The Vital Role of Comprehensive Plan Review in Construction

[jar546]

Alright, let's have a heart-to-heart talk. I get it; we all have those days when the pile of plan reviews seems never-ending, and the temptation to rush through them is real. But let me tell you, there's something about plan review that we can't afford to overlook – the essence of our role as gatekeepers of safety and quality in construction.

Now, I won't sugarcoat it; plan reviews can be time-consuming, and sometimes it feels like we're the bottleneck in the permitting process. But here's the cold, hard truth – the minor delays at this stage are our best insurance against major headaches down the line.

Consider this scenario: You wave through a project without giving those plans a thorough once-over, and it turns out they lack the minimum information required for code decisions or aren't drawn to scale with dimensions. Everything seems fine, right? Wrong. The cracks start showing during field inspections. The inspector, who's already stretched thin, can only do a surface check, and boom – we're looking at costly issues, potential safety hazards, and a whole lot of finger-pointing.

We've got to understand that inspectors can't play the role of design engineers in the field. They're swamped with inspections, and they simply don't have the bandwidth to crunch numbers and scrutinize span tables on-site. That's not their job; it's ours during plan review.

Here's the kicker: Our commitment to code compliance isn't just about ticking boxes; it's about safeguarding the integrity of construction projects. It's about making sure that builders start on the right foot, armed with plans that meet the highest safety and quality standards. There's no reason why a registered design professional can't draw plans to scale with all the necessary dimensions. We're not just rule enforcers; we're part of the team to ensure the proposed project flows smoothly.

So, next time you're tempted to rush through a plan review, remember that it's not just a bureaucratic hurdle. It's a critical step in the process, a commitment to the safety of the community we serve, and a testament to our dedication to the craft.

In the grand scheme of things, those minor delays are a small price to pay for a construction project that stands strong, meets every regulation and keeps our communities safe. Let's embrace the importance of plan review and raise the bar for construction standards. It's not just a job; it's our duty.

 

[SDS]

We're not just rule enforcers; we're part of the team to ensure the proposed project flows smoothly.

Amen, brother!

I've always held the position that I am committed to the project, not any particular set of people involved.

 

[bill1952]

That holds true for designers as well as enforcers. Didn't used to be so difficult. The primary architect could go through 50 sheets - typical high school pre-cad - all trades - and catch most coordination issues. Today that same building can be 1000 sheets. Who the eff can look through and coordinate all those? How does an enforcer do it?

 

[steveray]

That holds true for designers as well as enforcers. Didn't used to be so difficult. The primary architect could go through 50 sheets - typical high school pre-cad - all trades - and catch most coordination issues. Today that same building can be 1000 sheets. Who the eff can look through and coordinate all those? How does an enforcer do it?

We don't have to worry about coordination....Mostly...

 

[jar546]

The reduction in the competency level of a lot of contractors contribute to this problem. Many times, after a failed inspection for something as simple as accessibility, "But its not on the plans." There are some things contractors should know, same thing goes for inspectors and plans examiners. As a result, Registered Design Professionals (RDPs) are adding more information to plans to compensate for the deficit of the contractors.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I agree completely with the opening post. In an ideal world, every plan review would use the ICC plan review records (including those for the IPC, IMC, A117.1, and the IECC) and we would check everything. In the real world, we don't have time for that but we do have a legal, moral, and ethical duty and responsibility to at least review the construction documents for compliance with the most significant elements affecting occupant safety. We can't just assume that an architect's seal means everything is good to go.

I'm a licensed architect. I KNOW the presence of a seal isn't a guarantee. Legally, my seal on a drawing means ONLY that I am certifying that the drawing was either done by me personally, or was done by someone under my direct supervision. That's ALL an architect's or engineer's seal means. Putting a seal on a plan is NOT in any way a guarantee by the architect or engineer that the work is correct, complete, or complies with the code.

The code requires us to review the drawings for compliance with the code. If we don't do that -- we're not doing what we were hired to do.

The building official shall examine or cause to be examined the accompanying submittal documents and shall ascertain by such examinations whether the construction indicated and described is in accordance with the requirements of this code and other pertinent laws or ordinances.

I've been in my current position for 2-1/2 years. Most of what I do is commercial plan review. In that time, I don't think I've seen more than one or maybe two (small) projects that I could approve on the first submittal. The same was true at my previous department. It's an uphill battle, because apparently a former building official was prone to approving anything that had a seal and signature on it, and we are still dealing with the problems that created almost ten years after some of the permits were issued.

