# Substantial Completion, Issue only after Bldg Dept. Occupancy Permit received?



## garrett (Jun 28, 2011)

Architect question here:

AIA G704 Certificate of Substantial Completion states that it is issued "when the Work is sufficiently complete in accordance with the Contract Documents so that the Owner can occupy or utilize the Work for its intended use."

So do we wait until Contractor has obtained Occupancy Permit from Bldg Dept. prior to issuing Cert. of Substantial Completion?

Seems like it, but in this case the project meets the definition of complete in every way except there are some paperwork issues with Bldg Dept. Owner can't occupy until that is cleared up, but seems like it makes sense that the warranty period starts now and Owner to take possession of bldg (even though they are not actually allowed to use it yet).

The Owner *can* occupy it, but they *may* not.


----------



## TimNY (Jun 28, 2011)

I would say that from your description, the *Work* is sufficiently complete so that the Owner can occupy or utilize, but a paperwork issue is holding up the completion.  Unless a Certificate of Occupancy was specifically required by the contract, I'd say a Cert of Substantial Completion is in order.

Been a long time since I used AIA documents (as a CM), but I believe we used them with different subs.. I would not a withold a payment of substantial completion from the HVAC company because the plumber hadn't installed the floor drains.  Perhaps they were a different AIA form.


----------



## RLGA (Jun 28, 2011)

I teach this in all my construction documents classes: if the owner cannot use the building, regardless of the issue, then it is not substantially complete, and that includes a CofO from the building department.


----------



## brudgers (Jun 29, 2011)

Owner can't occupy = not substantially complete = only a moron would issue the cerificate

 On the other hand, the Owner has the option of paying the contractor without the certificate (but the bank might throw a hissyfit).

I fail to see why the warranty period should start before the building is used.

 That makes no more sense than a car's warranty starting before it is sold off the lot.


----------



## Architect1281 (Jun 29, 2011)

Substatially complete per the AIA documents has NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to the requirements for a Certificate of Occupancy.

per the AIA documents which also includes such things a limited scope of services you can have plans / contract agreement for

partial or shell type structers "substantially complete per the scope of your contractual arrangement.

the building could be suitable for an interior designer and MEP's to proceded with thier work but the building is not suitable to occupy.

A retail strip mall can be substantially complete with no occupancy by tenants.

DO NOT MIX DEFINITIONS FROM THINGS OUTSIDE THE CODE when discussing Certificate of Occupancy.


----------



## Mac (Jun 29, 2011)

Finish the project. Successfully complete the systems testing. *Accompany the CEO on a final inspection. Get the CO. Move in.

73-7.  Certificates of occupancy.

A.	No building erected subject to the Uniform Code and this article shall be used or occupied, except to the extent provided in this section, until a certificate of occupancy has been issued.


----------



## steveray (Jun 29, 2011)

On certain projects, CT requires the letter prior to issuing a CO, I agree that substantial completion and C of O are 2 different animals...


----------



## RLGA (Jun 29, 2011)

Here is the definition from AIA Document A201-2007, _General Conditions of the Contract for Construction_:

"Substantial Completion is the stage in the progress of the Work when the Work or designated portion thereof is sufficiently complete in accordance with the Contract Documents so that the Owner can occupy or utilize the Work for its intended use."

Any mechanism that is used by the AHJ to allow the the owner to use/occupy the building is a requirement of substantial completion.  The "Work" does not necessarily mean a complete and ready-to-occupy structure.  For shell structures, AHJs may issue a "certificate of completion" indicating that it has complied with the requirements for the jurisdiction to "utilize the Work for its intended use," which means the Owner can now proceed with tenant improvements.  If the contractor can secure a temporary CofO, so that the owner "can occupy and or utilize the Work for its intended use" is also sufficient, provided the conditions of the temporary CofO allow the owner to use the building in the way the owner needs to use it.

In the Construction Specifications Institute's _Project Resource Manual _it states:  "An important item to be submitted with the contractor's notice of substantial completion is evidence that AHJs, such as the building official, have completed their required inspections and the project meets their requirements...Evidence is often in the form of a certificate of occupancy issued by the AHJ.  This evidence may also be in the form of signed-off permits, a temporary certificate of occupancy, or some other written format used by the AHJ."

Substantial completion is definitely tied to AHJ approval.  If it wasn't, after the owner pays off the contractor, the contractor could potentially walk away from any remaining punchlist work and leave the owner trying to find another contractor to finish the project so the owner can get AHJ approval to occupy or use the project.


----------



## steveray (Jun 29, 2011)

The AHJ does not care what is in the contract...just the code.....the problem with a temp C of O is that it has no particular timeline, it expires when the work is complete. (At least in our code) Then try going in front of a judge to get them out and saying that it was safe to occupy, but not really....


----------



## RLGA (Jun 29, 2011)

Steveray:  I agree.

Most temporary CofOs that I've come across have been limited to the extent that the owner can furnish the building but not open for business, practice, etc. as the case may be.

This type of temporary CofO, in my opinion, does not allow the owner to "occupy or utilize the Work for its intended use, " which, in many cases, actually means being "open for business, practice, etc. as the case may be."  Thus, as an architect and construction contractor administrator, I would not consider the building as being substantially complete.


----------



## brudgers (Jun 29, 2011)

Architect1281 said:
			
		

> Substatially complete per the AIA documents has NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to the requirements for a Certificate of Occupancy.per the AIA documents which also includes such things a limited scope of services you can have plans / contract agreement for
> 
> partial or shell type structers "substantially complete per the scope of your contractual arrangement.
> 
> ...


I agree that there are circumstances where a CO would not be needed - but in most cases a building without a CO would not be substantially complete.


----------



## steveray (Jun 29, 2011)

RLGA...sounds good, we would probably call that a partial.....as long as some wording can be on there to what extent and use it is approved...I would not have any heartburn over that...Here is our code section...

(Add) 110.1.4 *Statement of professional opinion*.   Pursuant to section 29-276c of the Connecticut General Statutes, no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for a proposed structure or addition to buildings classified as (1) assembly, educational, institutional, high hazard, transient residential, which includes hotels, motels, rooming or boarding houses, dormitories or similar buildings, other than residential buildings designed to be occupied by one or more families, without limitation as to size or number of stories; (2) business, factory and industrial, mercantile, moderate and low hazard storage, having three stories or more or exceeding 30,000 square feet total gross area; and (3) nontransient residential dwellings having more than 16 units or 24,000 square feet total gross area per building, until the building official has been provided with a statement signed by the architect or professional engineer and the general contractor stating that the completed structure or addition is in substantial compliance with the approved plans on file.


----------



## Architect1281 (Jun 30, 2011)

Upon suspected completion but not yet suitable for a CofO a Builder or Owner needing a CofO in order to obtain a funds release from

thier financial institution will beg but I need a CO in order to get money. I respectfully decline and suggest that perhaps if they think they are

that done maybe the DFRP can give the a substantial completion document to make the bank have happy feelings but untill its ready for the CO

dont ask. Had a residential 20 unit project wait a year due to incomplete infrastructure like acess roads and suggested that the banks change

there standard cause we were.t chancing ours, they did change we didn't


----------

