Why Building Departments Must Scrutinize Stamped Drawings

In my decades of experience in building departments across various municipalities, one issue continues to alarm me: the automatic approval of submitted drawings simply because they bear the stamp of an architect or engineer. This practice, often justified by excuses of limited resources or directives from higher-ups, is nothing short of pure laziness. It poses significant risks and is a disservice to the community we are sworn to protect.

Let's address the common excuses first. I frequently hear that some building departments, especially smaller ones, have to pick and choose which plans to review due to staffing constraints. Others claim they are directed to approve any drawings from Registered Design Professionals (RDPs) without question. Such practices are among the most dangerous in our field. It's crucial to remember that everyone, including architects and engineers, can make mistakes. Blindly trusting their submissions without verification is a recipe for disaster.

At the very least, building departments should require a copy of the calculations from the RDP. When a structure is not being built prescriptively according to the building code, it's entirely reasonable to demand the calculations for all engineered areas. Why is this necessary? Simply asking for these calculations provides legal documentation on how the building was designed. It ensures that the design has been carefully considered and verified.

As building officials or plans examiners, we have every right to require these calculations. If you encounter resistance, it's often because the RDP did not thoroughly perform their job. Should they question the purpose of submitting these calculations, explain that they are needed for official record-keeping or for review by your staff Professional Engineer (PE). If your department lacks a staff PE, these calculations can be reviewed by an engineering firm contracted by your municipality. By making this request, you signal to the RDP that your department is serious about building safety.

Over the years, I’ve seen numerous examples where this diligence has paid off. We frequently find errors in RDP submissions—errors that could have severe consequences if left unchecked. For instance, we've encountered incorrect dimensions for Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) or specifications for built-up girders that don't meet code requirements, even when interpolating code tables.

Our department uses a PE to review structural submissions due to our high wind zone. It's rare for him to approve drawings on the first pass. If a licensed structural PE finds issues with submissions from other engineers and architects 90% of the time, imagine what might be missed if drawings are automatically approved without such scrutiny.

I urge all plans examiners and building officials to reconsider the practice of auto-approving stamped drawings. At the very least, request the calculations if you lack the resources for a full PE review. For larger projects, peer reviews are warranted and can catch critical errors before they become costly or dangerous issues.

Let's prioritize building safety and integrity. Our communities depend on us to ensure that every structure meets the highest standards. Don't let the stamp of an RDP be a free pass. Make it a starting point for thorough and diligent review.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

At the very least, building departments should require a copy of the calculations from the RDP. When a structure is not being built prescriptively according to the building code, it's entirely reasonable to demand the calculations for all engineered areas. Why is this necessary? Simply asking for these calculations provides legal documentation on how the building was designed. It ensures that the design has been carefully considered and verified.

As building officials or plans examiners, we have every right to require these calculations. If you encounter resistance, it's often because the RDP did not thoroughly perform their job. Should they question the purpose of submitting these calculations, explain that they are needed for official record-keeping or for review by your staff Professional Engineer (PE). If your department lacks a staff PE, these calculations can be reviewed by an engineering firm contracted by your municipality. By making this request, you signal to the RDP that your department is serious about building safety.

The problem here is that, although we have the right to require that the calculations be provided, very few of us (virtually none of us) have the engineering knowledge and experience to review them. The act of requesting them could, in court, be construed as creating a duty to review them. If we don't have th expertise in-house, what then? A few larger city building departments may have money in their budget to retain outside consultants to review a structural design, but most departments don't.

I have previously posted about the engineer who stole the design and details for another (smaller) building and submitted them as his own. In discussing how to deal with that fiasco, we involved both the town engineer and the town counsel. The town engineer said the engineers in that department are qualified to design roads, bridges, and storm drainage systems, not buildings. The town counsel at that point told us flat out NOT to request the calculations, because if we got them and didn't review them we would be negligent, and if we got them and reviewed them and missed something, we would be even more negligent. The answer was to engage an outside structural engineer, but we had nothing in our budget to pay for such a third party review.

In the end, we fell back on section 107.1 of the IBC:

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.

Town counsel agreed that a situation where a licensed engineer was proven to have plagiarized the design would probably stand up in court as being a "special condition," so we told the engineer that he had to hire an outside structural engineer to provide us a report. He did so, and the report highlighted several flaws that required correction. While it was our intention that the engineer would pay for the third party review, we subsequently found out that he billed his client for it and told the client that the building department was picking on him.

