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]

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.

I just re-read this, and I think the above deserves some comment. For background: I have been a licensed architect for longer than I have been a licensed building official. I spent decades "on the boards," mostly doing working drawings, so I have a bit of first-hand knowledge of what happens in architects' offices.

The fact that architects delegate the actual drafting to draftsmen is nothing new. It has always been that way. This is why architectural licensing laws require that construction documents be prepared by the architect "or under their direct supervision." The key is the word "supervision." I started my career decades before the advent of computer drafting. In those days, the only equipment a drafter needed was a pencil (or pen, sometimes), a straightedge, an adjustable triangle, and s a scale. For fancy projects, thrown in a compass (the kind for drawing circles, not the ones Boy Scouts use to hike cross-country) and maybe a French curve. Using those basic tools, drafters prepared the construction drawings for most of the world's iconic buildings.

And then along came CADD. Today, architecture firms don't advertise for "drafters," they advertise for CADD operators. Many of these individuals don't come out of architecture schools or even technical schools that expose them to real world construction. Instead, many come from schools that only teach how to use AutoCAD. To these people, the lines they create on the screen too often are nothing more than lines on a screen. They don't correlate the lines they're creating on the screen with the physical objects and construction that those lines represent. And therein lies a big part of the problem.

A number of years ago I took a short-term gig helping an architect friend crank out construction documents for a couple of projects on a tight time frame. One was an alteration/renovation in an existing office building. I took our CADD operator with me to help take measurements of the existing conditions, which she was then tasked with drawing up. There was a row of four or five columns (each wrapped in sheetrock) through the middle of the space we were working in. When I got her initial layout, each of the five columns was drawn as a different size. I knew they weren't different, so I asked her what happened. Her response was, "That's what I wrote down. It's not my job to check dimensions, I was just hired to draw stuff in AutoCAD."

Garbage in, garbage out. CADD operators now often don't see themselves as being part of a design team -- they see their job as running the CADD system. They're paid to make lines on the screen, not to think.

On top of that, AutoCAD (and now Revit) has to justify the exorbitant fees they charge for the annual subscriptions (you can't buy AutoCAD or Revit any more, you only rent it) by constantly adding new features, or just changing the user interface. I can't imagine the non-billable man hours architecture firms incur today just trying to keep their staff somewhat current on using the CADD software. (Personally, I still use a copy of AutoCAD LT 2014 that I bought ten years ago. For small projects, it does everything I need.)

Should architects pay more attention to what their drafters are inputting into the CADD system? Absolutely! That's what the registration laws expect. The reality is that it doesn't happen. The drafters often don't have a copy of the building code(s) handy, so they don't bother to look anything up. They just draw something and add a call-out "Provide ____ as required by code." This, of course, is not what the code requires. IBC 107.2.1 requires that:

Construction documents shall be of sufficient
clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the
work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to
the provisions of this code

Obviously, a note such as "as per code" doesn't provide any detail at all, and it just kicks the can for code compliance down the road for the builder and the code official to figure out. As code officials, we shouldn't accept drawings that use such notes instead of providing actual details and dimensions that depict code-compliant construction. When we accept incomplete construction drawings and issue permits based on those drawings, we just make more work for the poor inspector who has to deal with the fallout in the field. It becomes a race to the bottom. Most of the smaller alteration projects that come through our department are accompanied by "construction drawings" that barely qualify as schematic design sketches. When we reject them, we invariably get push-back over our "unreasonable" requirements that construction documents be suitable as construction documents. The fact that a neighboring city accepts such drawings doesn't help us. If I had a nickel for every time I've heard, "They don't make me do that in [____]" I could retire in luxury.

I think we, as code professionals, need to support each other and agree to stop issuing permits based on inadequate construction drawings. As long as we accept such drawings, that's all we can expect to see. Until we all, as a profession, start holding architects and engineers accountable for submitting adequate construction documents, it's only going to get worse.

