Back to BlogTop Query

Electing a private provider buys statutory clocks, and leaves a file that outlives the schedule

Top Query

A closing date or a rent commencement is sitting behind a plan review that has not moved, and somebody suggests a private provider. Florida allows it, and what the election actually buys is narrower and sharper than the way it usually gets pitched: the same code read by somebody you hired, deadlines the local official has to answer inside, and a permanent record carrying that person’s seal rather than the county’s. The building department still issues the permit. What changes is who reads, how fast you can reach them, and who answers for the reading years from now.

What the election moves, and what stays at the counter

Whether you may do this at all is settled and is covered already on our Miami-Dade permitting page. Florida has allowed alternative plans review and inspection for years. What that page does not get into is the machinery, and the machinery is where a schedule decision gets won or quietly lost.

A private provider is a person licensed as a building code administrator, an engineer, or an architect, working only inside their own licensed discipline. For an addition or alteration of 1,000 square feet or less to a residential building, a standard certificate holder also qualifies. Plan review can move to that person, inspections can move to that person, or both.

The permit does not move. The building official still issues it, still runs zoning and administrative review, and applies the same Florida Building Code a county reviewer applies.

The election is a filing and the filing has a deadline. The owner or the contractor selects the provider and notifies the building official on a form the commission adopted, either at the time of permit application or by 2 p.m. local time two business days before the first scheduled inspection. Change providers later and the official has to hear about it within one business day after the change, or two business days before the next scheduled inspection. Miss the filing and you have bought nothing: you are holding a provider with no standing on that job.

Quick Answer

What does electing a private provider actually change on a Florida permit?

Plan review and inspections move to a licensed private provider you hire. The building department still issues the permit, still runs zoning and administrative review, and still enforces the same code. What you gain is a reader you can reach and statutory deadlines the local official has to answer inside. What you take on is that provider’s seal on your property record.

The most common misreading in the forum threads is that this is a softer review. It is the same code, applied by somebody who signs an affidavit saying so, and a thin submittal will collect comments from a private reviewer as readily as from a county one.

The useful way to think about the trade is that you are moving a dependency off a queue you cannot see into a contract you can manage. That is worth real money on a project carrying interest, and it is worth nothing on a project whose critical path runs through zoning.

Interior of a South Florida house stripped to studs with structural framing and mechanical rough-in exposed — Rough-in, still open. Whoever performs this inspection signs the record that stays with the property, and the record does not say which of you was in a hurry.Additions & Structural →

The clocks have teeth, and the teeth point at the agency

Once the application goes in carrying the provider’s affidavit of plan compliance, the local official is on a deadline, and it is a statutory deadline rather than a published service level. He issues the permit or gives written notice of the deficiencies within no more than 20 business days. On a single-trade permit for a single-family or two-family dwelling, five business days. Resubmit against comments and he gets the remainder of the tolled period plus five business days.

If the deadline passes and nothing arrives, the application is deemed approved as a matter of law.

The same shape repeats at the other end of the job. The provider issues a certificate of compliance when the work is complete, and the official then has no more than 10 business days to issue the certificate of occupancy or completion, or two business days on a single-family or two-family dwelling. Miss that and the certificate is automatically granted and deemed issued as of the next business day.

Now read those two defaults the way a lender’s counsel reads them. A permit nobody affirmatively approved and a certificate nobody signed both exist because an agency ran out of time. Both are enforceable. Neither is something you want to be explaining at a closing table, or to a buyer three years from now whose own lender pulled the permit history.

Schedule against the deadline being met and treat the default as the remedy it is. A program that only works if a reviewer runs out of time is a wager on another organisation’s staffing, and you will be asked to defend it as though it were a plan.

Quick Answer

What happens if the building department misses the deadline on a private-provider permit?

The application is deemed approved as a matter of law. At closeout, a certificate of occupancy the official fails to issue on time is automatically granted and deemed issued as of the next business day. Both are remedies for an agency that ran out of time, and a remedy is a poor thing to hang a closing date on.

We have never seen a schedule improved by a deemed approval. What the deadline does is give you something to manage against, which is the actual product: a date you can put in a draw schedule and a person you can call when it slips.

It also changes what you chase. Instead of asking a reviewer when your package might come up, you are asking a provider you retained to close out comments before a date the statute already set.

You pay the county less and a private firm more, which is why this is a calendar decision

The fee side is written into the statute and it cuts in both directions. The jurisdiction must reduce the permit fee by the amount of cost savings the enforcement agency realises by not performing the service, and it may compute that as a flat fee, a percentage, or any other reasonable basis. It may not charge inspection fees at all. What it may still charge is a reasonable administrative fee based on costs it actually incurs.

Then the provider bills whoever hired them, on top of the reduced public fee. Two invoices where there was one.