It worked out and (so far, at least) it hasn't resulted in any lawsuits, but IMHO the solution wasn't squeaky clean. The notion of the entity being reviewed paying the reviewer just screams "conflict of interest." If I had been the BO, I would have pushed harder to have the third part reviewer be engaged by and report directly to the Town, and have the original engineer reimburse the town for the expense. That would have been cleaner, but the town counsel didn't want to do it that way.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Let's prioritize building safety and integrity. Our communities depend on us to ensure that every structure meets the highest standards. Don't let the stamp of an RDP be a free pass. Make it a starting point for thorough and diligent review.

I have said before and I will say again: Our communities don't pay us to ensure that every structure meets "the highest" standards. In fact, legally, quite the opposite is true. Our communities pay us to ensure that every structure meets the requirements of the applicable codes, and the applicable codes are (as they themselves say) the minimum standards. We have no authority to require anything beyond the minimum requirements of the codes.

For design professionals, their professional liability won't even let them claim that they meet "the highest" standards. That's because professional liability insurance policies are written on the basis of the "ordinary standard of care," not the "highest" standard of care. The legal definition of the ordinary standard of care is what another reasonable design professional in the same geographic area would do in a similar situation. When push comes to shove, if all the engineers in your area do a crappy job -- that's the ordinary standard of care. In fact, I personally (and professionally) believe that most of the architects in my area do crappy work and I have told attorneys that I'm the guy they need as a defense witness in professional liability cases, because the standard of care in my area is for architects to do crappy work.

 

[jar546]

The problem here is that, although we have the right to require that the calculations be provided, very few of us (virtually none of us) have the engineering knowledge and experience to review them.

And if you don't then you have them as documentation that accompanies the plans. Do we all have a tendency to look for reasons not to do something we are allowed to do?

 

[jar546]

I have said before and I will say again: Our communities don't pay us to ensure that every structure meets "the highest" standards. In fact, legally, quite the opposite is true.

Context is everything. The highest standards we can enforce are the building codes, which are minimum standards yet higher than no standard and higher standards with a safety factor built in. Don't equate building codes to be the opposite of the "highest standards." That is not a true statement.

 

[ICE]

I urge all plans examiners and building officials to reconsider the practice of auto-approving stamped drawings.

It has been a longstanding practice with minimal trouble.

girders that don't meet code requirements, even when interpolating code tables.

Was the concern about a sag or a failure?

An acquaintance that worked alpngside me at LA County B/S left and went to work at a County near his home. That county did not plan check anything that was signed and sealed by an architect or engineer. He didn't last a year. He couldn't handle being the only incompetent eyes on the plans.

I worked in a few cities located in that County. I witnessed some strange things in the few weeks I was working there. The flaws went from missing structural elements to an attached ADU with fire sprinklers on the plans. The on-vacation inspector refused to approve framing/meps without the sprinklers. The main house did not have sprinklers. No house within five miles had sprinklers. However, the plans when I left site did not have sprinklers. The contractor said that he has been waiting for weeks. LOL the electrical had been signed off and I wrote a load of corrections on a sub-panel and more.

Since retiring I have been helping a friend. He is a conscientious contractor that I have known for twenty-five years. A recent project is a six foot wide pass through in a partition wall and a 120 sq. ft. walk-in cooler. The restaurant is large and there is a complete electrical plan including a floor plan with electrical layout. Not included is a roof plan showing equipment location. In my time as an inspector I would get an ICC-ESR for the cooler and a single page drawing of the corner where the cooler was going.

 

[ICE]

A few larger city building departments may have money in their budget to retain outside consultants to review a structural design, but most departments don't.

Is the department allowed to recoup costs related to issuing permits? Can peer review be incorporated in the minimum requirements?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Is the department allowed to recoup costs related to issuing permits?

There is no provision in the code or in state law to do so. If we wanted to make it standard procedure, we would have to adjust the permit fee structure. That requires approval from the town council (not the town counsel), and that ain't gonna happen.

Can peer review be incorporated in the minimum requirements?

Only the state can amend the building code. The code as adopted requires (by state amendment) third-part peer review for certain types of large buildings or buildings with large occupant loads. For anything not already requiring peer review under state law, no -- we can't require it.

