The Controversy Surrounding Florida's Private Provider Inspection System

[jar546]

Florida's building industry operates on stringent standards to ensure the safety, welfare, and health of the state's residents. These standards, primarily derived from the Florida Building Code, serve as a benchmark for ensuring that buildings are constructed to withstand the state's unique environmental conditions, including its infamous hurricane season.

However, a provision within Florida Statute 553.791 has raised some eyebrows. This statute allows for private providers to perform inspections on behalf of contractors, even when local municipalities have their own inspectors and plan reviewers. This practice has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the implications it could have on the integrity of the state's building standards.

Potential Conflict of Interest

The major issue that critics highlight is the relationship between the contractor and the private provider. In this arrangement, the contractor is the private provider's client. Ideally, an inspector should serve the public interest, ensuring that all construction meets or exceeds the established building codes. But when the contractor becomes the client, there's an inherent financial incentive for private inspectors to maintain a favorable relationship.

Some private provider inspectors have gone on record stating they are advised not to fail inspections outright but instead to give a "partial approval." The reasoning? Failing an inspection might be "bad for business." This essentially means that a financial relationship could potentially supersede the duty to ensure public safety, leading to corners being cut or standards being compromised.

Implications for Public Safety

If inspections are not thoroughly and impartially conducted, it jeopardizes the safety of future occupants. Buildings that don't meet code standards can have myriad issues, from structural deficiencies to electrical hazards. In a state like Florida, where buildings must be resilient against extreme weather events, a lapse in inspection integrity could be disastrous.

Undermining Local Authorities

Another concern is the undermining of local municipal authorities. Municipal inspectors, employed by the public, work to ensure that the public interest is upheld. By allowing contractors to bypass these inspectors in favor of private providers, it can create a system where municipal inspectors are viewed as obstacles rather than necessary checks and balances in the building process.

The Way Forward

While private providers can offer efficiency and reduce the workload on overburdened municipal inspection teams, it's crucial to address the inherent issues within the current system. One potential solution could be to establish stricter guidelines for private provider inspections and ensure a clear separation between the inspector's duty to public safety and their financial relationship with contractors.

In conclusion, while Florida's Statute 553.791 was likely crafted with the intent of streamlining the inspection process, its real-world application has raised significant concerns about its efficacy and integrity. Balancing efficiency with public safety is paramount, and a reevaluation of this provision might be in order to ensure the state's buildings stand safe and strong for generations to come.

 

[Kearney.200]

I would think the best way to do this would be to have the city supply the contractor with a list of approved inspection agency's with payment through the municipality with the contractor reimbursing for the inspection.

 

[Sifu]

Florida's building industry operates on stringent standards to ensure the safety, welfare, and health of the state's residents. These standards, primarily derived from the Florida Building Code, serve as a benchmark for ensuring that buildings are constructed to withstand the state's unique environmental conditions, including its infamous hurricane season.

However, a provision within Florida Statute 553.791 has raised some eyebrows. This statute allows for private providers to perform inspections on behalf of contractors, even when local municipalities have their own inspectors and plan reviewers. This practice has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the implications it could have on the integrity of the state's building standards. I have been misunderstanding some of the conversations about this. I thought the "third party" process we have been discussing in various threads was what I do, which is contract to the AHJ, not the individual applicants.

Potential Conflict of Interest

The major issue that critics highlight is the relationship between the contractor and the private provider. In this arrangement, the contractor is the private provider's client. Ideally, an inspector should serve the public interest, ensuring that all construction meets or exceeds the established building codes. But when the contractor becomes the client, there's an inherent financial incentive for private inspectors to maintain a favorable relationship. I think this is absolutely a serious potential conflict of interest.

Some private provider inspectors have gone on record stating they are advised not to fail inspections outright but instead to give a "partial approval." The reasoning? Failing an inspection might be "bad for business." This essentially means that a financial relationship could potentially supersede the duty to ensure public safety, leading to corners being cut or standards being compromised. This is not exclusive to private providers. Happens in almost every AHJ I work for.

Implications for Public Safety

If inspections are not thoroughly and impartially conducted, it jeopardizes the safety of future occupants. Buildings that don't meet code standards can have myriad issues, from structural deficiencies to electrical hazards. In a state like Florida, where buildings must be resilient against extreme weather events, a lapse in inspection integrity could be disastrous.

Undermining Local Authorities

Another concern is the undermining of local municipal authorities. Municipal inspectors, employed by the public, work to ensure that the public interest is upheld. By allowing contractors to bypass these inspectors in favor of private providers, it can create a system where municipal inspectors are viewed as obstacles rather than necessary checks and balances in the building process. Municipal inspectors are viewed as obstacles no matter what....same with codes, speed limits, etc.

