Internship

[jar546]

The building department should only be interested in one thing and that is whether the project complies with the laws. Whether the owner agrees to pay the designer more to deal with your comments is not your role.

I will let you in on a secret. I have found a number of plan checkers who did not know what they were doing. The problem is that designers don't always tell the plan checker that he or she is wrong which lets the plan checkers believe they are always right. Some times the decision is made to humor the plan checker and increase the cost of the project because that gets the job built quicker.

I had one plan checker who wanted me to prove something but in order to do that right it would take more time than I had. I knew that the design complied with the code. So I produced a totally bogus calculation that could be done much quicker and presented it to the plan checker. The plan checker was happy with what I gave him which documented the fact that he did not know what he was talking about.

There is one agency that tells the plan checkers that they want to see a lot of red marks on the drawings even if the designer has done a good job. The designer must then spend more time responding to those unnecessary comments.

Have some humility.

I think that you may be in need of some humility. Neither registered design professionals or plans examiners are perfect and all have flaws, some more than others. While it is true there are some incompetent plans examiners, the same goes for architects and engineers. For as many stories that you have about "...plan checkers who did not know what they were doing," I have an equal amount of architects and engineers that I could say the same. One of the biggest issues which I have brought up before is the submittal of drawings that are not code compliant and the excuse is "that is what the client wanted" rather than being the professional and telling their client that what they want can't be done. I've even had an engineer that fudged numbers in a calculation we asked for and used 16' for a beam spam when on the plans it was actually 22'. Yeah, we caught that without using an engineer to review it. Your overall dismissal of the competence of inspectors and plans examiners has been obvious for years so maybe, just maybe your horse is a little too high.

 

[SH225]

Disclaimer - Architect here. Mostly large firms, projects and jurisdictions, so I don’t see much of what goes on in small firms, projects, jurisdictions.

My experience has been that architects mean well and are trying to do a good job for their client, which includes following the codes. I get the impression architects are often considered by contractors to be less competent because they don’t know as much as contractors about how things get built. They are considered by engineers to be less competent because they don’t know as much as engineers about how that engineer’s specialty works. They are considered by code officials to be less competent because they don’t know as much about the local code as the local code official does.

This is nothing new. It isn‘t likely to change. Architects are not typically specialists in codes. In my first 10 years in the profession I worked on projects under the UBC, SBC, BOCA, NFPA 101 and the Florida, Georgia and North Carolina variations on the SBC. There was of course ADAAG, FHADM, ANSI A117.1, and the state accessibility codes in Texas and Georgia. Given all the time architects spend on client relationships, project management, design, and producing and coordinating drawings, on average they have only a few hours per project to learn the code. And it might be a different code or at least a different amendment than last time. It’s no wonder if they don’t know it as well as the plans examiner.

 

[jar546]

Disclaimer - Architect here. Mostly large firms, projects and jurisdictions, so I don’t see much of what goes on in small firms, projects, jurisdictions.

My experience has been that architects mean well and are trying to do a good job for their client, which includes following the codes. I get the impression architects are often considered by contractors to be less competent because they don’t know as much as contractors about how things get built. They are considered by engineers to be less competent because they don’t know as much as engineers about how that engineer’s specialty works. They are considered by code officials to be less competent because they don’t know as much about the local code as the local code official does.

This is nothing new. It isn‘t likely to change. Architects are not typically specialists in codes. In my first 10 years in the profession I worked on projects under the UBC, SBC, BOCA, NFPA 101 and the Florida, Georgia and North Carolina variations on the SBC. There was of course ADAAG, FHADM, ANSI A117.1, and the state accessibility codes in Texas and Georgia. Given all the time architects spend on client relationships, project management, design, and producing and coordinating drawings, on average they have only a few hours per project to learn the code. And it might be a different code or at least a different amendment than last time. It’s no wonder if they don’t know it as well as the plans examiner.

