Expedited Building

 

   

R E P

Plan Review Program REBOOT

July 10, 2017

Land Development Services

           

                             

                        

                     

                              

                               

       

                         

                   

                       

                      

                     

                                  

               

                              

                         

                       

                                

                             

                                

                   

                            

                             

                              

                     

                             

                           

                                

                           

                 

                        

               

Background The Expedited Building Plan Review Program (EPR) was instituted in 1997 as an optional

permitting process to expedite permit issuance for qualifying building plans. Plans reviewed

and recommended for submission by county‐designated “peer reviewers” qualify for expedited

processing. The EPR program was originally adopted in Chapter 71 of the Fairfax County Code

and now appears in the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC), Parts I and II,

Section 109.4.1 which states:

The building official may accept reports from an approved person or agency that

the construction documents have been examined and conform to the

requirements of the USBC and may establish requirements for the person or

agency submitting such reports. In addition, where such reports have been

submitted, the building official may expedite the issuance of the permit.

Purpose of Reboot Since the creation of the EPR program, the County has seen significant changes in the

development industry, increased design complexities, large‐scale construction and ever‐

evolving building code provisions. The Fairfax First initiative in conjunction with Goal 3 of the

county’s Economic Success Plan (to improve the speed, consistency, and predictability of the

development review process), has shined a spotlight on “third‐party” processes including those

that provide plan review services such as the EPR program. It is through these influences that

the EPR program must evolve to meet the needs of today’s projects, clients and customers.

Working Group To execute the reboot of the EPR program, a working group was assembled. Membership

included county staff, current peer reviewers, developers, contractors, designers, architects,

engineers and permit expediters. Paul Hancher, a peer reviewer with the Institute for Building

Technology and Safety, served as the chairman and Paul LeReche, a peer reviewer formally with

KTA Group, Inc., served as vice‐chair. The county liaison was Brian Byrne, Chief of the

Commercial‐Building Branch of the Building Division and EPR Coordinator with contributions

from Bill Aceto, an engineer with the Fire Prevention Division of the Fire and Rescue

Department and Brian Foley, the Fairfax County Building Official, who was also responsible for

initiative of the original program. See Appendix B for a complete list of work group members.

Deliverables The working group was responsible for reviewing the current program criteria, evaluating its

effectiveness, surveying industry needs, identifying construction trends and providing

recommendations for improvement through this report. The pages that follow list discussion

topics, describe recommendations and provide a timeline for implementation.

EPR 2.0 2 July 10, 2017

           

      

                       

                        

                     

                   

                        

             

               

                   

                   

                    

                       

                   

             

                 

                    

                       

              

               

                     

               

                    

                      

                       

                       

                      

                     

   

                     

                   

                  

         

      

       

       

        

Discussion Topics Recommendations

(see Page 6)

Program Effectiveness The type of projects submitted under the EPR program vary greatly with AP1, AP2, AP6, AP8,

regards to levels of complexity. Those that are less complicated, such as AP9, CP1, CP6, CP7

tenant layouts and alterations, are greater in number, have fewer code

requirements and provide peer reviewers focused experience and a high

level of expertise. As such, these projects progress well through the EPR

program saving clients’ time during permit application.

New complex construction, such as multi‐family buildings, mixed‐use

podium buildings, assisted living facilities, high rises and schools, require

greater application of the code and related county policy, focused

expertise and additional coordination. Often, peer reviewers are at a

disadvantage over county reviewers in access to a high number of these

niche, complex projects, and, as a result, require additional county

review and may not see time savings.

Creating criteria to restrict complex projects from admittance was

discussed. Ultimately the work group determined that the program can

still benefit complex projects by, at a minimum, reducing the number of

county review comments. The steering committee, see

Recommendation AP2, will need to closely monitor program

effectiveness for complex projects including the total time of review and

may move to restrict admittance of complex projects.

Resubmissions The current EPR process requires corrections and revisions to be re‐ CP1, CP2, CP5, CP7

reviewed through EPR prior to resubmission to the county. This added

step increases the total time of review (for both peer and county

reviewers) equal or even greater than the total review time of non‐EPR

projects. The reasoning behind this requirement was to allow the peer

reviewer to see the code violations missed that the county reviewer

subsequently found.