 

[Mark K]

The world looks a little difference when you look at it from the perspective of our legal system and from the point of view of the designers,

The laws, I admit a California bias, delegate code compliance to the building department. Thus if it is not an issue of code compliance the most you can do is offer a non-binding comment.

Thus based on the public duty doctrine if a plan checker or inspector goes beyond the code he and the department could have liability
The public duty doctrine is a principle of tort law that a government entity cannot be held liable for the injuries of an individual resulting from a breach of a duty owed to the public as a whole. The doctrine applies unless the individual can prove that the government entity owed a specific duty to him or her, and not just a general duty to the public

While the codes promote safety many aspects of safety are governed by OSHA regulations. Where is it stated that the building department is empowered to enforce OSHA, federal, regulations?

A reading of commentaries of building standards makes it clear that the code does not intend to insure safety against all hazards. Safety is relative. Thus decisions by the Owner and his consultants to go, or not go, beyond the code are not subject to review by the building department. Focus on code compliance.

Quality is largely subjective and not easily regulated. As a poor substitute the code specifies objective criteria which can be enforced.

"...safeguarding the integrity of the construction process" is subject to differing interpretations and thus potentially subject to abuse. Focus on code compliance.

I have difficulty resolving the idea that we are part of a team with the understanding that the Owner Contractor agreement is an arms length relationship. In addition the building department only comes in when the design is finalized to act as a referee.

Rember because of governmental immunity the plan checkers have no liability. I am bound by code compliance and by my duties to my client not the personal preferences of individual plan checkers.

Focus on code compliance.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The reduction in the competency level of a lot of contractors contribute to this problem. Many times, after a failed inspection for something as simple as accessibility, "But its not on the plans." There are some things contractors should know, same thing goes for inspectors and plans examiners. As a result, Registered Design Professionals (RDPs) are adding more information to plans to compensate for the deficit of the contractors.

Some of the are. Others are still relying on boilerplate language that "All work shall conform to state and local code requirements." I send those back very quickly, citing IBC 107.2.1 (or IRC 106.2.1). IMHO, that boilerplate language is the design professional's attempt to shift responsibility for knowing the code from himself onto the contractor. It's the designer's responsibility to provide plans that demonstrate "clearly" that the work when completed will comply with code. It's the contractor's responsibility to build what's drawn. If something isn't "clearly" shown and explained/specified, it's not the contarctor's role to figure it out -- nor is it my job as the plan reviewer.

 

[Mark K]

I agree completely with the opening post. In an ideal world, every plan review would use the ICC plan review records (including those for the IPC, IMC, A117.1, and the IECC) and we would check everything. In the real world, we don't have time for that but we do have a legal, moral, and ethical duty and responsibility to at least review the construction documents for compliance with the most significant elements affecting occupant safety. We can't just assume that an architect's seal means everything is good to go.

I'm a licensed architect. I KNOW the presence of a seal isn't a guarantee. Legally, my seal on a drawing means ONLY that I am certifying that the drawing was either done by me personally, or was done by someone under my direct supervision. That's ALL an architect's or engineer's seal means. Putting a seal on a plan is NOT in any way a guarantee by the architect or engineer that the work is correct, complete, or complies with the code.

Sealing and signing construction documents creates liability for the individual signing the documents and while the liability is not absolute it is real.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Thus based on the public duty doctrine if a plan checker or inspector goes beyond the code he and the department could have liability
The public duty doctrine is a principle of tort law that a government entity cannot be held liable for the injuries of an individual resulting from a breach of a duty owed to the public as a whole. The doctrine applies unless the individual can prove that the government entity owed a specific duty to him or her, and not just a general duty to the public

While the codes promote safety many aspects of safety are governed by OSHA regulations. Where is it stated that the building department is empowered to enforce OSHA, federal, regulations?

Agreed. We frequently get owners or builders whose response to any question is, "What do you want?" Our answer has to be, "We want something that complies with the code."

We are not the designer, and we can't put ourselves into the role of designer. Trying to be helpful will usually come back to bite you in the butt. You tell someone that they "might consider" doing XYZ to resolve a problem. They do it -- wrong -- you then cite them for doing it wrong, and their response is that "I did exactly what you told me I had to do and now you're citing me for it." It's a trap -- don't fall into it.

