Sub-Contractor Documentation

[Bryan Holland]

About 6 years ago, my building department was experiencing significant problems with sub-contractor documentation. In short, when a general contractor applied for a permit, they would be required to submit a sub-contractor form. In the event of a change during the construction process, a change form would have to be submitted.

This resulted in a host of problems. For one, it was really hard to monitor and track. Inspectors were spending half of their day trying to determine if the correct contractors were on the job sites and performing the work. Most of the time, the wrong subs would be listed, or changes would not be filed with our department.

So, we made a change. We decided to allow the issuance of a permit without ANY notice of subcontractor use. At the end of the project, the permit would not be closed or a CO issued until an accurate sub-contractor form was submitted.

This has spared our department alot of headaches and the contractors really like it.

6 years later, we have had 1200 permitted projects become abandoned. Now, new contractors are trying to take over these permits and becuase we were not requiring sub-contractor documentation until the end of the project, no one really knows what contractors and sub-contractors were ever involved with the projects.

So, we are reconsidering our policy on this matter.

Any suggestions or advice out there? How do you guys handle this matter.

I am thinking of combining the two practices stated above. The GC must submit a subcontractor list at the start and end of the project.

What say you?

 

[conarb]

Bryan:

Why are you requiring subcontractor listing, I assume it's Florida law, are you enforcing contractor licensing as opposed to license board enforcement? We used to require electricians, plumbers, and HVAC subcontractors to pull their own permits, but the courts found that illegal in the late 70s and the general contractor pulls all permits now.

Some AHJs used to require a list of subcontractors at time of permit to enforce business license requirements, but the courts found that illegal too.

 

[texas transplant]

We require any contractor to register with us. Builders, plumbers, electricians, mechanical, pool etc. etc. You can't pull a permit until we have all your information.

We use the process of general contractor is required to submit all plans, get the plan review, we issue a building permit for the structure.

This opens up the permit in the computer and the subs can then all pull their permits for their trade.

Each general and each trade contractor must list on their registration form who is allowed to pull permits in their company name.

This helps us keep track of who did what, and helps us make sure we are issuing permits only to contractors (in this state MEP's) who hold a valid state license.

 

[TimNY]

We require only the GC on the permit application. However, if electric is involved we require a form to be filled out and notarized by the electrician stating he is performing the work on the project.

We are often asked "what if we haven't picked an electrician yet", and the answer is to pick an electrician. Since the form is filled out by the electrician we rarely have any problems. In the event that a GC is fired, we have a record of the electrician. Usually the homeowner or new GC will use the old electrician to finish the job.

We don't require anything from the plumber, other than a affidavit of lead-free solder and a gas line testing cert if it was not witnessed. We won't schedule a final inspection without both of these documents in hand.

 

[fatboy]

We require the GC list all subs before the permit is issued, period. If it becomes known the a sub has changed (we send out letters monthly to subs that are listed on any permit), we require the new sub be listed, or a stop-work is posted.

 

[conarb]

We require the GC list all subs before the permit is issued,...

Why? ..................

 

[Jobsaver]

We also require the GC to list subs. Still, electricians, plumbers, and HVAC, (licensed subs) have to pull separate permits.

Licensed subs call in their own inspection. A GC cannot call in an electrical inspection, for example.

A change in licensed subs requires that a new permit be pulled, and that the new sub assume responsibility for the whole job. We require a letter to that effect.

our administrative policies allow for a midstream change, but discourages the practice.

 

[Mark K]

Why do you care who calls in an electrical inspection. The work either complies or it does not.

If you are enforcing state licensing laws it may be appropriate to know who is doing the work but this is not necessarily tied to calling for an insection.. You may have a requirement to verify workmans comp insurance.

 

[Jobsaver]

Why do you care who calls in an electrical inspection. The work either complies or it does not.If you are enforcing state licensing laws it may be appropriate to know who is doing the work but this is not necessarily tied to calling for an insection.. You may have a requirement to verify workmans comp insurance.