We are not going to tell you what the net comes to. It turns on the basis your jurisdiction adopted and on the scope the provider quotes, and anybody handing you a percentage has guessed at one of the two. What we will tell you is which column this belongs in. It is bought with the calendar in mind. Build the case to a partner or a credit committee on saved permit fees and the case comes apart the first time somebody asks for the arithmetic; build it on float, carrying cost and a rent commencement you can hold, and it stands up.

The provider’s seal goes onto your property, and the property keeps it

Every inspection gets recorded on the approved form. The provider posts the completed record at the job site and delivers it to the local building official within two business days. The affidavit of plan compliance at the front of the job and the certificate of compliance at the end of it both carry that firm’s seal.

So the permanent file on your building says the review was performed by a private party you selected. That file is read later by people who were not in the room: a buyer’s counsel, a lender’s construction consultant at refinance, an insurer at renewal, and in the worst version, somebody’s expert. None of them are hostile to a private-provider file. All of them are going to ask who the provider was and whether the record is complete, which is the same question underwriting asks about every other part of the job.

Read the insurance floor as a statement about how long that exposure runs. A private provider carries professional liability of at least $1M per occurrence and $2M aggregate on projects of $5M or less, and $2M per occurrence and $4M aggregate above that. Claims-made coverage needs a five-year tail. Nobody legislates a five-year tail for claims that arrive while the crew is still on site.

Audits exist and they are bounded, which is the part that protects you. The local enforcement agency has to publish standard operating procedures for auditing private providers. The same provider may be audited a maximum of four times in a year unless there is an immediate threat to safety, and the work may not be delayed for the completion of an inspection audit. That last clause is worth knowing before you need it, because the first thing a project manager fears on hearing the word audit is a stopped job.

Which makes the provider selection diligence rather than procurement. Two firms quoting the same scope are not offering the same thing if one of them is going to be the name on your permanent record.

Nobody inspects what they designed or built

The statute bars a private provider from providing inspection services on a building they designed or built. Note where the bar lands. It reaches inspection, and inspection is the half of this that a design-build team is most tempted to consolidate.

So if the engineer who sealed your drawings is the obvious candidate to carry the inspections, that engineer cannot carry them. An owner with an in-house engineer hits the same wall, and so does a contractor who built the shell and would like to keep the closeout tidy. Plan review and inspection can sit with different providers, which is the release valve, but somebody has to arrange that before the notification deadline rather than two business days out from a first inspection.

On tenant improvement work this usually resolves itself, because the design professional and the inspecting provider were never going to be the same firm. On a ground-up build where one engineering firm has been carrying the project since the site work, it is a real constraint and it belongs in the preconstruction schedule, not in a phone call the week the foundation is ready.

Where it fits now, and where the department is still the only door

HB 683 widened the statute effective July 1, 2025, and the additions are practical rather than cosmetic. Single-trade permit applications, single-trade plans review and single-trade inspections are in. Single-trade reviews may be performed by automated or software-based plans review. Solar energy systems became eligible work. Single-trade inspections may be performed in person or virtually.

One older clause matters more than any of that on an occupied property: the local official may not prohibit a private provider from inspecting outside the official’s normal operating hours. A restaurant that cannot lose a lunch service, a medical suite with a patient schedule, a retail tenant whose lease sets working hours. Getting an inspection called at six in the morning or on a Saturday is worth more to that job than a faster plan review, and it is the same discipline as everything else in occupied-building work — the constraint is the operating business, and the schedule gets built around it.

Where it does not reach. Zoning and administrative review stay with the department, so a project whose real hold is a variance or a use question has not been helped. Appetite inside Miami-Dade is uneven: some municipalities take private-provider submittals as routine and others handle them seldom enough that you feel it in the back-and-forth. And the recorded notice of commencement gates the inspections regardless of who performs them, since once the first inspection has been made neither the department nor a private provider inspecting for it may perform or approve another until a copy of the recorded notice is on file. We cover what that recording sets in motion on our questions page.

Elect the provider in the permit application where you can. The fallback filing is 2 p.m. local time two business days before the first scheduled inspection, and a late filing leaves your provider with no standing on the job
Schedule against the statutory deadline being met. Deemed approval and an automatically granted certificate are remedies for an agency that ran out of time, and neither reads well in a diligence file
Put this in the schedule column, not the savings column. The reduced permit fee and the provider’s own fee are two invoices, and no verified figure exists for what the pair nets out to
Select the provider the way you select the engineer of record. Their seal sits on the affidavit, on every inspection record and on the certificate of compliance, and the file stays with the property after everyone has moved on
Settle who inspects before anyone seals drawings, because whoever designed or built the building is barred from inspecting it
Ask the municipality, per address, how it handles private-provider submittals. Zoning and administrative review stay at the counter either way, so a project held up there gains nothing from the election

Canal-side multi-family building exterior in West Miami with a complete permit and inspection record — From our West Miami multi-family project. The asset is worth what the file behind it can prove, and the file does not distinguish between a county inspector and a private one as long as the record is complete.Commercial Construction →

We decide this per address, not as a policy

The thread that sent us this question had people arguing about whether private providers are good or bad, which is the wrong axis. The election is good for a specific job with a specific constraint in a specific municipality, and it is dead weight on a job next door whose hold is zoning or whose scope never leaves department review.

