mean is what you said, and maybe a little more.
1)Verify the plans generally depict the scope of work
2) Verify the plans are complete, if the scope is a new building, then we look for A,M,E,P,S etc. Not just the A plans. Rarely would a commercial permit not need some or all of these. (separate permits for trades are not done in any of the AHJ's I work for)
3) If there is a policy for required seals, make sure they are there.
4) Verify supplemental documents like specs, geotech, energy calcs. etc, as required.

Not super in the weeds, just the basics.

Most AHJ's have documented submittal requirement checklists, with little boxes to be checked for what is required as applicable, few use them. Sometimes I see them submitted with the documents.....they are usually blank.

I received two new reviews just today. Full change of occupancy (actually change of code-R to B). I got A's only. No way the review can be successful. Even if there is no knowledge of what would likely be required, lack of MEP's should be a red flag. Bet a dollar they were never opened on the front end, just processed the application and scheduled a review.

 

[IrishEyes]

I received two new reviews just today. Full change of occupancy (actually change of code-R to B). I got A's only. No way the review can be successful. Even if there is no knowledge of what would likely be required, lack of MEP's should be a red flag. Bet a dollar they were never opened on the front end, just processed the application and scheduled a review.

Definitely seems like a management issue unfortunately.

 

[Joe.B]

I firmly believe that isn't always possible (although that depends on the jurisdiction). A lot of my plan reviews go through 3rd-party agencies who have, on more than a few occasions, gone out of their way to "find" comments.

Just recently, I received a over 5 comments for one TI project that made no sense. They were asking for info that was already provided in the plans. It wasn't hidden info either. The info they were asking for was smack dab in the center of a nearly empty sheet. It would have been hard to miss. It just wasn't in the format they wanted I guess. I've never been called out for this before. I was able to get them dismissed because the CBO agreed with me. Plans resubmitted with a few changes per the other comments. Should be smooth sailing now.

Except not. After that, the same 3rd-party reviewer had a new comment, asking for something that isn't explicitly required by code and has never been asked of us for any TI project, ever (in over 30 years). The CBO, again, said the info we provided on our plans was sufficient to determine compliance with what was being asked, but the plans examiner refused that argument and demanded we add the info.

Sometimes you just can't predict what the comments will be.

That 3rd party review companies name wouldn't happen to rhyme with "more beef" would it?

 

[steveray]

I received two new reviews just today. Full change of occupancy (actually change of code-R to B). I got A's only. No way the review can be successful. Even if there is no knowledge of what would likely be required, lack of MEP's should be a red flag.

Not to go too far OT....Are we the only place that will do a building review with only "building" plans? I Shirley make sure they know that full MEP's are required and the sooner and more complete the plan set is, the better and more efficient the plan review would be, but I would rarely insist on it...

 

[arwat23]

That 3rd party review companies name wouldn't happen to rhyme with "more beef" would it?

Not for this example haha. I've heard stories about them from my boss and this forum. They've only reviewed maybe two or three of my projects so far, and they were fairly normal reviews if I remember right.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Not to go too far OT....Are we the only place that will do a building review with only "building" plans? I Shirley make sure they know that full MEP's are required and the sooner and more complete the plan set is, the better and more efficient the plan review would be, but I would rarely insist on it...

We prefer to get the M/E/P drawings with the architecturals and structurals, but more often than not we don't. We can issue a building permit and leave the M/E/P reviews until we receive those trade applications. We advise applicants that if they choose to proceed that way it may result in delays due the the M/E/P review process but it's ultimately their choice.

Where we are starting to push harder is projects with a slab-on-grade where there will clearly be plumbing (and very likely electric) in or under the floor slab. We want approved M/E/P drawings for when the inspectors do their inspections prior to the slab pour.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

We just started charging for revisions up front instead of adding them to the permit fee. It's working good, especially with the home owner's that starts with just a squire drawn on scrap paper. We used to need to get revised plans 3 or 4 times till it was right. Now they are usually good by the second time.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

We just started charging for revisions up front instead of adding them to the permit fee. It's working good, especially with the home owner's that starts with just a squire drawn on scrap paper. We used to need to get revised plans 3 or 4 times till it was right. Now they are usually good by the second time.

I wish we could do that. The powers-that-be won't even consider it.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Me: "What does that have to do with submitting incomplete plans?"

Them: "If I submit complete, perfect plans on the first go it's hard for me to send them one big bill for all the hours I spent on it. So, I do about a third of the work, submit plans to you and a bill to them. Then you provide comments (making my job easier) and I fix about half of them, resubmit, and send them a bill. Then I will make the bare minimum corrections that could make a passable permit set, resubmit, and send the customer a "final" bill. That way my job is easier, I get paid more, and you look like the bad guy."