Thank you for taking the time to provide another view. I believe that we all have a role in the team needed for construction and need to work together. It is obvious to me that architects and engineers have their own specialties and are trained at a higher level than code officials and they bring the design and structural components to this team. The code officials, in most cases have both hands on experience carrying out the design and with that experience we add significant code training and continuing education. I believe that we all want the same results which is a code compliant, safe, energy efficient construction project. Unfortunately every single occupation has some less than desirable people that tarnish the reputation of the group they are associated with. I have a great working relationship with many design professionals and both sides have "war stories" about the other side.

I believe that the problem are with the extreme cases where the design is egregiously noncompliant and the plans examiners/inspectors are working out of their league and either don't know the codes or simply want what they want regardless of the codes.

 

[tbz]

The building department should only be interested in one thing and that is whether the project complies with the laws. Whether the owner agrees to pay the designer more to deal with your comments is not your role.
...

Though I agree that building departments should stay on point of pass or fail, the amount of wild ideas that pass through some departments on a regular basis is jaw dropping at times.

I myself, not an inspector, work mainly 80% of the time for fabricators who have been sub-contracted by contractors to bring an, architects and or interior designers thoughts on paper to life.

Thus, I see crazy on a daily basis and have to say the number of designers that incest that certain codes are meaning less and functionality is meaningless to the visual concept they are creating for their client, is mind boggling. If I have to hear you don't know what you are talking about, just do it, we know its fine and we will take responsibility if there is a problem, one more time. Which they never do when the shoe drops. Well I just block it out.

As noted every profession has the Good, the Bad and the Ugly, when one deals with crazy on a daily basis for business, some just see more of it than others.

As to the cost remark of mine, the fabricators are expected to hold to their price even when pointing out the areas the designers do wrong, but the designers always charge the clients from what we see for the re-design time. that is except for some areas of the country I have worked in.

Thus, no one working in many jurisdictions can know everything when designing, on the flip side even the inspectors and reviewers have to many things to know, Hence the stamp though you are approved if something is missed it still needs to meet code and as time passes hopefully everyone gets wiser, though that's debatable.

 

[Mark K]

I sense some misunderstanding of who pays for certain problems.

If the architect or other designer screws up and this causes the client or the contractor has a problem they can and often are sued by their client and others.

If the design needs to be changed because the client changes his mind or the contractor screwed up the designers often are paid to make the changes. In a surprising number of instances this does not happen for a multitude of reasons. If the design needs to be changed because of some fault of the designers it is the norm for the designers to absorb the design costs.

There is one state agency that is known for making unnecessary comments which cause the designers to spend a lot of time resolving. In this context some sophisticated clients have agreed to pay the designer for resolving these comments on a time and material basis. If the designer were to absorb this cost their initial fee would have been larger to offset the possible higher cost of resolving plan check comments. This approach can be cheaper for the building owners Just because the building department makes a comment it does not automatically mean that the designer screwed up.

If the Owner changes something or the design needs to be changed because it cannot be built, contractors are not shy about asking for more money and they are successful in a surprising number of cases.

If the building department imposes a requirement not in the code or asks unnecessary comments this often results in the designers absorbing the cost to make the changes and respond to the comments because their crystal ball was not working. In addition these changes often result in additional costs to construct the building.

Under our legal system these problems are resolved by contracts and the legal system. It is not the job of the building official or inspectors to address these problems and when they attempt to do so they only create problems for others. This is why the building department should only focus on the question of code conformance.

 

[BayPointArchitect]

Recently an architect did her best to work with the local building officials to develop a code-compliant plan for an interior remodel. The final plans meet the minimum code with minimum changes and the cost will be less than any other alternative. Permit issued and ready for construction. Now the tenant wants to argue with the architect because he feels that she did not do her job well enough to find a cheaper code-compliant solution. Architect spends an hour and one-half explaining why the changes are necessary to meet the various codes.

Clients and tenants and building owners are sometimes to blame. In many cases, the architect knows that the client is going to be slow to understand code requirements. After the building official explains again why the changes are necessary to meet the various codes, clients are still wanting to argue.

 

[tmurray]

I sense some misunderstanding of who pays for certain problems.

