• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Why we don't trust permit expeditors

Yankee Chronicler

Registered User
Joined
Oct 17, 2023
Messages
1,261
Location
New England
There's a new breed of self-styled "professionals" stalking the jungles of construction and code enforcement: permit expeditors. I know such critters have existed for a long time in big cities such as New York, but they are now showing up in small towns such as the one I work in (population approximately 40,000). My opinion of them is that they are as worthless as construction managers, and IMHO they don't earn however much they get paid to handle the permitting process on behalf of their clients.

I've had several run-ins with them over the past couple of years, but this latest one rises (or sinks) to an entirely new level of either incompetence or, perhaps, just plain hubris.

The application is for some equipment shuffling and upgrades in an existing McDonald's, with the construction of a couple of short lengths of new wall. No alterations to the dining room (other than relocating the ordering kiosks) or the toilet rooms. In my first plan review, I asked if they had applied to the Health Department. They had not, so they then sent the Health Department a set of plans that was different from what they submitted to the Building Department, and also different from the REsubmittal to the Building Department. ALL three sets of plans clearly call for relocating the handwash sink in the kitchen area. The Health Department notified them that because the hand sink is being relocated, a formal application to the Health Department and a formal review by the Health Department will be required. The Health Department inspector copied me on the e-mail, because since I joined the Building Department I have made it a priority to coordinate with other departments in the hope of avoiding issues down the road. This project is a poster child for why this is necessary.

The woman from the permit expeditor firm e-mailed back to the Health Department this afternoon that "I’d like to clarify there will be no alterations made to the kitchen, including the hand sink. All scope of work is limited to the front counter area." She attached a copy of what she said is the "most detailed version of the floor plan," which isn't a floor plan at all (it's a pseudo 3-D rendering with the plan on an oblique plane with the walls and furnishings shows as 3-D objects sitting on the plan), and which is a drawing that we've never seen before. Meanwhile, in the revised construction documents set, there are no less than FIVE sheets that clearly show the hand sink being relocated and new plumbing being routed to its new location.

We are not amused.
 
We have been struggling with similar issues. Most permit expediters are not experts in the trade they work in and try to respond to plan review comments on their own and not involve the contractor and sometimes not even the design professional of record. We go back and forth multiple times; they ask to speak to the Building Official, at which point I demand to talk to the contractor's licensed qualifier. Some expediters, however, are excellent at their job because they are experts in the trade they service. It is often an act of frustration.
 
In my plan review letters, I make an effort to cite code sections for anything I write up as needing correction. Where something is a question, I ask for a narrative explanation. It's difficult to respond to a specific comment that ___ is shown incorrectly in the construction documents without having the design professional(s) involved revise the construction documents. But, yes -- some will try to finesse it with a B.S. narrative response. Such as the case I mentioned above.

I don't know if the expeditor in this case has never looked at the plans she submitted, or if she thinks we're so dumb that we can't read a note that says "Relocated Hand Sink."

In my plan review letters, I also tack on a boilerplate paragraph that basically says our review is not a guarantee that we found and commented on all issues in the documents, and that we advise the design team to review the construction documents for code compliance before resubmitting. I do this because it's not impossible that I'll miss something on a first review and catch it when I review the revised drawings. I don't do that intentionally, but it can happen. I don't want to be accused of playing games with them by stringing them along.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the owner/applicant (and their team) to provide a finished building that complies with all applicable code requirements. The code requires that the construction documents show us that the work when completed will comply with the code. If the construction documents in front of me don't show that, I am not supposed to approve the drawings and issue the permit. Too many applicants (and their expeditors) can't seem to grasp this fundamental concept.
 
I've not had similar experiences to yours. I can see how they might be advantageous in certain instances, but every time I've dealt with them as a building official, I've found them to be a waste of money on the part of the owner as I don't think they actually increased the speed of our review.