Me: <Jaw, meet floor>

I just encountered essentially the opposite of this.

The project is a stupid little office alteration, consolidating two office condo units on a second floor into a single suite. Plans originally submitted back in September of 2023, with revised plans received on October 18. We rejected them on November 9 because they were incomplete, and didn't show means of egress. 22-day turn-around on our part. Then we discovered that there was an existing egress violation in the building and we asked for that to be corrected.

And then we waited ... and waited ... and waited. New plans were finally submitted on June 10 of 2024. We rejected them on June 20. Revised drawings came in on July 8 and were rejected on July 24. At that point the designer (who is NOT a licensed architect, who is breaking the law by selling architectural services, and who is also having a friend of his break the law by sealing the drawings) demanded a sit-down meeting. At the meeting, in front of the chief building official and the head of the land use department, he acknowledged that every one of the plan review comments was valid. He then proceeded to say that he didn't understand why everything needed to be in writing. His perspective was that we should just give him a phone call, have a chat, and trust him to do everything right even if it's not shown on the drawings. His main complaint was that the application was filed last year and they still don't have a permit. No mention of the fact that it took them seven MONTHS to respond to the comments we sent them in November. But ... we're hold them up.

"I get it. You write all those comments to make me look like an a$$hole."

No, we don't write all those comments to make you look bad. [You're doing a bang-up job of that without our help.] We write those comments (a) so there's a written record in order to try to avoid misunderstandings, and (b) to provide you with specific code citations so you can look up the applicable code section when making the corrections on the drawings. Because of multiple idiots like this, the building department is being persecuted by the new Town administration because we're not "user friendly."

 

[tmurray]

"I get it. You write all those comments to make me look like an a$$hole."

I had someone say that to me once. I told him he didn't need my help to do that.

I try to be nice when I can. Sometimes people forget that just because I try to be nice, it doesn't mean that I have to be nice.

 

[steveray]

I just encountered essentially the opposite of this.

The project is a stupid little office alteration, consolidating two office condo units on a second floor into a single suite. Plans originally submitted back in September of 2023, with revised plans received on October 18. We rejected them on November 9 because they were incomplete, and didn't show means of egress. 22-day turn-around on our part. Then we discovered that there was an existing egress violation in the building and we asked for that to be corrected.

And then we waited ... and waited ... and waited. New plans were finally submitted on June 10 of 2024. We rejected them on June 20. Revised drawings came in on July 8 and were rejected on July 24. At that point the designer (who is NOT a licensed architect, who is breaking the law by selling architectural services, and who is also having a friend of his break the law by sealing the drawings) demanded a sit-down meeting. At the meeting, in front of the chief building official and the head of the land use department, he acknowledged that every one of the plan review comments was valid. He then proceeded to say that he didn't understand why everything needed to be in writing. His perspective was that we should just give him a phone call, have a chat, and trust him to do everything right even if it's not shown on the drawings. His main complaint was that the application was filed last year and they still don't have a permit. No mention of the fact that it took them seven MONTHS to respond to the comments we sent them in November. But ... we're hold them up.

"I get it. You write all those comments to make me look like an a$$hole."

No, we don't write all those comments to make you look bad. [You're doing a bang-up job of that without our help.] We write those comments (a) so there's a written record in order to try to avoid misunderstandings, and (b) to provide you with specific code citations so you can look up the applicable code section when making the corrections on the drawings. Because of multiple idiots like this, the building department is being persecuted by the new Town administration because we're not "user friendly."

I was at the Town i used to work in the other day and the admin person asked me to come to the counter to explain to a Town Councilor and the Bishop of the church (that drives a Bentley) 20-298 the 5000 ft rule (stamped plans) because the building official was out...They applied and May and never bothered to respond to the denial at that time....They just cried to the Town leaders.....That should never happen...

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I was at the Town i used to work in the other day and the admin person asked me to come to the counter to explain to a Town Councilor and the Bishop of the church (that drives a Bentley) 20-298 the 5000 ft rule (stamped plans) because the building official was out...They applied and May and never bothered to respond to the denial at that time....They just cried to the Town leaders.....That should never happen...

Paying an architect to draw up construction documents costs money. Crying to the politicians is free.

 

[Paul Sweet]

Crying to the politicians may be free the first time, but they probably track campaign contributions and remember the next time.

 

[steveray]

Crying to the politicians may be free the first time,

It's not....but the good news is they will never really figure out how much my best customer service will cost them when they do come back in....