• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Self-Certification Program??

J

Joker

Bronze Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
58
Location
Midwest
As I'm sure most of you are aware there are cities around the country (Chicago, New York, Phoenix, etc.) that are allowing Architects to go through training and then certify that their plans are code compliant. Have you been involved with a municipality that has an initiative like this? If so please advise how you were involved with that municipality, and share your experiences.
 
Pennsylvania had or (still has I think), an expedited plan review process, if a DP lists a disclaimer on the plans stating compliance with applicable codes the plan review time is reduced to 5 business days. When this was enacted we seen a rash of disclaimers and I can say a veryyyyy small majority made it through review the first go round or even the second. Further understand Pennsylvania does NOT have CEU requirements for Registered Architects.

Joker or anyone who can answer, what is the reasoning behind the Design Professionals Self Certifying, delays, qualified plan reviewers????
 
Keystone, these are primarily large, active cities that are probably looking to either reduce or not increase their building departments as a cost control measure. NYC for example has a line outside the door before the start of almost every day. Expediters wait on line for hours at a time for 5 or 10 minutes with someone who can accept their submittals, or discuss applications.
 
We had a similar proposal from our architects and engineer societies, that as they are registered professionals, they are intimately familiar with the codes and should not be under the same scrutiny, but they could not demonstrate that their members had the required knowledge based solely on their credentials.

I would agree with JBI. We have had architects and engineers for much longer than building officials. There is a reason that society thought this was a necessary role.
 
I can think of a 1/2 dozen questions to ask right away that would disqualify most architects in my area. Most of our plans don't get off the code information page or life-safety analysis without comments. Is it because they don't know, too busy, too lazy, or just trying to please a client and get away with something? Take your pick, any way you slice it, JBI has it...... The fox in charge of the hen-house!
 
Keystone said:
Pennsylvania had or (still has I think), an expedited plan review process, if a DP lists a disclaimer on the plans stating compliance with applicable codes the plan review time is reduced to 5 business days. When this was enacted we seen a rash of disclaimers and I can say a veryyyyy small majority made it through review the first go round or even the second. Further understand Pennsylvania does NOT have CEU requirements for Registered Architects.

Joker or anyone who can answer, what is the reasoning behind the Design Professionals Self Certifying, delays, qualified plan reviewers????
Click to expand...
They're saying it reduces time drastically. This is merely speculation but maybe where it first started the city didn't have enough plan reviewers to handle the load at that time and the other cities fell in line because it sounded like a "Good Idea".
 
Everyone, Thanks for your replies. I'm also concerned about the Fox Factor. I've seen a boat load of bad plans and "creative" interpretations of the code by some of the so called best in our area. I'm glad that I have the support of my superiors so far. Cities like NY and Chicago doing it makes it very hard to push back when there's opposition from above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
Self certification kind of defeats the idea of having a building department.

At one time NYC claimed that they had to go to certifications because of the size of the jurisdiction.
this claim can be shown to be not real if you look at the Los Angeles building department. My sense is that they adopted self certification either because the managers of the department were not competent or because of politics.

Any jurisdiction where expeditors are essentially required is likely to be prone to corruption.

Before building departments get too self righteous it should be noted that engineers have stories about building plan checkers that do an inadequate job or are incompetent. Most engineers welcome a thorough plan check but have learned that they cannot count on the building department to find mistakes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
Checks and balance are implemented just to prevent what you suggest "Bob".
Are you trying to increase "Legal" business?
 
Sifu said:
I can think of a 1/2 dozen questions to ask right away that would disqualify most architects in my area. Most of our plans don't get off the code information page or life-safety analysis without comments. Is it because they don't know, too busy, too lazy, or just trying to please a client and get away with something? Take your pick, any way you slice it, JBI has it...... The fox in charge of the hen-house!
Click to expand...

Seems like you guys are seeing the issue from only one side. Have you ever thought the judicial system, lawyers, and lawsuits can serve to put those architects out of business (and often do)? If Architects play fast and loose, their license is on the line and it's not that easy to obtain one in the first place.
 
Joker said:
that are allowing Architects to go through training and then certify that their plans are code compliant.
Click to expand...
How much training?
My understanding is Architects and Engineers get very little training in codes and how to apply them and this is very evident by 90% of the submittals we see everyday. from Architects and Engineers .

In addition there is JARS post
"Listening to your client even when they are wrong"
Where some architects do not have the cahonies to inform their clients what the codes state.
 
Noob said:
Seems like you guys are seeing the issue from only one side. Have you ever thought the judicial system, lawyers, and lawsuits can serve to put those architects out of business (and often do)? If Architects play fast and loose, their license is on the line and it's not that easy to obtain one in the first place.
Click to expand...
I would agree, that is the way it should work in theory. But in practice if that was the case would we be having this conversation?
 
Start of soap box]

I suspect most clients here the dirty word " Fire Sprinkler System!" and go into a convolutions. So the "Man who Draws" work's wee into the night trying to get around the FSS provisions.

And then to add to the displeasure, we as a group at Code Hearings change the next code cycle and reduce the square footage in a occupancy increasing the dependencies of said FSS.

I just did a review on an existing structure with mixed occupancy and about wore out the pages flipping back and forth. My code book has tabs, yellow, orange high lighter and red pencil marks all over it. The code has now become so complicated to do a review I'd like to farm it out. With pressures from the DP's client, I can see why some of us doing plan review have to provide a list of questions over and over to DP, and they stamped it, dated it and signed it prior to review.

I'm with a minimal education and bad grhammer to boot providing a list of code issues to correct. What's wrong with this picture, how does anything stay upright and not fall down, catch on fire or insult a millennial?

I ask who's fault is it?

End of soap box]
 
So if the architect approves their own plans what happens when the inspector fails an inspection for something major like when sprinklers are required and none are installed or an elevator is required and none are on the plans. Does the architect pay for their own mistakes?

I know around here if the architect screws up and does not have required sprinklers on the plans or something else is missing they charge the owner to pay for the new plans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
Prior to 1997, a contractor could apply for a permit and receive the certificate of occupancy the same day by affidavit......It is amazing how the call volume of area fire departments has shifted from structure fires to medical in the last two decades. Just saying from past experiences, self certification is only as good as the profit that can be made at other people expense....
 
Prior to 1997, a contractor could apply for a permit and receive the certificate of occupancy the same day by affidavit......It is amazing how the call volume of area fire departments has shifted from structure fires to medical in the last two decades. Just saying from past experiences, self certification is only as good as the profit that can be made at other people expense....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top