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.

 

[steveray]

Do we sometimes give inspectors authority over things they lack knowledge of?

Absolutely.....Just like we give the designers the right to design to code and not have a clue what code is.....If we can all work together nicely, this is not a huge issue. I am not reviewing calcs, but I can tell an engineer when the used the wrong wind/ snow/ seismic numbers in their calculations...Because it's in the book and well within my abilities...Even though 30% of them get it wrong on first submittal.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Do we sometimes give inspectors authority over things they lack knowledge of?

I find this question to be rather interesting. I'd say yes.

But ultimately, I am trained to learn what I don't know.

The example I will use is from a few years ago. Restaurant, had to do some bendy-twisty things with a kitchen ventilation system under NFPA 96. When I went to look at the final install, it just.... didn't.... look....right. Part of the vent pipe sloped downwards, and all my guts said that dagnabbit, I'm certain it has to slope upwards. It was the first time I'd done an inspection on a system of that nature. At that moment, I lacked knowledge.

So I go back to the truck, fire up the interwebs, and do some reading of NFPA 96. Ten minutes later, I'm writing a report stating that it visually appeared that the pipe sloped downwards, and lacked the required cleanouts. The options were to
a) demonstrate the slope met NFPA 96 (8% IIRC)(insert NFPA 96 reference here.)
b) alter the slope to meet NFPA 96, or
c) install the cleanouts (insert NFPA 96 reference here.)

That's the difference in the professions. An engineer is supposed to know the answer. An inspector is supposed to be able to verify if the answer is correct. I can't do calculus to save my life (it's what stalled my initial career choice to enter engineering.) But if one of the input variables uses the wrong seismic data for our region, I've got enough smarts to realize that no matter what dark calculus magic the engineer might use, the answer is probably gonna be wrong.

My former boss who is a professional engineer was asked about this and his response was, if the engineer cannot explain it in a way that my building inspectors can understand them, then the engineer does not know enough to be claiming it meets code in the first place.

This is a very good point. It's not (necessarily) my job to show that something doesn't meet Code - it's someone else's job to demonstrate it does.

 

[Mark K]

My former boss who is a professional engineer was asked about this and his response was, if the engineer cannot explain it in a way that my building inspectors can understand them, then the engineer does not know enough to be claiming it meets code in the first place.

Inspectors and contractors are focused on whether the constructed building complies with the permit drawings but some of the permit drawings are controlled by provisions in reference standards. Typically inspectors and contractors do not understand these reference standards

If the inspectors had all knowledge, then why do we need plan checkers?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Absolutely.....Just like we give the designers the right to design to code and not have a clue what code is.....If we can all work together nicely, this is not a huge issue. I am not reviewing calcs, but I can tell an engineer when the used the wrong wind/ snow/ seismic numbers in their calculations...Because it's in the book and well within my abilities...Even though 30% of them get it wrong on first submittal.

Too true.

We get dumb stuff like this all the time -- from licensed design professionals.

We are now in 2024. (Our state building code is based in the 2021 I-Codes.) About a month ago I reviewed plans that made multiple references to the 2012 IBC. We routinely get documents with incorrect wind and/or snow loads, and we often receive COMCheck reports for the wrong COUNTY.

 

[tmurray]

Inspectors and contractors are focused on whether the constructed building complies with the permit drawings but some of the permit drawings are controlled by provisions in reference standards. Typically inspectors and contractors do not understand these reference standards

If the inspectors had all knowledge, then why do we need plan checkers?

To answer your specific question, why do we need plan checkers: to verify the plans comply with the code so permits can be issued. Plan reviewers review plans and inspectors inspect construction.

You have a hasty generalization logical fallacy in the statement "Inspectors and contractors are focused on whether the constructed building complies with the permit drawings". This certainly might be your personal experience, but I'm not sure I could agree that this is true for the totality of building permit regimes.

I don't know of many inspectors who only inspect to the permit drawings. Not many of us are lucky enough to have every single element of every single project detailed in plans and specifications. Many projects require field inspections to confirm components meet the code. A good example would be small residential projects. A full set of plans and specifications would be cost prohibitive to undertaking the project, so many departments accept less detailed drawings. This means that inspectors must have sufficient background knowledge on the code and reference standards to ensure compliance.