This is not to say that we just accept a seal and signature on the plans. we don't. As an architect, I took graduate level structural engineering classes, and I worked as an architect for 25 years before shifting over to code consulting, and then to working as a building official. For most of the kinds of structures we encounter, I have enough experience to at least see when something seems to be way out of whack -- which has happened on multiple projects in the three years I've been in my current position. We don't just rubber stamp, but we don't have a mechanism to require peer review where not required by state law. And since the town counsel has specifically told us NOT to request calculations because we don't have the technical qualifications to review them -- we don't ask for them. Where we believe we have identified potential structural issues, we have to find other ways to get them addressed.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

One thing I should add, regarding costs and permit fees:

Our current permit fees could cover the cost of some peer reviews on questionable projects -- if we were allowed to keep and use them. But, all across the state, permit fees don't belong to the building department, the fees go into the municipality's general fund. After a recent discussion on this forum that touched ion that, I looked up last year's town budget. In round numbers, building department fees generated about $1.5 million. Out of that, they gave us approximately $750,000 to run the department. The town skimmed off three quarters of a million bucks to use for other purposes.

It's not right, and if a taxpayer or permittee pushed it in court it probably wouldn't withstand a legal challenge, but between architecture and code enforcement I've been working in this state for over 50 years and nobody has yet tried to challenge the system in court. Many people grumble and complain, but nobody has yet actually filed a lawsuit and pointed out that using building permit fees for other purposes is -- in effect and in reality -- an unequal system of discriminatory taxation.

 

[tmurray]

One thing I should add, regarding costs and permit fees:

Our current permit fees could cover the cost of some peer reviews on questionable projects -- if we were allowed to keep and use them. But, all across the state, permit fees don't belong to the building department, the fees go into the municipality's general fund. After a recent discussion on this forum that touched ion that, I looked up last year's town budget. In round numbers, building department fees generated about $1.5 million. Out of that, they gave us approximately $750,000 to run the department. The town skimmed off three quarters of a million bucks to use for other purposes.

It's not right, and if a taxpayer or permittee pushed it in court it probably wouldn't withstand a legal challenge, but between architecture and code enforcement I've been working in this state for over 50 years and nobody has yet tried to challenge the system in court. Many people grumble and complain, but nobody has yet actually filed a lawsuit and pointed out that using building permit fees for other purposes is -- in effect and in reality -- an unequal system of discriminatory taxation.

I always wonder if taxpayers knew what the potential exposure was on a few buildings, if they wouldn't be OK with a fractional one-time increase in taxes.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I always wonder if taxpayers knew what the potential exposure was on a few buildings, if they wouldn't be OK with a fractional one-time increase in taxes.

Why should taxes increase? The premise underlying building permit fees is that the fees cover the cost of operating the building department. There have been books written by all the model code organizations that spell out this concept, and it makes sense. Why should taxpayers who aren't doing any construction pay for plan reviews and inspections that benefit the owners of new buildings or new alterations?

On the flip side, if the permit fees are intended to pay for the cost of administering the building code, why should the small percentage of the population who take out permits in a given year have half (or more) of the permit fees they pay be siphoned off by the municipality and used for purposes unrelated to administering the building code?

 

[jar546]

On the flip side, if the permit fees are intended to pay for the cost of administering the building code, why should the small percentage of the population who take out permits in a given year have half (or more) of the permit fees they pay be siphoned off by the municipality and used for purposes unrelated to administering the building code?

That is why many states have laws that prohibit that.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

That is why many states have laws that prohibit that.

Unfortunately, I do not live and work in such an enlightened state.

Can you name a few states that have such laws? I'd like to see the statutory language, to use as a guide to submit a proposal to my state's politicians.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

It has been a longstanding practice with minimal trouble.

Absolutely, totally, vehemently (and other words) disagree. It's created lots and LOTS of issues. I've listed some of them elsewhere.

 

[tmurray]

Why should taxes increase? The premise underlying building permit fees is that the fees cover the cost of operating the building department. There have been books written by all the model code organizations that spell out this concept, and it makes sense. Why should taxpayers who aren't doing any construction pay for plan reviews and inspections that benefit the owners of new buildings or new alterations?

On the flip side, if the permit fees are intended to pay for the cost of administering the building code, why should the small percentage of the population who take out permits in a given year have half (or more) of the permit fees they pay be siphoned off by the municipality and used for purposes unrelated to administering the building code?