Working group members noted that between the peer review and the

first round of county comments, most critical comments should be

addressed. Also discussed was targets/deadlines for review times for

peer reviewers and the county.

EPR 2.0 3 July 10, 2017

           

                            

                        

                         

                 

   

                       

                   

                          

       

                                            

                 

                        

                     

                        

                         

   

                        

                   

                      

                   

                   

                      

                       

           

                   

                   

    

       

       

       

  

 

Fire Peer Review The original design of the EPR program did not include a fire‐related

review. This is in contrast to the county’s process which includes a

review by engineers from the Fire Marshal’s Office for the base design of

sprinklers, standpipe location, fire pumps, alarms and other fire

protection‐related systems.

A sub‐committee was formed to look into the feasibility of a fire‐related

review as well as peer reviewer qualifications, qualifying projects and

training. A plan review record specific to the EPR program for a fire

review was also discussed.

Peer Review during the Initial Phases of Design The most ideal time for a peer reviewer to be hired is early in the

schematic design or design development phases, particularly for large,

complex projects. This is beneficial to a design team so that code

violations are found early when they have less impact on proceeding

design phases. However, it is the owner that determines when to engage

the peer reviewer, which may be at a later stage of the construction

documents development.

Peer Reviewer Rating System The working group’s representative from the Fairfax County Economic

Development Authority, Rodney Lusk, identified the potential value of a

reviewer rating system. He spoke of calls that his office receives

regarding the long list of approved reviewers and requests for

recommendations on how to select the most appropriate reviewer(s) for

a specific project. He said that although ranking of approved reviewers

may be difficult, metrics, such as experience, passing rate or number of

county comments generated, could be useful.

Group members discussed the difficulty in fairly and accurately capturing

and publishing metrics due to project type, design complexity and

associated Group(s).

CP3, CP8, EP1, EP3

AP5, CP1, CP6, CP7

AP1, AP3, AP4, AP8,

CP4

EPR 2.0 4 July 10, 2017

           

                            

                         

                         

                   

                   

                         

                    

                     

          

                      

                    

                   

                    

                     

                   

       

                                  

                     

                       

   

                        

               

                       

                   

                  

                  

                 

                 

 

 

       

 

     

International Code Council Reviews Recognizing that the ICC develops and publishes the base codes adopted

and enforced in Virginia, and that the ICC advertises that it can review

plans to Virginia code requirements, the topic of how the ICC may be part

of the EPR program was discussed by the working group.

Members questioned the benefit to the development community of an

ICC review and if an ICC review would be treated differently from a

review conducted through the EPR program. Peer reviewers on the

working group felt that EPR reviewer requirements are well defined and

ICC staff should meet them.

Structural Review County staff identified challenges in the current EPR program regarding

structural design and responsibility of the peer reviewer. There have

been projects where peer reviewers approved structural plans that were

outside their area of expertise and contained significant code violations.

Working group members recognized the benefit and need of a structural

review designation, and a subcommittee was formed to discuss and

generate the related recommendations.

ICC Plan Review Records and County Checklists Feedback from peer reviewers indicated that the ICC plan review records,

currently required to be submitted with peer reviewed plans, were often

not applicable to many project types and did not contain Fairfax County

specific requirements.

Peer Reviewer Disciplinary Policy While the current EPR program regarding peer reviewer performance

establishes a “three‐strike” policy, feedback from working group

members spoke to a lack of credibility and consistency in its application.

Instead, peer reviewers in the group stressed positive discipline and

training. However, significant and obvious errors or negligence should

result in disciplinary action. Non‐remediated strikes may result in

suspension or revocation of a peer reviewer’s certification; remediation

via additional education or other means should be considered.

EP4

CP3, CP8, EP2, EP3

CP3

AP4, AP6, AP8

EPR 2.0 5 July 10, 2017

           

                              

                 

             

       

       

   

Communication between Program Stakeholders In an effort to ensure the EPR program continues to support the AP1, AP2, AP3, AP4, communities it serves, greater and consistent communication is needed AP5, AP6, AP8, CP5 between peer reviewers, owners, developers and designers.