There appears to be a pervasive premise in your statement that plan checkers are superior to inspectors (if inspectors had sufficient knowledge then plan reviewers would not be necessary). Here, plan checkers and inspectors have the same education and certification requirements. I would have a hard time delineating competence based on what an individual's role is.

 

[mtlogcabin]

If the inspectors had all knowledge, then why do we need plan checkers?

Hopefully to catch errors/mistakes on paper before the money is spent constructing something incorrectly.

Nobody is perfect and nobody can build a building 100% code compliant.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I received a resubmitted plan for a large addition for a house. The first plan was failed because it was too small to read, but I could see that the addition is to be built on piers. In my review I said that it is to have a continues foundation or the piers will have designed by an engineer on sealed plans with no design loads. The resubmitted plans are large enough to read and the sealed plans were just a copy of the first plans of the piers with the size of the piers on them in red ink. The rest of the unsealed plans had undersized beams, headers and ridge beams that had point loads between the piers (no details). How can an engineer design just the piers only on a job like this?
On my report for the resubmitted plans besides the undersized beams and the point loads I asked for the engineer's design dead and live load floor roof and ground snow loads.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I received a resubmitted plan for a large addition for a house. The first plan was failed because it was too small to read, but I could see that the addition is to be built on piers. In my review I said that it is to have a continues foundation or the piers will have designed by an engineer on sealed plans with no design loads. The resubmitted plans are large enough to read and the sealed plans were just a copy of the first plans of the piers with the size of the piers on them in red ink. The rest of the unsealed plans had undersized beams, headers and ridge beams that had point loads between the piers (no details). How can an engineer design just the piers only on a job like this?
On my report for the resubmitted plans besides the undersized beams and the point loads I asked for the engineer's design dead and live load floor roof and ground snow loads.

Because that's what he was hired to do -- engineer the piers.

The boss and I met with an HVAC contractor yesterday to discuss preliminary plans for alterations to one office suite on the fourth floor of a multi-tenant office building. The project is to split one tenant space into two -- with each suite to have separate HVAC controls. We noticed that two or three ducts serving on of the two offices in the project area came from an adjacent office and were cut off on the drawing just after they passed through or over the demising wall. We asked how that could work when the project is supposed to provide each tenant space with independent controls.

The answer was, "This is what the building manager told is to do. We're only working with what's currently within the suite." Apparently, the suite being subdivided and the adjoining suite had at one time all been part of a larger tenant space. When that space was originally subdivided several years ago, nobody asked the question about ducts from one space serving an adjacent tenant space. Now we have asked the question, and the building manager is going to be upset because he may have to correct something that was missed 'X' years ago.

 

[tmurray]

Because that's what he was hired to do -- engineer the piers.

The other consideration is that maybe this engineer specializes in pier design and has no idea if the remaining structural elements meet code or not.

Either way, the engineer's scope of work is their scope of work.

I dealt with a couple architects that would explicitly state that they did not design to the part of our code that deals with environmental separation - insulation, air barrier, vapour barrier, cladding, etc. I didn't argue with the architect. To clarify, they designed these elements, they just wouldn't state that they were designed to code. I just went back to the owner and told them what the architect said and that they now needed to hire another architect to do that design. Oddly enough I would get an email from the original architect now taking responsibility for that portion of the code.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

The other consideration is that maybe this engineer specializes in pier design and has no idea if the remaining structural elements meet code or not.

Either way, the engineer's scope of work is their scope of work.

I dealt with a couple architects that would explicitly state that they did not design to the part of our code that deals with environmental separation - insulation, air barrier, vapour barrier, cladding, etc. I didn't argue with the architect. To clarify, they designed these elements, they just wouldn't state that they were designed to code. I just went back to the owner and told them what the architect said and that they now needed to hire another architect to do that design. Oddly enough I would get an email from the original architect now taking responsibility for that portion of the code.

The rest of the home can be done without an engineer, but the framing plans do not comply with code. I just can't accept the pier engineered drawing without the loads design. Ground snow load, roof dead load, dead loads and live loads for all two floors. Then when they give me a framing redesign so the framing complies, they will need to go back and get the engineer to redesign the piers.