It's probably like everything. The good ones are very good; know when to jump in and get involved and when to just stay out of the way, and the bad ones are very bad; actually obstructing the process and making it more challenging and complicated. Ironically, the good ones probably make it look like they are not required at all due to the ease they demonstrate in managing the process, where the bad ones reinforce their need as they take and already complicated process and turn it into something completely convoluted through their incompetence.
 
NOTE: The code items listed in this report are not intended to be a complete listing of all possible code requirements in the State Building Code It is a guide to selected sections of the code.

To Whom It May Concern,

Your permit is denied at this time due to unclear or a lack of required information on the submitted plans. Please clarify the following questions or notes and we will continue our review as soon as possible.

I'm sure I have something newer, but that it was it said in 2018....
 
Mine is a bit more verbose than steveray's, but the idea is the same:

While this department makes every effort to review construction documents diligently for conformity to code requirements, we do not represent that the foregoing comments constitute a complete or exhaustive tabulation of all deviations or non-conforming conditions. It is the responsibility of the owner and applicant to provide finished construction that is fully in conformance with code requirements; failure on our part to note any deficiencies does not absolve you of that responsibility. Due to the number of revisions which will need to be made to these construction documents to demonstrate conformity to code requirements, we respectfully suggest that your design professional undertake a thorough review of the design for code compliance before resubmitting.

Of course, the design professionals never do a thorough review. They regard our comment letter as their quality control and they only change what has to be changed to respond to the comments we gave them. And part of the reason I use that paragraph is that on the second review I might find things I missed the first time. (That shouldn't happen ... but it does.) I want to preemptively shut down the complaints about "You didn't mention that the first time, why is it an issue now?"
 
Mine is a bit more verbose than steveray's, but the idea is the same:



Of course, the design professionals never do a thorough review. They regard our comment letter as their quality control and they only change what has to be changed to respond to the comments we gave them. And part of the reason I use that paragraph is that on the second review I might find things I missed the first time. (That shouldn't happen ... but it does.) I want to preemptively shut down the complaints about "You didn't mention that the first time, why is it an issue now?"
If they try that with me the response would be akin to "why didn't your team catch it the first 2 times and months that they spent on the plans?" I've got about 5 hours in....
 
If they try that with me the response would be akin to "why didn't your team catch it the first 2 times and months that they spent on the plans?" I've got about 5 hours in....

That's the appropriate response, of course, and that would be my response, as well. But that won't stop them from making that argument when (not if) they get caught having submitted a set of construction documents riddled with errors and omissions. We are living (unfortunately) in an age in which nobody accepts personal responsibility for their actions. I'm sure virtually every code official on this form has encountered the "But no other town ever asked me for that" argument when a design professional receives a plan review comment that he/she/they need to show [___] on the construction documents. It's a problem because, at least where I work, they're likely to go running to the Town manager to complain that they're being picked on by the nasty people in the Building Department. Then my boss gets to waste another morning in another meeting with the Town Manager explaining why we need the information we asked for.

It's a rare plan review in which I don't cite near the start IBC 107.2.1 (Information on Construction Documents). Those pieces of paper are called "construction" documents for a reason. The code doesn't refer to them as "pretty pictures of your beautiful design." I add that boilerplate at the end (along with a couple of others, such as a notice that the 30-day time window for reviews starts over when they resubmit) as a CYA measure to short circuit the argument that we intentionally delayed them by deliberately overlooking some faults in our first review. It doesn't prevent them from making the argument, but it gives us a chance to say "Nyah, nyah."
 
I worked on a project recently that was split into two building permits; one for the exterior improvements (minor ADA and new entrances) of an office building and one for the interior improvements (including some significant structural and MEP work). Exterior is being worked on by a different team, I'm working on the interior plans. The exterior team hired some really expensive permit expeditors who promised they would get the plans through the city and reviewed "weeks" faster than just going in without an expeditor.

To cut a long story short, they got their review completed in 7 business days. The city took 8 days to review the interior work, and the interior work is far more extensive than the exterior work.

I personally don't trust expeditors for a number of reasons, but the fact they have yet to actually make a meaningful difference in any project I've been involved in is the main reason.
 
Top