 

[BuildingOfficial89]

Yup. Yesterday I had to listen to our guys relate how we were "holding things up" at the initial stage.... yet when we went through the files that were "held up" the issues included
- submission made for a house with two options, neither of which were Code-compliant, one of which required engineering
- a home that required an engineered design and didn't even have floor plans
- a submission that had no site plan, submitted by a contractor without our required forms from the owner stating the contractor could act on the client's behalf
- a file that was "dormant" for weeks because the client hadn't paid the application fee.
- file for a commercial building which was accompanied by a three-dimensional image. That was the "plan" for a 300 square-metre lobster-holding facility. No detail on footings/foundation/walls/roof .... rejected outright at the initial stage

I think part of the issue lies in the fact that in our part of the boondocks, some old-timer inspectors issued permits without plans, plans reviews, nothing. Now that a crop of better-trained and more diligent people are doing what they are supposed to, the folks are upset at the 'new rules' and such.

I work in South Dakota, and state statutes allow for a substantial amount of commercial work without requiring design professionals. And this means lots of poorly done plans which force me to ask for more information and the need for substantial corrections. Naturally, that makes me the bad guy because most contractors around here have never even seen a code book, let alone taken the time to learn about construction. They helped daddy build a shed when they were 10, so now they know it all.

 

[steveray]

I work in South Dakota, and state statutes allow for a substantial amount of commercial work without requiring design professionals. And this means lots of poorly done plans which force me to ask for more information and the need for substantial corrections. Naturally, that makes me the bad guy because most contractors around here have never even seen a code book, let alone taken the time to learn about construction. They helped daddy build a shed when they were 10, so now they know it all.

Welcome to THE Forum.....

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Here I go again.

I just had another architect (except this one is actually licensed, the last one isn't) engage in berating me over the phone for having the temerity to question HIS architectural drawings -- twice! (Yes, I rejected his plans for a second time. The first set sucked, and the second set didn't even respond to more than half the comments from the first set. And some of what he revised he still got wrong.)

First, he noticed my signature block and asked me if I'm an architect. Well, yes, I am. "I'll bet I've been registered a lot longer than you have."

Okay, I'll play that game. He was first licensed in 1980. I beat him by six years. So then he asked inf I've ever worked "in a real architect's office." Well, yes, I have -- in several of the best firms in the state, plus one that's internationally famous, for over 25 years.

So then he tried the "If I put my seal and signature on a set of plans, you have no authority to question my work." [Wrong} His view is that building codes are subject to interpretation, and his interpretation is equal to mine. Ummm ... not quite. I represent the authority having jurisdiction. Therefore, my opinion trumps his opinion, and if he disagrees he can file an appeal. [Have I ever been wrong? Absolutely. When someone shows me I'm wrong, I own up to it and we move forward. Expecting me to back down just because he disagrees and raises his voice isn't nearly enough.]

From there he started screaming at me, all the while proclaiming that he didn't want to argue with me. I didn't want to argue with him, either. All I want is a set of drawings that demonstrates compliance with the code. He says I'm asking for "irrelevant" information.

I don't get it. When I was working as an architect (in the "real world"), no architect I knew would have dreamed of screaming at a building official and telling his "YOU'RE WRONG! YOU'RE AN A__HOLE!" Yet this is the second applicant's "architect" who has pulled this within the past month.

How has our profession managed to lose so much respect? In my case, part (a very large part) of the problem is a new Town manager, who accepts complaints from idiots and promises them he'll "take care of it." The scary part is that he's a lawyer, yet he doesn't think we should even be doing plan reviews. I can think of a number of building officials from my architect days who, if someone started TELLING them they were wrong and had no right to question the architect's drawings, would have said, "Get the **** out of my office," and their mayor would have backed them up 100%. Not today.

Sorry. /Rant mode

 

[TheCommish]

Excuse me sire if you continue to yell at me i am going to hang up, more yelling, I am hanging up now

 

[Sifu]

I often call architects to have conversations, sometimes they call me. Sometimes the opposite of the old adage "a picture is worth a thousand words" is true. I say a thousand words is worth a picture sometimes. I find the "experienced" architects are less open to input than the newer ones, who may be ignorant of the code, but willing to accept it. Maybe they are just too green to be able to say "we've always done it that way".

The idea that a code official would pick up a phone (heck, even answer a phone) and call a contractor, owner or DP was unheard of when I started out. It still is in a lot of places. But I find it to be a form of self-preservation, it just makes my job easier, usually a calm conversation happens that reveals valid points on one or both sides, but if someone wants to argue I just tell them to resubmit based on what they believe and I can respond with comments as many times as I need to until one of us figures it out. That tends to have a calming effect.