What we do in preconstruction is narrow. We establish what the municipality for that address actually does with private-provider submittals, whether the scope is single-trade or full, whether the critical path runs through plan review at all or through something the election cannot touch, who is sealing the drawings and therefore who cannot inspect, and what the two fee streams look like against the float the schedule is trying to buy. Then we recommend one way or the other and say why, in writing, so the decision can be defended to whoever has to approve it.

If you are holding a closing date, a rent commencement or a seasonal window behind a review that has not moved, that analysis is worth having before the application goes in rather than after. Request a proposal and we will walk the address and the scope with you anywhere in Miami-Dade or Broward.

Frequently Asked Questions

It helps in one specific way that is easy to undervalue: the local official may not prohibit your provider from inspecting outside his own normal operating hours, and on a single-trade scope the inspection may be performed virtually. That turns an inspection from an event that closes a store into one that happens before it opens. What it does not fix is anything upstream of the building department. A landlord work letter that has not been agreed, a use question, a zoning condition, a utility coordination item: none of those move because you elected a provider, and a tenant improvement schedule that fails usually fails on one of them rather than on plan review speed. The honest sequence is to identify what the actual hold is, then decide. If the hold is review and inspection windows against an operating business, the election is well aimed. If the hold is a document two parties have not signed, you have bought a faster path to the same wall.

Three things that do not show up in the proposal. First, whose seal ends up on the association’s permanent record: the affidavit, every inspection record and the certificate of compliance carry the provider’s seal, and unit owners, buyers’ counsel and lenders will read that file for as long as the building stands. Second, the insurance floor against the size of your project, since the statutory minimums step up above $5M and a claims-made policy needs a five-year tail to be worth anything to a board that turns over. Third, the conflict rule, because if the engineer who designed the repair is also the firm being proposed as provider, that firm cannot perform the inspections and somebody has to discover this before the notification deadline rather than at the first one. A board that documents those three findings in its minutes has done the defensible thing whichever way it votes. Whether the association may make the election at all, and who signs for it, is a governing-documents question for the association’s counsel.

Start with what cannot happen: the work may not be delayed for the completion of an inspection audit, so an audit opening is not a stop-work order, and the agency has to be running it under standard operating procedures it published. The same provider may be audited a maximum of four times in a year unless there is an immediate threat to safety. What a disagreement does is land on the provider’s seal, because they signed the record. The practical defence is built long before the audit: the inspection record posted at the site and current, the transmittal to the building official inside the two business days the statute allows, and photographs of the condition each inspection covered. Where the disagreement is technical rather than procedural, the engineer of record for the design needs to be in front of it quickly, because a provider defending a call alone and an engineer confirming a detail are two very different conversations with a building official. We keep the documentation current for exactly this reason, and it is the same file the closeout package is built from anyway.

You can change, and the statute tells you how fast: the building official has to be notified within one business day after the change, or two business days before the next scheduled inspection. The mechanical part is straightforward. The cost is in the record. You now have a job whose inspection history has two authors, and whoever reads it later has to reconcile them, which is the moment a missing inspection record or a gap in the sequence stops being a filing problem and becomes a question. There is a schedule cost too, since the department is picking up a job mid-sequence with no prior familiarity, and a reviewer or inspector new to a partially built scope asks questions the previous reader had already resolved. The version of this we see most often is not a deliberate strategy change but a provider relationship that went wrong. Deciding that early, at a clean break between inspection milestones, costs far less than deciding it at the third disputed call.

With the statute and the file, in that order. The inspections were performed under Florida’s alternative plans review and inspection law by a licensed private provider elected on the building official’s own form, the local official issued the permit, and the certificate came off a certificate of compliance the provider sealed. That is a normal permitting path and not an irregularity, and saying so plainly settles most of these. What settles the rest is the package: the election notice, the affidavit of plan compliance, each inspection record with its transmittal, the certificate of compliance and the certificate the department issued against it. Where the answer goes badly is when the record is thin, and that outcome was determined years earlier by whoever was or was not collecting it during construction. This is one of the better arguments for treating the provider’s file as a deliverable while the job is live, on any property you intend to refinance or sell, rather than as paperwork somebody can assemble on request.