Just that the local government is using building permit fee revenue to prevent tax rate increases. If the fees stay in the department, naturally the local government needs to either increase taxes or cut services.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Just that the local government is using building permit fee revenue to prevent tax rate increases. If the fees stay in the department, naturally the local government needs to either increase taxes or cut services.

And what this means is that whatever portion of the building permit fees DON'T go to the building department become an inequitable tax, from which all residents of the jurisdiction benefit but only those who take out permits pay. That's inequitable and, in the U.S., probably unconstitutional.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Can you name a few states that have such laws? I'd like to see the statutory language, to use as a guide to submit a proposal to my state's politicians.

Here is Montana's as it applies to local jurisdiction and not the states jurisdiction.

FUNDING OF CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

The establishment of permit fees shall be left to the city, county, or town. A list of current permit fees must be submitted to the department when the fees are first established or subsequently amended.

Permit fees must only be used for those costs related to building code enforcement activities, except for the building codes education fund as provided in 50-60-116, MCA, with building codes being only those codes adopted by the department in subchapters 1, 3, 4, and 15 of ARM Title 24, chapter 301. It is not intended that permit fees be used to support fire departments, planning, zoning, or other activities, except to the extent that employees in those programs provide direct plan review, inspection, or other building code enforcement services for the city, county, or town's building code enforcement programs. Permit fees shall not be used to support the inspection of existing buildings for maintenance or for abatement of dangerous buildings.

Costs related to building code enforcement activities include:

those necessary and reasonable costs directly related and specifically identifiable to the enforcement of codes adopted by the city, county, or town as provided by 50-60-302, MCA; and

a proportionate share of the city, county, or town's indirect costs, which are those costs incurred for common or joint purposes that benefit more than one program or activity. Indirect costs shall be treated as provided by 50-60-106(2)(g)(i), MCA.

The cities, counties, and towns must maintain a system and adequate records to:

document that permit fees are only used for those costs related to building code enforcement activities, as defined in (2) and (3) above;

document the amount by which revenues from permit fees differs from the costs related to building code enforcement activities each year;

document the amount maintained as a reserve and the percentage of the costs of building code enforcement activities that the reserve represents;

document that any reserve is utilized only for the cost of building code enforcement activities; and

document that permit fees were reduced as required in (5) in the event the reserve exceeds the maximum reserve allowed in (5).

Permit fees collected in a given year in excess of the costs of administering city, county, or town building code enforcement programs shall be placed in reserve to be used in subsequent years, provided that the reserve amount does not exceed the amount needed to support the building code enforcement programs for 12 months. Fees must be reduced if necessary to avoid creation of excess reserve.

The 12 months is an error it was changed to 36 months by the legislature.

Authorizing statute(s): 50-60-203, 50-60-302, MCA

Implementing statute(s): 50-60-106, 50-60-302, MCA

 

[MtnArch]

To bring this back to some of Jeff's original post, I've only had one time where the CBO/Building Inspector/Plan Checker saw me walk in with a roll of drawings for a house I designed and offered to issue the permit on the spot (due to his knowledge of my work). I politely thanked him but firmly said "no" - I wanted him to plan check it and not just trust that this set was as good as previous ones. I think the only comments wound up being structural (the PE was crappy (bridge designer by trade), but selected by the owner and I had no input/opportunity to get someone better. Ultimately they abandoned the project because the structural was so wacky.

I don't appreciate piddly/minutia comments but do appreciate well-grounded comments that make me really re-read the code to make sure what I'm responding with is code-based.

 

[jar546]

Unfortunately, I do not live and work in such an enlightened state.

Can you name a few states that have such laws? I'd like to see the statutory language, to use as a guide to submit a proposal to my state's politicians.

Right off the bat, Florida, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, & North Carolina.

 

[rktect 1]

Right off the bat, Florida, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, & North Carolina.

Illinois is not one of those. If you are a small town, its up for grabs if a code compliant structure will be built. You can hire anyone you want to be the Building Official, plan reviewer or inspector. Or simply just make them sign a form stating that the structure will meet code. I'm talking down state rural areas.