The Way Forward

While private providers can offer efficiency and reduce the workload on overburdened municipal inspection teams, it's crucial to address the inherent issues within the current system. One potential solution could be to establish stricter guidelines for private provider inspections and ensure a clear separation between the inspector's duty to public safety and their financial relationship with contractors.

In conclusion, while Florida's Statute 553.791 was likely crafted with the intent of streamlining the inspection process, its real-world application has raised significant concerns about its efficacy and integrity. Balancing efficiency with public safety is paramount, and a reevaluation of this provision might be in order to ensure the state's buildings stand safe and strong for generations to come.

Many years ago I had moved to a new state, one without state inspections, where each AHJ was free to develop their own program...or none at all. Many chose none at all. One day a state official called me (some how got my name) and wanted to run his idea by me for how to have the state cover those areas that had no program. Basically fill the gaps with some minimum code enforcement. His idea was to pay individuals per inspection. I pointed out one big problem. Even the most honest person can fall victim to, without even realizing it. I used a scenario that went something like this:

Inspector Bob gets scheduled for a water heater inspection, for which he gets paid 50.00. He uses his own car, but gets mileage. The water heater inspection is 150 miles away. He makes the trip, but there is no CO alarm, so he must make a reinspection, but it is a 300 mile round trip, for which he gets paid 50.00. So in two days, he puts 600 miles on his car, gets 100.00 plus 165.00 in mileage. Between the trip and the paperwork, he spends about 9 hours. So he makes about 11.00/hr, and maybe can get his next oil change on his old car. Plus, the Steelers are on and he doesn't want to miss the beginning of the game. OR, he understands the situation and figures he can trust the owner who promises he will get a CO alarm, avoids the reinspection. So he is incentivized to pass an inspection he would otherwise probably not.

OR

Inspector Bob gets scheduled for a deck framing inspection, for which he gets paid 50.00. He uses his own car but gets mileage. The deck is 1/4 mile from his house. He makes the trip, but all the hangers are missing, so he must make a reinspection. He could see the hangers in place at deck final, but he really thinks he should see them before he signs off on the framing. So he travels the 1/4 mile the next day and signs off. Between the trip and paperwork he traveled 1/2 mile, spend about 9 minutes of his day, and made 100.00. Or he could have noted the deficiency and checked at the next inspection. He made the equivalent of 600.00/hr. He was incentivized to fail the inspection.

Obviously, these are very simplistic examples, but I think they make the point (it did for him). There are lots of ways to mitigate the potential problems and still develop a program using contract inspectors, but you have to pay attention to how it looks. IMHO, there should be absolutely no incentive, financial or otherwise, that influences your job. No matter whether it is private, or municipal.

Even if inspector Bob is the most honest, integrity filled, altruistic person on earth, someone, someday, will accuse him of one or both of those scenarios, even if he did not purposely do it. I explained to the state official that even the appearance of that impropriety would cause big problems, and end up on the news.

I work for a third party contracting to AHJ's. I get paid the exact same whether I pass or fail, approve or disapprove, drive 10 min. or 2 hours. I have personal incentives, like the desire to be accurate, the desire to be fair and consistent, the desire to see people be successful. Do some things motivate me? Yes. Are there times when I may pay more or less attention? Yes. I believe anyone who answers no is lying. But personal gain is not one of them, and never should be.

I also note that I function just like a municipal employee, when someone is mad at me, they call the mayor, when someone is happy with me, they keep their mouth shut. The only difference is where my check comes from. I exercise my personal integrity. Is it possible that the company can be somewhat less concerned when they make contracts, look at the bottom line, assign inspectors based on profit rather than needed coverage? YEP. But I think to some extent that happens in municipal agencies as well. JMHO!

 

[bill1952]

In rural areas, the private inspector seems like only possibility. Just not enough tax base for a department with expertise in all areas. Just had an electrical final on detached garage - passed - by a private contractor who does only electrical inspections in the rural region. I send him a check. Could the system be abused? Sure. (But not this individual.)

 

[e hilton]

Two personal experiences. The PG county 3rd party process that i brought up in a different thread, has language that clearly prohibits the gc or aor on the project from being involved in the inspection process. The client/owner has to engage the inspector.

Not too many yrs ago … about 6 … i was doing some gut & remodel projects in the south fla area, using a local gc. They were ethically challenged. I took over the projects from another pm, and discovered that she had agreed to let the gc engage an inspection firm of their choice. Needless to say the inspection reports were worthless. Concrete strength reports lacked any detail, and just said it passed.

 

[jar546]

Just a reminder there is a difference between a third-party agency that works for or on behalf of a municipality and a private provider that works solely on behalf of the contractor.

 

[e hilton]

Just a reminder there is a difference between a third-party agency that works for or on behalf of a municipality and a private provider that works solely on behalf of the contractor.

Right, but your OP seemed to indicate these are working for the contractor.

“This statute allows for private providers to perform inspections on behalf of contractors, even when local municipalities have their own inspectors and plan reviewers.”