EPR 2.0 6 July 10, 2017

           

                       

                            

                        

       

             

         

                             

                        

               

                 

   

           

                         

                       

                    

   

                 

                             

                      

                     

                              

                         

       

               

                         

                         

                      

                        

                       

               

                     

             

Recommendations Recommendations to the EPR program have been categorized into three themes:

Administration of Program, Change in Process and Expansion of Program. Listed below is each

recommendation with a description and designation. See Appendix A for an implementation

timeline for tracking progress.

Administration of Program – AP AP1 Establish an EPR Coordinator

Establish a position within the Building Division to act as the program’s liaison to

peer reviewers, clients, designers and county staff. The position would also be

responsible for implementing program improvements, conducting quality control

reviews, enforcing peer reviewer disciplinary action and communicating with

program stakeholders.

AP2 Create an EPR Steering Committee Create a group of program stakeholders who meet quarterly to provide direction

and feedback on the program’s trajectory and the progress on initiatives for

improvement. The EPR Coordinator, see above, would serve as the

county/program liaison.

AP3 Create “How to Hire a Peer Reviewer” Guide Develop an online guide to assist users in hiring the most appropriate peer reviewer

possible for their project type. This recommendation was established to equip

owners/developers with knowledge they need and the questions they should ask

when hiring a peer reviewer. It is hoped that when a peer reviewer’s skills and

experience are well matched with an owner’s project type, building plan quality and

code compliance will improve.

AP4 Enhance and Reform Peer Reviewer Performance Policy Develop criteria for a minimum acceptable level of peer reviewer performance and

a process to hold peer reviewers accountable when they do not meet established

minimums. This will include the documentation of the disciplinary action process

including grounds for removal from program. For new peer reviewers, require a

probationary period of successful plan review prior to admittance to the program.

AP5 Recommend Peer Reviewer Involvement in Design Phase Update program website and remind owners/developers to bring peer reviewers

onto projects during the initial design phase.

EPR 2.0 7 July 10, 2017

           

 

               

                       

   

         

           

           

             

     

     

         

                          

           

                     

       

                     

                 

             

         

                         

                            

                    

                   

         

                         

                            

                     

 

   

AP6 Create an Expedited Plan Review Program Manual Create a program manual that documents the following at a minimum:

Program requirements

Program and plan review processes

Peer Reviewer certifications, qualifications and training

Purposes of pre‐, post‐ and handoff meetings

Peer reviewer responsibilities, expectations and performance criteria

Recommendation statement requirements

Plan review records

AP7 Enhance Peer Reviewer Training Create a training program for new and existing peer reviewers. Program should

include the following at a minimum:

A mandatory number of one‐on‐one training with county plan review staff

from the appropriate discipline.

Enhanced initial training with a probationary period as specified by AP4.

Annual CEUs requirements for established reviewers to include private

providers of code‐related training and county‐provided training.

AP8 Enhance Peer Reviewer Training Based on feedback from peer reviewers and customers, explore the adoption of

targets for review times of peer reviewers based on plan class (see Appendix C).

Similarly, create target county review times for EPR‐related submissions. If

established, publish targets online and if they are being met.

AP9 Publicize Recommendations for Submissions Update program website to indicate new commercial projects benefit from a peer

review. However, complex projects, such as Groups R‐2 or I‐2, generally do not see

time savings and are not recommended for submission under the program.

EPR 2.0 8 July 10, 2017

           

            

        

                     

                          

                       

                        

                   

             

                           

                          

           

                     

                     

       

             

                           

                   

               

                       

                    

               

             

                        

                      

                       

         

                             

         

        

                           

                       

                       

         

Change in Process – CP CP1 Monitor Program Effectiveness

Create metrics to monitor program effectiveness for different projects types

including the total time of review and number of comments. While only county

review times are currently tracked, future metrics would also include peer review

times. Based on metrics, the steering committee may move to create process

changes and develop qualifying and disqualifying criteria for EPR projects.

