Chris McCarter, deputy director of the Building Plan Review Branch in Virginia's Fairfax County, said things have gone so smoothly since the expedited building plan review program began there three years ago that his agency guarantees a 50 percent reduction in waiting time for those who use it.

"It's really a lot less time than that," McCarter said, noting that a typical permit that is backlogged 10 weeks takes only two to three days to review when submitted under the "peer review" program.

Initially allowed as an option only for building permits on commercial projects, the Fairfax program earlier this year was expanded to include residential development, McCarter said. The most common applicants using the expedited review process are those seeking interior alterations to existing commercial buildings.

At first, there was a lot of double-checking of the work done by peer reviewers, McCarter said. "As we got comfortable with them, we did less and less review of their plans," he said. "A lot of them have been around a long time and we know this type of work is fairly straightforward, we ... do kind of a cursory review of a few minutes at best on their plans. Every now and then, we'll pull a plan out and do a full review on it. If we find a lot of errors on it, we'll bring the people that reviewed it in and sit them down and go over what they missed."

Concerns in Honolulu that the "fox is guarding the hen house" are unfounded, McCarter said. "I would think you would have the same issue with your building department people being chummy with the same architects and engineers they see all time," he said.

The program is so efficient that the agency's Web site carries the names and telephone numbers of each of the more than 40 certified peer reviewers.

Many of those reviewers work for KTA Group Inc., an engineering group. Paul LeReche, who directs the architectural studio for the group, said the firm pushes out one to 1› peer-review applications a day.

While right now most of the reviews are for commercial buildings, he said, residential projects are also beginning to use his services. He estimated the cost for review of the average, individual residential project at $1,200 to $1,800.

Similar to the rules for Honolulu, third-party reviewers in Fairfax must be certified by the county, LeReche said. He said the Fairfax rules require that the reviewers pass qualifications set by the International Code Council which require a series of tests and annual classes. That's not required in Honolulu, although those doing third-party reviews checking for compliance with the city Land Use Ordinance will need to take a test showing knowledge of the ordinance.

Pitfalls pondered

Structural engineer Gary Chock, who helped craft the Honolulu rules, said those who participated locally in setting up the rules made it clear they were mindful of the potential for conflicts of interest. "We really wanted to avoid that," said Chock, president of structural engineering firm Martin and Chock.

LeReche said he doesn't see that happening. "We're often harder on our own designers than with the general public because we have a higher expectation from the people we train," he said.

The rule in Florida's Miami-Dade County, which also allows building permits to be reviewed by third parties, is similar to Honolulu's. "The legislation addresses this issue (of potential conflicts) by not allowing professionals to provide private provider services in any buildings they have designed or constructed," said Miriam Rossi, spokeswoman for the Miami-Dade County Building Department.

The Miami-Dade County rules require an audit process to check the performance of private providers, Rossi said. Honolulu and Fairfax have similar provisions.

Issues of liability

The Fairfax rules do not require any liability insurance from its third-party providers, something both McCarter and LeReche feel comfortable about. In Honolulu, where liability has been mentioned as a potential concern, the rules require a minimum liability insurance amount, although the amount has not yet been determined by the city Department of Budget and Fiscal Services.

McCarter said liability was an initial area of concern. "But we're not having ... (reviewers) put a seal on their plan," he said. "We're having them do a recommendation statement saying that to the best of their knowledge, there are plans ready to be reviewed by the county. Ultimately, the design responsibility is that of the person who designed the building. It's no different liability than what we have (at the county)," he said.

Some of those in the building industry locally who were involved with coming up with the city's rules said they could not imagine a law where a reviewer didn't have to carry liability insurance.

Karen Hong of Finance Insurance, who specializes in professional liability for architects and engineers, said she agrees that the designer should hold the ultimate liability for building plans. "But nothing will stop people from suing you if you're involved in any way, unfortunately," she said.

While the city has legal immunity from such lawsuits, she said, private firms do not. Engineering and architectural firms don't need to enter the third-party review business, "but if they do this, they don't want to do it and risk their whole practice," she said. "We wouldn't advise our clients to take work from people who aren't insured or they will be the deep pockets."

Local interest

At least one company on the island is ready to take on the duties of a third-party reviewer.

Jerry Whitehead, president of Tower Design Group, said he's extremely interested in becoming a reviewer.

Whitehead said he has done similar work on the Mainland. While not a third-party reviewer, his firm was "deputized" by a state agency in California to review plans that were submitted to the government.

Whitehead said many companies, including his own, pay and get paid for the secondary reviews of plans simply in the course of normal business. "Sometimes if I do a project I just don't feel comfortable with, I send it to somebody I know that is ... (familiar with a type of project) just for a third-party review so I make sure it doesn't come back to me (from the permitting authority)," he said.