A couple of reasons:

We do not want a builder itching to push along the inspection process calling in an electrical inspection before the work is completed . . . before the electrician is ready.

The electrician is responsible for his own inspection and subsequent reinspection fees.

Also, it discourages a GC from changing subs in order to avoid paying for work completed. Around here, getting paid for work completed is somewhat tied to getting an inspection passed.

 

[fatboy]

Why? ..................

Because, we verify that they are current with state master/contractor licensing requirements, which is our local requirement, and also we have our own local HVAC testing/license requirements that they must comply with. Sooooo, we want to know who is going to be starting/doing/responsible for the work. BEFORE it gets going...........pretty simple, list your subs, then you get a permit.

 

[JBI]

All we ever asked for was the GC and the electrician. Local law for electrical licensing. Other trades did not require a license.

Weren't too picky about who called for inspections, as long as someone called.

 

[Mark K]

If it is not tied to licensing enforcement or other regulations you enforce I suggest that the building department should not be imposing any requirement on the contractor or his subs.

How the subs get paid is a matter between the GC and his subs. Not a concern of the building department.

If the work is obviously not ready for the inspection you should have a mechanism for charging for reinspections.

 

[Jobsaver]

Mark:

For the most part, the people we serve like the system we have. Should the majority suggest to our building department that a change of policy is in order, I will support that change.

As previously stated, around here, getting paid is somewhat tied to getting your inspection passed. This is the agreement between the GC and "his subs", unless they have worked out something else.

Mostly, folks around here are friends that know one another. Occasionally, there is a misunderstanding, tempers flare, or somebody just plain decides to try and cheat somebody else.

Sometimes, when a dispute evolves between a GC and "his subs", and that GC does not want to pay for work performed to code, that GC discovers that "his subs" are actually independent businessmen and women who can have an immediate impact on progressing the construction of the particular project on which they worked and are owed money.

I do not have a problem with that. It does involve the progression of building in my ahj which sometimes makes it my concern.

I could not agree more that if the work is obviously not ready for inspection, we should have a mechanism for charging for reinspections. We do. For electrical inspections, we notify and charge the electrician. For plumbing, the plumber. For HVAC, the HVAC contractor. For everything else, the GC.

 

[fatboy]

"If it is not tied to licensing enforcement or other regulations you enforce I suggest that the building department should not be imposing any requirement on the contractor or his subs."

Even though ours is based on what you posted, I disagree with your thinking. I feel that future owners of structures have the right to know who performed the work, not that it just passed an inspection. Granted, it is not the AHJ's problem for the future, but simply requiring major trade subs be listed is not a hardship for the GC. If they change, great, let us know, we change it in the system, documentation is in place. JMHO

 

[Mark K]

I will defend my thinking by pointing you to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. When we outlawed slavery we also extended the due process protections to apply to the activities of state and local governments.

This means that a governmental agency cannot impose a requirement on the public without there being due process. This in turn means that the building department cannot impose a requirement unless authorized by the state or a local governmental body. The building official cannot impose requirements on his own no matter how well intentioned.

On this matter of law it is irrelevant that the majority like the requirement. Unless the requirement is approved by a governmental body such as the city council, state legislature, or state agency authorized to adopt regulations, the building department has no power to impose additional requirements.

 

[fatboy]

And, with that, I am perfectly in line with our requirements. If I didn't already have it in ordinance and state requirements, I would have amended our local ordinances long ago to require it.

Not that big of a deal, I haven't had anyone lawyer up on me over it.

EDIT: And, I'm not one of those "because I said so" AHJ's, I know what my responsibilities and limitations are, that's why I make sure that I get into ordinance, voted on by council, anything that the BOA and my staff feels is appropriate for enforcement.

 

[Mark K]

Part of my sensitivity is that I have found all too many "because I said so" plan checkers and inspectors.