CP2 Eliminate Peer Reviewed Corrections and Revisions Do not require reviews related to corrections and revisions to be peer reviewed

prior to resubmission to the county. However, plans will continue to be expedited.

CP3 Create County‐centric Plan Review Records Rather than require ICC plan review records, create separate county‐developed

versions for new construction and tenant layouts for building, structural, fire,

mechanical, electrical and plumbing.

CP4 Reorganize Certified Peer Reviewer List Online Provide two lists online: 1) reviewers listed by name, 2) reviewers organized and

listed by company/firm name and 3) reviewers listed by discipline.

CP5 Send County Review Notifications to Peer Reviewers Add county reviewers and their corresponding email addresses to each permit

application associated with their peer reviewed plans. Through automated emails,

notify peer reviewers of a county review status.

CP6 Involve Peer Reviewers in Pre‐submission Meetings

Part I: Offer pre‐submission meetings to qualifying peer reviewed plans of Plan

Class 05 and higher. See Appendix C for plan class designations.

Part II: Recommend peer reviewers to be in attendance at all pre‐submission

meetings of peer reviewed plans.

Part III: Require all Plan Class 05 and higher to have a handoff meeting between

county staff and peer reviewers.

CP7 Require Post‐submission Meetings Peer reviewed project with disciplines that have had a high number (to be

determined) of rejection comments by county plan reviewers shall be required to

have a post‐submission meeting with the design team and peer reviewer in

attendance for the affected disciplines.

EPR 2.0 9 July 10, 2017

           

        

                               

         

 

            

           

                       

               

       

     

               

               

               

             

       

         

         

                         

     

           

                       

               

       

         

             

        

                     

    

CP8 Rewrite Recommendation Statement To support the expansion of the program to include a fire and structural review, the

recommendation statement must be edited.

Expansion of Program – EP EP1 Establish a Fire Reviewer Designation

Expand the number of required reviews to include the fire‐prevention discipline.

Part I: Create fire review project qualifying criteria.

New buildings or additions

Multi‐floor tenant layouts

Tenant layouts, Group B, greater than 20,000 SF

Tenant layouts, Group M, greater than 12,000 SF

Tenant layouts, all other Groups, any square footage

Part II: Create fire peer reviewer qualifications.

Virginia registered design professional

ICC Building Plans Examiner certification

ICC Fire Plans Examiner certification

Part III: Through the Fire Marshal’s Office develop initial and annual training for

fire peer reviewers.

EP2 Establish a Structural Reviewer Designation Expand the number of required reviews to include the structural discipline.

Part I: Create structural review project qualifying criteria.

New buildings or additions

Tenant layouts with structural alterations

Part II: Create structural peer reviewer qualifications.

Virginia professional engineer and

Five or more years of experience after licensure in structural design

and/or review

EPR 2.0 10 July 10, 2017

           

         

                          

                         

                 

                   

                               

 

EP3 Advertise the EPR Program Actively seek admittance of new peer reviewers by advertising the program. The

EPR Coordinator will assist in outreach by targeting A/E firms and industry groups,

such as AIA, to solicit interest in the program.

EP4 Develop Acceptance Criteria for Plan Reviews Conducted by ICC Develop criteria for reviews conducted by ICC to be accepted as part of the EPR

program.

EPR 2.0 11 July 10, 2017

 

   

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

   

  

   

   

  

  

 

  

  

  

   

  

  

  

   

   

  

  

   

  

  

  

   

  

  

  

   

  

  

  

   

   

  

  

   

  

  

  

  

   

  

  

   

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

   

  

  

  

   

  

  

  

  

   

    

   

   

    

  

  

 

  

  

  

  

  

    

 

  

  

  

  

  

   

  

  

   

  

  

  

   

   

  

  

   

  

  

  

   

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

   

  

  

  

   

  

  

  

   

Appendix

A –

Implementation

Timeline

ID

Dependent

on

Start Date

Completion

Date

Update

Quarter

Year

Quarter

Year

Status

Notes

AP1

none

2

2017

1

2018

In

process

New

position

description

has

been

established

. Reclass

has

been

approved

in W

orkforce Plan. Curren

tly aw

aiting vacancy

to

reclass.

