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.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

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.

 

[TheCommish]

When I stated 20 years ago the office was a mess, one of the first this I ask the staff was were there received stamp was, cue dear in the headlights. A received stamp with date was quickly obtained. Within a week a customer was in alleging we had had the permit for xxx, I went to the incoming pile an pulled her application and pointed to the date received.

I have a Town Planer who's mantra is "if it is not written down it is a roomer" as my offices comments are documented and dated, this save a lot of grief.

 

[Sifu]

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.

 

[steveray]

I present exhibit A.... the application was paid for on the 10th and comments start on the 11th:

 

[jar546]

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.

This is a management issue and a great reason to have ICC Certified Permit Techs. The software should be able to have this set up or if still using paper, there should be an SOP for the permit techs to look at. Again, management issue,.

 

[SCBO1]

Date stamp use, as Sean Connery would say "Saves your arse!".

I'm getting more and more architects submitting an incomplete set of plans, then asking "I just want to know if it will fly?" If you say it will, it comes back in their eyes as approved.

As Lee Corso sez; "Not so fast my friend!" I Need MEP etc. before a permit can be issued! But you said it would fly! So I call these submittals as exploratory submissions. Is this the norm?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

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.

We are dealing with this, but it doesn't relate to the issue of design professionals who can't do their jobs correctly. The point you brought up applies to locals who have had previous projects in town (sometimes 15 or 20 years ago). My boss had recently been appointed as the BO when I started, but from what I've heard his predecessor and the BO before that were rubber stamp guys. They would sit on an application for two or three weeks, stamp it approved, and then leave everything to be dealt with on the site. The repeat customers can't understand that we don't do business that way any longer, or that since their last project the code has changed three or four times so they can't just recycle the old plans.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I present exhibit A.... the application was paid for on the 10th and comments start on the 11th:

View attachment 13712

Ah, yes -- the old "I never have these problems anywhere except with your town" sob story.

The people who say this never seem to understand that we talk to one another ...

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Date stamp use, as Sean Connery would say "Saves your arse!".

I'm getting more and more architects submitting an incomplete set of plans, then asking "I just want to know if it will fly?" If you say it will, it comes back in their eyes as approved.

As Lee Corso sez; "Not so fast my friend!" I Need MEP etc. before a permit can be issued! But you said it would fly! So I call these submittals as exploratory submissions. Is this the norm?

Technically, since M/E/P permits are issued separately, as sub-permits under a general building permit (for complete buildings -- not talking about something like a straight water heater replacement), the M/E/P drawings can come in with the applications for the respective trade permits. We tell applicants that it's more efficient if we can review everything at once, but if they want to submit the M/E/P drawings later we'll review them later -- but it may interrupt progress, because they won't be allowed to begin any M/E/P work until the respective permits have been issued.

 

[steveray]

Technically, since M/E/P permits are issued separately, as sub-permits under a general building permit (for complete buildings -- not talking about something like a straight water heater replacement), the M/E/P drawings can come in with the applications for the respective trade permits. We tell applicants that it's more efficient if we can review everything at once, but if they want to submit the M/E/P drawings later we'll review them later -- but it may interrupt progress, because they won't be allowed to begin any M/E/P work until the respective permits have been issued.

Ditto

 

[Katy.Kjelvik]

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.

I'm glad that we don't have that issue with our permit techs (program assistants). They are thorough & check to make sure the submittal requirements have been met. They do not look at plans, but there are a few items that automatically gets kicked back. Electronic permitting/review has also helped.

 

[Paul Sweet]

I've found that planning & zoning approvals often take much longer than building permit approvals.

 

[mtlogcabin]

but if they want to submit the M/E/P drawings later we'll review them later

[A] 105.3 Application for permit.
To obtain a permit, the applicant shall first file an application therefor in writing on a form furnished by the department of building safety for that purpose. Such application shall:

7. Give such other data and information as required by the building official.

We never allow deferred submittals for M/E/P on a commercial project. To many times we have seen where the installation of the M/E/P will have a negative impact on the building structure.

Large footing pads that interfere with the building drain for example.
Seismic issues not considered in the design of the structure where the equipment will be attached.

 

[Sifu]

This is a management issue and a great reason to have ICC Certified Permit Techs. The software should be able to have this set up or if still using paper, there should be an SOP for the permit techs to look at. Again, management issue,.

100% agree.

EDIT: 90% agree. Work ethic issues are involved as well. Some are certified permit techs. Some still don't do their job. Some put 0% effort into it, that is a poor worth ethic. Some management asks for them to do their job, but offer no incentive or disincentive. Some management doesn't even ask. That's poor management.

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.

 

[Sifu]

Electronic permitting/review has also helped.

