Letters of Assurance, and Who Signs What

A building department cannot check every calculation on a complex building, and it is not resourced to. On projects above a certain size the system relies instead on registered professionals who take responsibility for their own disciplines and say so in writing.

Those written undertakings are letters of assurance. They are formalised in British Columbia as a schedule of standard forms, and equivalent mechanisms exist elsewhere under different names, including commitment certificates and general reviews.

The important thing to understand is what they do to responsibility. A signed letter carries a professional’s seal behind a statement, with the liability and the regulatory consequences that follow from it.

That is the trade the system makes. The department gets assurance from someone qualified and accountable, the project gets a review that is deeper than a plans examiner could provide, and the professional carries the risk. It works well and it depends on everyone understanding their part of it.

The shape of the system#

There are generally three moments where something gets signed: at permit application, confirming who will do what; during construction, confirming field review is happening; and at completion, confirming that what was built substantially conforms to the design.

Disciplines are usually split into architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, fire suppression and electrical. Each has a professional attached, and the coordinating professional is responsible for making sure the pieces fit together rather than for the technical content of each one.

What it means if you are the owner#

The system is helpful and it has consequences worth understanding. Occupancy generally depends on those final letters arriving, so a professional who has not been paid, or who cannot sign because they were not engaged for field review, can hold up occupancy on a finished building.

Engaging a professional to stamp drawings without also engaging them for field review is the classic way this goes wrong. The design letter gets signed at permit and the completion letter never can be, because nobody was reviewing.

Changes during construction are the other pressure point. A professional will not sign that the work conforms to their design if the work departed from it without their involvement. Field changes need to go back through them at the time rather than being explained at the end.

1. 1

   Confirm early whether your project needs them

   It depends on size, occupancy and provincial rules. The building department will tell you at pre-application, and it materially changes the consultant budget.

2. 2

   Engage professionals for design and field review together

   A single scope covering both avoids the gap that makes a completion letter impossible.

3. 3

   Identify the coordinating professional up front

   Someone has to hold the coordination role, and leaving it unassigned causes trouble at exactly the wrong moment.

4. 4

   Route every change through the responsible professional

   Field changes agreed on site and never documented are what stop a final letter being signed.

5. 5

   Track the letters as a deliverable

   Treat them like any other item on the completion checklist, with names against them, rather than assuming they will appear.

Common questions#

Who pays for field review?

The owner, as part of the professional’s fee. It is a separate scope from design and it is a common place for a budget to be short, because people price the drawings and forget the site visits.

Does a letter of assurance replace inspections?

No. Municipal inspections continue. The letters cover professional design and field review, and the two run alongside each other.

Who chooses the coordinating professional?

The owner engages them, usually the architect on a building with one. On projects without an architect it has to be assigned deliberately.

What if a professional refuses to sign at completion?

That is a serious signal rather than an administrative problem. It usually means the work departed from the design or they were unable to review it. Occupancy generally waits.

Can a different professional sign for someone who left?

Only if they take responsibility for the work, which normally means reviewing it themselves. That can be difficult once construction is closed up.

Is this the same across Canada?

The concept is widespread and the forms and names differ. British Columbia’s schedules are the most formalised version; other provinces use commitment certificates or general review requirements.

Does it apply to a renovation?

It can, if the renovation is large enough or touches disciplines that require professional design. Scope determines it rather than the fact that the building already exists.