If the architect or other designer screws up and this causes the client or the contractor has a problem they can and often are sued by their client and others.

If the design needs to be changed because the client changes his mind or the contractor screwed up the designers often are paid to make the changes. In a surprising number of instances this does not happen for a multitude of reasons. If the design needs to be changed because of some fault of the designers it is the norm for the designers to absorb the design costs.

There is one state agency that is known for making unnecessary comments which cause the designers to spend a lot of time resolving. In this context some sophisticated clients have agreed to pay the designer for resolving these comments on a time and material basis. If the designer were to absorb this cost their initial fee would have been larger to offset the possible higher cost of resolving plan check comments. This approach can be cheaper for the building owners Just because the building department makes a comment it does not automatically mean that the designer screwed up.

If the Owner changes something or the design needs to be changed because it cannot be built, contractors are not shy about asking for more money and they are successful in a surprising number of cases.

If the building department imposes a requirement not in the code or asks unnecessary comments this often results in the designers absorbing the cost to make the changes and respond to the comments because their crystal ball was not working. In addition these changes often result in additional costs to construct the building.

Under our legal system these problems are resolved by contracts and the legal system. It is not the job of the building official or inspectors to address these problems and when they attempt to do so they only create problems for others. This is why the building department should only focus on the question of code conformance.

When you put it like that, it makes it sound like it is the designer's fault that bad plan checkers are not held to task. Developers are typically fairly well connected individuals. If the designers all billed the costs of working to resolve comments from rogue plan reviewers and informed the developers, it is likely these developers would be able to influence the political masters to improve the system.

 

[Mark K]

Are we are blaming the victim? Why is it the fault of the designers that there are rogue reviewers and inspectors?

While big time developers can influence the politicians this is not always the case and such political options are typically not available to individual home owners and to small developers. In my experience with very very few exceptions, the owner decides that it is cheaper and faster to do what the reviewers and inspectors demand. Does it make sense to put the project on hold for a year or more? In this environment the reviewers and inspectors feel embolded thus encouraging similar behavior on other projects.

While there may theoretically be legal options to hold rogue building departments to account the designer, who is acting as a consultant to the owner, does not have the authority to sue on his or her own behalf. All the designer can do is bring the problem to the attention of the designers client. From the owners perspective when project delays and the cost of litigation are considered it makes sense to give into the extortion.

 

[tmurray]

Are we are blaming the victim? Why is it the fault of the designers that there are rogue reviewers and inspectors?

While big time developers can influence the politicians this is not always the case and such political options are typically not available to individual home owners and to small developers. In my experience with very very few exceptions, the owner decides that it is cheaper and faster to do what the reviewers and inspectors demand. Does it make sense to put the project on hold for a year or more? In this environment the reviewers and inspectors feel embolded thus encouraging similar behavior on other projects.

While there may theoretically be legal options to hold rogue building departments to account the designer, who is acting as a consultant to the owner, does not have the authority to sue on his or her own behalf. All the designer can do is bring the problem to the attention of the designers client. From the owners perspective when project delays and the cost of litigation are considered it makes sense to give into the extortion.

If the designers, who are the people most influenced by this, is not willing to do anything to try and stop it, why would anyone else?

How can those in a leadership position stop rogue actors in a building inspection department without the knowledge that this is what they are?

This is like expecting the police to arrest the person who assaulted you without telling the police that they assaulted you.

 

[Mark K]

I suspect that in most cases the departments know of the problem but decides to do noting. I know of one instance where an agency regulating hospitals assigned a problem individual to work on a project at a hospital that was out of favor with agency management. That project paid the price.

The building departments should make it clear that the typically behaviors used by rogue inspectors and reviewers are not acceptable.

Building departments should be sensitive to indications that they have a problem employee. These problems do not exist in isolation.

The designers are constrained by the fact that their clients decide to accommodate as opposed to confront. If the designer were to stir up a hornets nest on a project that resulted in a delay, the designer would quickly find himself with out a client. In this context the best the designer can hope for is that he or she gets paid for the added work made necessary by the inspectors and reviewers.