Private Providers (private inspection companies hired by contractors)

[jar546]

So here in Florida, the law allows contractors to hire their own "Private Providers" in lieu of having jurisdiction plan review and inspections. The municipality, in return, imposes a reduced fee schedule and is allowed to audit the job site up to 4 times per month. This is not the same as a third-party inspection agency that is hired by municipalities to assist or perform all building code enforcement. Private providers work directly for the contractors, hence you can see the problem. This was allowed to help reduce permitting time and inspection scheduling as many departments fall behind. This comes at a cost, however.

Although municipalities are allowed to register the private providers and the private providers must notify the municipality when they schedule inspections, there are problems with this system.

The first problem is loyalty. The customer of the private provider is the contractor and that, pure and simple is an issue. If you market yourself and land an agreement with a contractor to perform plan review and inspections, the last thing you want to do is upset them by doing a thorough plan review or failing an inspection. They know they can't bite the hand that feeds them. I had an issue with a commercial private provider job where I showed up for a final in order to issue a CO and found that not only were the emergency lights missing, but not even on the plans. No one caught this at plan review, revisions or in the field during rough or final inspections. There were other minor issues such as lack of labeling of panelboards, not even circuits. When I discuss this with other BCOs, I hear the same or similar problems, especially when the job site is on the 8th revision of plans and none of it was reviewed or sent to the municipality.

Once again legislation was passed years ago to bandaid the problem of a few slow customer service and created another issue. What are your thoughts? Does your state allow private providers to do the job of your jurisdiction without actually working for the jurisdiction?

 

[TheCommish]

Under this private provider system who has the final authority to issue the CO? if it is the PP what copiability doe they have for non code conforming work?

If it is the municipal inspector, site the violation and deny the CO forcing the contractor to seek answer from the PP why they cannot turn the property over to the end user.

 

[steveray]

I theory we could allow it, but it doesn't happen here...long term liability for errors would be the biggest issue for a jurisdiction "accepting" someone else's work that I could see being an issue. If the municipality was out completely, I could see that working....

 

[e hilton]

Unless you working for the same bosses as Ice … where the customer is always right … i would fail the final and hold my ground.

 

[SCBO1]

I think a large muni near us allows PP's for some inspections but not all. Some city's are overwhelmed with projects and delays cost $$ in construction, so I think theres a nitch for the PPer's.

I permit a couple of licensed engineer's do a few footing and foundation inspections due to the contractors needing the inspection a Saturday or to beat inclimate weather. I get a letter sealed by the engineer for the file, but I do worry that the engineer may not be concerened with the house placement on the lot, they typacally do not have the plot plan when in the field.

 

[jar546]

Under this private provider system who has the final authority to issue the CO? if it is the PP what copiability doe they have for non code conforming work?

If it is the municipal inspector, site the violation and deny the CO forcing the contractor to seek answer from the PP why they cannot turn the property over to the end user.

The BCO is the only one that has authority to issue the CO. The private provider is suppose to enforce the codes just as the jurisdiction would.

 

[jar546]

I think a large muni near us allows PP's for some inspections but not all. Some city's are overwhelmed with projects and delays cost $$ in construction, so I think theres a nitch for the PPer's.

I permit a couple of licensed engineer's do a few footing and foundation inspections due to the contractors needing the inspection a Saturday or to beat inclimate weather. I get a letter sealed by the engineer for the file, but I do worry that the engineer may not be concerened with the house placement on the lot, they typacally do not have the plot plan when in the field.

We require a survey after the before the footer/foundation is poured. Part of it is the height of the slab for flood, the other part is to make sure the house is being built where it was approved. Unless you do a survey, no one can be sure that house is in the right spot. Mandatory down here.

 

[ICE]

There is at least one PP here that handles it all. The Jurisdiction has to approve the PP on each project. I don't know, but I've been told that a ploy to increase revenue is to send the project back through plan check for every possible reason.

Given that a conractor is not allowed to hire a special inspector it goes without saying that the owner also hires the PP.

I do not turn the inspections over to the special inspectors but with the PP company handling the project, I never go there.

It is also possible that the PP inspection is better than the jurisdiction inspection. In fact, in some locales the odds are tilted in favor of the PP inspection.