 

[conarb]

I don't recall the legal basis (and don't feel like researching it) that the California courts stopped the practice, but I think it was that the sole purpose was to extort business license fees from subcontractors, and the state had usurped that function with the state contractors' license laws. The party pulling the permit is the responsible party, it's none of the city's business whether he hires the people that work for him or subcontracts that work to other businesses, in fact to do so the AHJ could be in violation of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, interference with contracts.

I do remember that in the 50s all cities were requiring contractors to put business license stickers on the windshields of their trucks, so building inspectors and/or other city employees could check to see if the contractors had licenses from the street. A painter on the San Francisco Peninsula was cited in one town for not having their license sticker on his windshield, although he had several other cities' stickers, on the way home that night he took the freeway and was stopped and cited by the state highway patrol for obstructing his vision with too many stickers, he took it to court and the courts eventually threw the whole requirement out statewide.

Municipal greed knows no bounds.

 

[fatboy]

"Part of my sensitivity is that I have found all too many "because I said so" plan checkers and inspectors."

Understood........but thats not how it rolls in my jurisdiction.

CA.......well.........cripes, we don't even license GC's here. Yes, meaning, a property owner would not have to list a GC.

 

[Mark K]

A broader legal principal is that local jurisdictions has only the power granted to it by the state or where essential to the role of the local government. This is refered to as Dillion's Rule. I refer you to "Legal Aspects of Code Administration" published by ICC.

The State has reserved to itself the right to regulate certain activities. Thus all local ordinances need to consider the powers that the jurisdiction may have.

The problem is not always greed. More often the saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is more appropriate.

Part of the reason that there is not more litigation on this is because the cost of complying is less than the cost of fighting the case and the Owner wants his building now rather than when the courts finally rule. The problem with local jurisdictions illegaly imposing requirements is so pervasive that many designers and contractors assume that it is legal.

 

[Jobsaver]

The requirements we enforce that are state law:

GC, electrician, plumber, HVAC, must have state license. We require a copy of that license.

The requirements in our ahj that are municipal law:

Must have a privilege license from any municipality in Arkansas. (costs about $50 - $100 per year in our municipality)

Must put up $10,000 performance bond. (costs about $100 for one year for all jobs)

Buy a permit for SFH for 25 cents a sq. ft.

-17 cents per sq. ft. GC for new SFH

-3 cents per sq. ft. each for Electrical, Plumbing, and HVAC subs.

 

[conarb]

If the municipality starts enforcing state laws, what about Federal laws, OSHA, Lead abatement, immigration, Obamacare? You just can't choose what laws you want to enforce and disregard the others.

 

[fatboy]

We are home rule municipality;

• Article XX of the Colorado Constitution grants both general and

specific powers to home rule municipalities, providing them greater

flexibility when seeking solutions to local problems.

• These powers allow home rule municipalities to shape such

solutions to fit local needs, without involving the state legislature or

being subjected to undesirable limitations imposed statewide.

Home rule allows municipalities to respond more quickly to changed

circumstances or emergency situations by allowing legislative

solutions at the local level through ordinances or charter

amendments, rather than waiting for action by the state legislature.

• Home rule municipalities are not required to follow state statutes in

matters of local and municipal concern and therefore enjoy freedom

from state interference regarding local and municipal matters.

And this does not allow nor require the AHJ the authority to enforce federal rules.

 

[Jobsaver]

The state building code is adopted by the state legislature and distributed through the state police. We adopt the state building code by local ordinance, and are sworn in Deputy Marshalls authorized to enforce our office.

SECTION 104: DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL

104.1 General. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions.

SECTION 105: PERMITS

105.1 Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert oe replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this Code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. If there is no building official appointed, the owner, authorized agent or contractor shall make application to the State Fire Marshall.

(2007 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code (Based on the 2006 Fire, Building, & Residential Codes))