It's worse for me because I'm licensed as an architect as well as a building official. When discussing issues with applicants and/or contractors, if they realize I'm an architect I have to make it very clear that I am "an" architect, I am not "your" architect.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Dunno about you guys, but in Canada, there are common-law precedents that basically create a standard of care that we *have* to engage in thorough plans review.

"The Township granted the Permit with no plans or specifications contrary to the By-Law and granted the said Permit in less than one day. I conclude that the Township building department did not review the Application for Permit in any meaningful manner, to ascertain whether the information provided allowed it to conclude that the Application complied with the Act or Code. The information in the Application is so sparse, I fail to understand how the Township could determine the scope and complexity of the three-storey building that was intended to be constructed. The Township had the authority to demand a set of Plans, more information on the scope and complexity of the construction before granting a building permit. The Township could have rejected the Application. It did neither.

[92] At minimum, the Township was entrusted to take reasonable and prudent steps to review the Application for Building Permit to enforce the Act, Code and the By-Law for the health and safety of the public, which includes subsequent owners of the Cottage. The Township had no plans or specifications to do so. The granting of the Permit the same day indicates that it did no review, which corresponds to there being no plans or specifications to review.

[93] I conclude that at this first stage, the conduct of the Township fell well below the required standard of care."

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Sealing and signing construction documents creates liability for the individual signing the documents and while the liability is not absolute it is real.

The liability exists irrespective of the seal and signature. But that's not our problem or concern. Our only concern is whether or not the construction drawings are "of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, ..."

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I have difficulty resolving the idea that we are part of a team with the understanding that the Owner Contractor agreement is an arms length relationship. In addition the building department only comes in when the design is finalized to act as a referee.

The Building Department is not in any way a part of the owner/design professional/contractor team that's responsible for creating a building.

Rember because of governmental immunity the plan checkers have no liability. I am bound by code compliance and by my duties to my client not the personal preferences of individual plan checkers.

Focus on code compliance.

I can't speak for other states (or Canada) but, in my state, as long as we make a reasonable effort we (building officials and inspectors) are personally indemnified, but the municipality that employs us can still be liable if we screw up. But we're not indemnified if we don't at least make a reasonable effort. I can imagine that a case such as cited by Inspector Gadget (above) would play out the same in my state -- if we don't at least make a reasonable attempt to check the plans for code conformity, we are guilty of misfeasance or nonfeasance -- or both.

And we can still be sued. A number of years ago a person who did a change of use and interior alteration without benefit of permit or inspections sued us for not giving him a certificate of occupancy -- even though the project clearly didn't meet code. He sued the mayor (alleging political influence), the building official, me (the plan reviewer), the ZEO, and a couple of other people. The case dragged on for well over a year. The town's insurance paid for our defense, and would have paid any settlement, but the town (and its insurer) would have been on the hook.

Mercifully, when it finally got to court the judge dismissed the case.

 

[Mark K]

Some of the are. Others are still relying on boilerplate language that "All work shall conform to state and local code requirements." I send those back very quickly, citing IBC 107.2.1 (or IRC 106.2.1). IMHO, that boilerplate language is the design professional's attempt to shift responsibility for knowing the code from himself onto the contractor. It's the designer's responsibility to provide plans that demonstrate "clearly" that the work when completed will comply with code. It's the contractor's responsibility to build what's drawn. If something isn't "clearly" shown and explained/specified, it's not the contarctor's role to figure it out -- nor is it my job as the plan reviewer.

It is not the responsibility of the building department to assign responsibility. The department should focus on code compliance

Assigning responsibility is a function of or legal system and contracts.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

It is not the responsibility of the building department to assign responsibility. The department should focus on code compliance

I agree. And if the drawings use boilerplate "to code" or "as required" language rather than clearly showing a code-compliant widget -- I don't approve the plans.

 

[ICE]

California is leaning away from plan checking. Solar plans aren't required for a permit to be issued. The solar plan check is done by the inspector at the final inspection... or not as the case may be. An ADU gets plan checked in the field by the inspector, presumably at the first inspection... or not as the case may be.

Years ago an inspector quit LA County and went to work for San Bernardino County. He didn't last long at SBCO. He said that the county does not plan check anything submitted by an engineer. The pressure to get it right was too much for him.

Now California has passed legislation that forces cities to allow the sale of an ADU as a condominium.

In California, You Can Now Sell Your ADU

The state just passed a new law to increase housing stock and homeownership with backyard homes.

www.dwell.com

It wasn't plan checked, it was barely inspected and now it can be sold as legitimate construction.

