Summary#
The Risk-Based Third-Party Code Review Act of 2026 would amend the District’s Construction Codes Approval and Amendments Act of 1986. Its stated goal is to let the Department of Buildings (DOB) focus more of its review work on complex or higher-risk projects. The bill has been introduced and referred to a committee; it is not law.
- The Mayor would have to allow qualified third-party reviewers to review and certify construction documents, or parts of them, for compliance with the Construction Codes or Zoning Regulations.
- For projects that meet eligibility rules, DOB would have to accept a third-party certification unless it identifies a specific issue requiring more review within a set period.
- If DOB does not identify an issue in time, the certification would be deemed accepted and would satisfy DOB’s plan-review requirement for the documents it covers.
- Eligibility rules must consider project features such as size, occupancy, structural complexity, height, number of homes, fire and life-safety features, site conditions, and historic status.
- The bill preserves DOB’s authority to inspect work and take enforcement action after a permit is issued.
The sponsor’s accompanying letter says the current system still requires a full DOB review after third-party review. The parent Act was not supplied, so that description and the full current-law context could not be verified.
What it means for you#
- People seeking construction permits: If a project qualifies and a qualified reviewer certifies its documents, DOB would not be able to require its usual plan review unless it identifies a specified issue within the review period. The certification covers only the documents or parts it addresses.
- Developers and property owners: The bill does not guarantee that a project will qualify or that its permit will be issued faster. DOB could require additional review for a defect, a material failure to meet the codes or zoning rules, or a project-specific circumstance set out in rules.
- Third-party reviewers: Their certifications could become binding on DOB for qualifying projects. The bill does not itself explain the full qualifications or oversight rules for reviewers.
- DOB and the Mayor: Rules must set project eligibility criteria and the time period for DOB to identify issues. DOB would retain inspection and enforcement powers after permits are issued.
- Residents: The bill does not change building-code standards or create a new right to housing. It also does not remove DOB’s authority to inspect or enforce the law after a permit is issued.
Money#
No cost estimate is available in the supplied material.
- The bill does not state an appropriation or give a staffing or implementation cost.
- Applicants may still pay for third-party review; the bill does not set or remove reviewer fees.
- The sponsor’s letter says the change is intended to reduce duplicate review and delays, but the bill does not guarantee savings.
- The bill adopts the fiscal impact statement in a committee report, but that report was not supplied.
What is unclear#
- The bill leaves key eligibility details to rules, including which projects qualify and the review period’s length.
- The bill text supplied does not explain how reviewers are qualified, how certifications are standardized, or what audits or sanctions apply. The sponsor’s letter says rules would address some of these matters; the supplied bill text does not specify them.
- It is unclear how DOB would handle disputed defects or decisions, and the bill does not set an appeal process or reporting requirement.
- The supplied material does not establish how the bill’s process would interact with other existing review requirements. The parent Act was not supplied, so the current rules could not be fully checked.
Case for#
- A third-party review that replaces—not duplicates—DOB’s plan review could reduce an extra step for projects that meet risk-based criteria.
- Allowing DOB to focus on complex or higher-risk work could make better use of agency review capacity.
- The bill keeps DOB’s ability to inspect and enforce requirements after permits are issued.
- Eligibility criteria based on project features could allow different levels of review for projects with different risks.
Case against#
- If DOB does not identify an issue within the set period, the certification is deemed accepted. That makes the length of the period and the quality of third-party review important, but the bill does not set the period or detailed reviewer standards.
- The bill does not explain the process for resolving disagreements or correcting a certification after it is accepted.
- The design depends on rules that are not included in the bill text supplied. Until those rules are clear, applicants and the public cannot tell which projects will qualify or how much oversight will apply.
- Third-party review may not reduce costs for applicants if they still pay a reviewer and DOB requires additional review.