As much as I love electronic plans, I think it has hurt the front end mostly because of poor management and lagging process development. This is based on my experience in multiple AHJ's, but I acknowledge it isn't the same everywhere. The front end has suffered, not because the process doesn't or couldn't work, but because the interface of intake has changed and nobody has the will to fix it. In the old days, the intake interface took place in real time, in front of the customer. A tech would ask for the requisite info, and make sure it was all there. If not, try again tomorrow, and the customer walked out knowing what they needed to do. The same process should occur now, but it doesn't. I have had reviews scheduled many times, where there were no plans. Many times where the plans were for a different project. Many, many, many times where they were 1/2 there. Pretty sure the tech didn't open them up, or if they did, they didn't care. In the old days if someone came in and said "I need to get a permit to build this", the tech would say "where are your plans?". No plans, no permit. If that happens now, it happens days later, or worse yet when a review is scheduled and the then when the reviewer gets to it.

 

[jar546]

The front end has suffered, not because the process doesn't or couldn't work, but because the interface of intake has changed and nobody has the will to fix it

Hence the problem. It is a management problem. You can choose to fix something or complain it doesn't work. Those managers that choose to ignore make it worse for everyone.

 

[Sifu]

Agree, but understand I am not in a position to fix anything. I have made suggestions, asked for changes. The one place I was in that position, it took some time but it ended up really good. I worked with people who had the will, and the skill. Since then, not much of either. Sad to say they don't all have irisheyes.

 

[arwat23]

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.

Another common issue I see is the need to keep clients happy. I understand that. After all, we are attempting to help our client achieve their goals or dreams. However, in the pursuit of that, we often "need" to submit incomplete applications just to meet some impossible deadline the clients (or my supervisors) have, or we need to submit in order to stay within our budget. We know full well we'll get lots comments, but that "doesn't matter". We usually just tell our clients that getting comments is normal and they should expect that. I personally hate submitting incomplete plans. I hate getting comments, and if I get more than a few comments I consider it a personal failure on my part. I'm not high enough in the food chain at this firm to make much of a difference in budgets though. And even if I was, we're competing against architects that will low-ball their price just to get a project. If you can't beat them, you have to join them I guess...

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.

 

[Yikes]

Another common issue I see is the need to keep clients happy. I understand that. After all, we are attempting to help our client achieve their goals or dreams. However, in the pursuit of that, we often "need" to submit incomplete applications just to meet some impossible deadline the clients (or my supervisors) have, or we need to submit in order to stay within our budget. We know full well we'll get lots comments, but that "doesn't matter". We usually just tell our clients that getting comments is normal and they should expect that. I personally hate submitting incomplete plans. I hate getting comments, and if I get more than a few comments I consider it a personal failure on my part. I'm not high enough in the food chain at this firm to make much of a difference in budgets though. And even if I was, we're competing against architects that will low-ball their price just to get a project. If you can't beat them, you have to join them I guess...

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.

I can attest that this occurs throughout the industry. If comments are inevitable and if "getting into the queue is critical", it is typical to submit for plan check just as soon as you can justify the bare minimum of required plans for life-safety, without much cross-coordination. I would estimate that on a typical multifamily project I've seen the structural plans are 90% complete but not cross-coordinated, civil about 70% complete, architectural 75% complete (missing a lot of non-code-required details), mechanical at 75%, electrical at 65-70% because they have to await everyone else's plans to know final power/circuiting requirements. Landscape is barely done, because they are planting around whatever space is leftover.
QC begins while the project sits in queue for the first round of plan check.

We also see a lot of projects prepared by firms that are offshore, or that have clients that are offshore. Even during basic planning entitlements, the attitude from the Owners seems to be "the city is going to change the plans anyway, so just turn something in ASAP and let the city tell you what to do".

 

[steveray]

I can attest that this occurs throughout the industry. If comments are inevitable and if "getting into the queue is critical", it is typical to submit for plan check just as soon as you can justify the bare minimum of required plans for life-safety, without much cross-coordination.

Getting into the queue......Here is the root of all evil...In a perfect world there would be no queue....The customer pays a fee for a service and that is what they are entitled to....The jurisdiction absconds with the money and perverts that into a giant process that is entirely (chronically) under-funded to deliver adequate customer service...

 

[MtnArch]

I've found that planning & zoning approvals often take much longer than building permit approvals.

In Cali, the state has mandated Planning has 30 days to approve or deny a project .. but that's after an application has been deemed "Complete" - by Planning! I'm working on one (small) project in SoCal that the Planning Application must include items such as all off-site improvement drawings and landscape planting and irrigation drawings (not design or concept .. full CD's) before Planning will even schedule it on the Planning Commission agenda. I've heard stories of being in Planning limbo for 2 years before getting entitlements - even if they are an allowed use.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

We are dealing with this, but it doesn't relate to the issue of design professionals who can't do their jobs correctly. The point you brought up applies to locals who have had previous projects in town (sometimes 15 or 20 years ago).

Agreed, but the point I'm making is that in many cases, the BI hasn't historically held some of these professionals to the required standards.

 

[steveray]

In Cali, the state has mandated Planning has 30 days to approve or deny a project .. but that's after an application has been deemed "Complete" - by Planning! I'm working on one (small) project in SoCal that the Planning Application must include items such as all off-site improvement drawings and landscape planting and irrigation drawings (not design or concept .. full CD's) before Planning will even schedule it on the Planning Commission agenda. I've heard stories of being in Planning limbo for 2 years before getting entitlements - even if they are an allowed use.

As soon as you make a law, someone will find a way around it...