AP2

AP1

Not started

AP3

AP1

Not started

AP4

AP1, A

P2

Not started

AP5

AP1

Not started

AP6

AP1

Not started

AP7

AP1

Not started

AP8

AP1, A

P2

Not started

AP9

none

Completed

CP1

AP1, A

P2

Not started

CP2

none

4

2016

Complete

CP3

AP1

Not started

CP4

AP1

Not started

CP5

none

2

2017

In

process

A

req

uest for em

ail notification

for all permit

applicants

has

been

initiated. Peer review

ers will

be added

as applicants

in

FIDO.

CP6‐I

II

III

none

2

2017

Complete

This

feature

is curren

tly offered

to

all plans.

AP1, CP6‐I

Not started

AP1, A

P2

Not started

CP7

AP1

Not started

CP8

AP1, A

P2

Not started

EP

1‐I

none

Not started

II

III

EP2

AP1

Not started

EP

3

AP1

Not started

EP

4

AP1

Not started

 

            

         

                       

                                                       

                                   

                   

                             

          

                        

                           

                   

        

Appendix B – Work Group Members Representing

Fire Marshal’s Office Building Division Building Division Building Division Operations Division Building Division Director’s Office Fairfax County Public Schools Building Division Building Division Fairfax County Economic Development Authority Operations Division Operations Division Building Division Operations Division self Strickler Associates* Jensen Hughes JGB Ramco of Virginia Walsh Colucci ARUP* IBTS* I‐95 Business Parks Management self* McKeever Services self* KTA Group* self* J Square Permits KTA Group* self* GHT, Ltd.*

Last Name First Name

Aceto William Alston Nakia Barzingy Haval Byrne Brian Castro Helman Foley Brian Hicks William Hilty Mark Idrovo Palacios Cristina Kavanagh Nicholas Lusk Rodney Marsh William Munz Kirsten Shepard Jessie Vish Jeffrey Ballenger Joann Brummett Phill Devlin John Edelson Bailey Foresberg Chris Goetzman Mark Grill Ray Hancher Paul Klotz Wayne LeReche Paul McKeever Kate Mills John Ours Steve Phung Rick Richardson Janet Searle Elizabeth West Aaron Wozney John

*current peer reviewer

 

          

  

    

      

          

    

 

 

    

              

      

       

               

       

                

              

                 

          

            

                

   

     

         

      

        

               

     

                 

          

     

                  

           

                        

         

                                             

               

           

Appendix C – Plan Class

Plan Class N

ew

Construction

Alterations

Review Process or Group(s)

Area of Space or Building Footprint

Number of Stories/Building

Height

01

Commercial Fast Track

≤ 4,500 sf 1, 2 Not applicable

Residential Walk‐Thru

≤ 1,000 sf 1 story

02 All Groups

except A, I, R‐4 ≤ 20,000 sf Not applicable

03 A, I, R‐4 non Fast Track

Not applicable All other Groups > 20,000 sf

04 R‐3, R‐5 Non Walk Thru any

05 R‐1, R‐2 any

≤ 2 stories F, M, S  ≤ 20,000 sf

06 R‐1, R‐2 any > 2 stories <75’ 3

07

B ≤ 20,000 sf  ≤ 4 stories

M > 20,000 sf ≤ 100,000 sf

> 2 stories

F, S > 20,000 sf > 2 stories

08 A, E, H, I, R‐4 ≤ 25,000 sf  ≤ 2 stories

B ≤ 57,000 sf > 4 stories 75’ 3

09 B > 57,000 sf 75’ 3

R‐1, R‐2 any 75’ 3

10 A, E, H, I > 25,000 sf > 2 stories

M > 100,000 sf any 1 In CRDs: 10,000 sf for qualifying projects in A, E or I; 15,000 sf for qualifying projects in B, M and S 2 ePlan submissions: 10,000 sf for qualifying projects 3 High rise = 75’