 

[jar546]

I'm a licensed architect. I KNOW the presence of a seal isn't a guarantee. Legally, my seal on a drawing means ONLY that I am certifying that the drawing was either done by me personally, or was done by someone under my direct supervision. That's ALL an architect's or engineer's seal means. Putting a seal on a plan is NOT in any way a guarantee by the architect or engineer that the work is correct, complete, or complies with the code.

Give this person an award for honesty!

 

[jar546]

Thus based on the public duty doctrine if a plan checker or inspector goes beyond the code he and the department could have liability

That's a given.

A reading of commentaries of building standards makes it clear that the code does not intend to insure safety against all hazards. Safety is relative. Thus decisions by the Owner and his consultants to go, or not go, beyond the code are not subject to review by the building department. Focus on code compliance.

Agree

 

[Mark K]

Give this person an award for honesty!

When a licensed design professional affixes his stamp there is an assumption that the individual has exercised an appropriate standard of care. When it was determined that the designer has been negligent the design professional may have liability.

 

[steveray]

When a licensed design professional affixes his stamp there is an assumption that the individual has exercised an appropriate standard of care. When it was determined that the designer has been negligent the design professional may have liability.

And that becomes the fuzzy line....Designers have some nebulous responsibility to get the gist of the code across for the people involved to complete, WE are directed to enforce the code which is a ministerial act and mandatory.

It's like innocent until proven guilty vs. the other way round....

[A] 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 adopt policies and procedures to clarify the application of its provisions. Such policies and procedures shall comply with the intent and purpose of this code.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

It is not the responsibility of the building department to assign responsibility. The department should focus on code compliance

Assigning responsibility is a function of or legal system and contracts.

Yes ... and no.

There is a distinction between "responsibility" and "liability." The IBC establishes a responsibility that, by code, is assigned to whoever prepares the construction documents:

107.2.1 Information on construction documents.
Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn on
suitable material. Electronic media documents are permitted to
be submitted where approved by the building official.
Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate
the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and
show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this
code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as
determined by the building official.

Unless the contractor is also the designer and draftsperson, the above paragraph IMHO pretty clearly makes it the architect's (or engineer's, or unlicensed building designer's) responsibility to submit construction documents that provide enough information for me, as a code official, to determine that the work if built as drawn, will comply with code requirements. Just putting a bunch of notes such as "Provide handrails and guards as required by code" (I see that one a lot) doesn't provide any information whatsoever, beyond the fact that the designer at least knows that a stair or ramp requires some sort of railings.

The building department doesn't assign this responsibility -- the code does. The contractor isn't involved until after the permit has been issued. His responsibility is to build what's drawn on the approved construction documents.

107.1 General. Submittal documents consisting of
construction documents, statement of special inspections,
geotechnical report and other data shall be submitted in two or
more sets, or in a digital format where allowed by the building
official, with each permit application. The construction documents
shall be prepared by a registered design professional
where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the
project is to be constructed. Where special conditions exist, the
building official is authorized to require additional construction
documents to be prepared by a registered design
professional.

So, unless the contractor is also the registered design professional, the code itself says that it is not his responsibility to decide how to make any particular feature or element of the building meet code.

 

[bill1952]

And that becomes the fuzzy line....Designers have some nebulous responsibility to get the gist of the code across for the people involved to complete, WE are directed to enforce the code which is a ministerial act and mandatory.

It's like innocent until proven guilty vs. the other way round....

[A] 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 adopt policies and procedures to clarify the application of its provisions. Such policies and procedures shall comply with the intent and purpose of this code.

Just curious if building officials or their departments have to have professional liability insurance?

 

[jar546]

Just curious if building officials or their departments have to have professional liability insurance?

When I owned a third-party agency and provided building code services to municipalities, the answer was yes. The type of insurance the municipality carries for their building department, I don't believe is E&O.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

In my state, building officials and their subordinates are indemnified by language in the code itself. The municipality, on the other hand, has to carry insurance or self-insure. I'm pretty certain most carry insurance.

Being indemnified does not mean you can't be sued. I've been sued -- in federal court -- along with my boss (the building official), the mayor, the zoning enforcement officer, and I think a couple of other municipal officials. The town's insurance paid for an attorney to defend us, and we got a good one. It was a bogus case anyway, and the result was that the case was thrown out when it finally reached a judge.

But we did get sued.