 

[jar546]

3. The following activities may not be funded with fees adopted for enforcing the Florida Building Code:
a. Planning and zoning or other general government activities.
b. Inspections of public buildings for a reduced fee or no fee.
c. Public information requests, community functions, boards, and any program not directly related to enforcement of the Florida Building Code.
d. Enforcement and implementation of any other local ordinance, excluding validly adopted local amendments to the Florida Building Code and excluding any local ordinance directly related to enforcing the Florida Building Code as defined in subparagraph 1.
4. A local government must use recognized management, accounting, and oversight practices to ensure that fees, fines, and investment earnings generated under this subsection are maintained and allocated or used solely for the purposes described in subparagraph 1.

 

[Sifu]

In my decades of experience in building departments across various municipalities, one issue continues to alarm me: the automatic approval of submitted drawings simply because they bear the stamp of an architect or engineer. This practice, often justified by excuses of limited resources or directives from higher-ups, is nothing short of pure laziness. It poses significant risks and is a disservice to the community we are sworn to protect.

Let's address the common excuses first. I frequently hear that some building departments, especially smaller ones, have to pick and choose which plans to review due to staffing constraints. Others claim they are directed to approve any drawings from Registered Design Professionals (RDPs) without question. Such practices are among the most dangerous in our field. It's crucial to remember that everyone, including architects and engineers, can make mistakes. Blindly trusting their submissions without verification is a recipe for disaster.

At the very least, building departments should require a copy of the calculations from the RDP. When a structure is not being built prescriptively according to the building code, it's entirely reasonable to demand the calculations for all engineered areas. Why is this necessary? Simply asking for these calculations provides legal documentation on how the building was designed. It ensures that the design has been carefully considered and verified.

As building officials or plans examiners, we have every right to require these calculations. If you encounter resistance, it's often because the RDP did not thoroughly perform their job. Should they question the purpose of submitting these calculations, explain that they are needed for official record-keeping or for review by your staff Professional Engineer (PE). If your department lacks a staff PE, these calculations can be reviewed by an engineering firm contracted by your municipality. By making this request, you signal to the RDP that your department is serious about building safety.

Over the years, I’ve seen numerous examples where this diligence has paid off. We frequently find errors in RDP submissions—errors that could have severe consequences if left unchecked. For instance, we've encountered incorrect dimensions for Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) or specifications for built-up girders that don't meet code requirements, even when interpolating code tables.

Our department uses a PE to review structural submissions due to our high wind zone. It's rare for him to approve drawings on the first pass. If a licensed structural PE finds issues with submissions from other engineers and architects 90% of the time, imagine what might be missed if drawings are automatically approved without such scrutiny.

I urge all plans examiners and building officials to reconsider the practice of auto-approving stamped drawings. At the very least, request the calculations if you lack the resources for a full PE review. For larger projects, peer reviews are warranted and can catch critical errors before they become costly or dangerous issues.

Let's prioritize building safety and integrity. Our communities depend on us to ensure that every structure meets the highest standards. Don't let the stamp of an RDP be a free pass. Make it a starting point for thorough and diligent review.

Can't disagree.

I get calc's for almost all projects, it has just become an accepted practice, and required by our submittal checklists. If they aren't provided, I ask for them. I review for the low hanging fruit, such as making sure they are the correct site (this has happened more than once), design criteria, scope etc. I make sure the calc's correspond to the plans within my limited non-engineer ability. I cherry pick certain elements from the plans and verify they match (or are in) the calcs. I do not check the math. I mark them as reviewed, with any notations or observations and keep a copy of them. Many times I provide comments about inconsistencies with codes, design criteria or the plans. If I believe something needs an engineer to review, I have a mechanism to schedule that in house using our retained PE's, but it comes out of our normal fees, I suppose they believe this is just a cost of doing business and necessary for us to do the best we can. Some specific types of projects automatically go through a PE review.

Never do I blindly accept a plan because it has a seal. Looking at one right now without seals, normally they are sent back without review, but sometimes I review them anyway. The review is the same with or without a seal. They will have comments, the first of which is to provide sealed plans on the resubmittal.

 

[BN4537]

Illinois is not one of those. If you are a small town, its up for grabs if a code compliant structure will be built. You can hire anyone you want to be the Building Official, plan reviewer or inspector. Or simply just make them sign a form stating that the structure will meet code. I'm talking down state rural areas.

True here too. It's up to the muni. I'm surprised Kansas didn't land on JAR's recent best/worst list.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I always herd that in PA the local jurisdiction cannot make more than 1% over expenses of the building department. But 3rd party inspection for profit companies can make as much as they want and donate as much as they want back to the jurisdiction.
I don't think my company would ever pay an engineer to check a plan.