In 2023, 147 workers died from electrical exposures and 3,260 non-fatal electrical injuries occurred. The total cost of all workplace injuries in 2023 reached $176.5 billion, with electrical incidents representing a significant portion of severe injury claims. Claims managers, risk managers, and litigation attorneys require comprehensive electrical risk assessment documentation to establish defensible positions and help reduce liability exposure.

Compliance Foundations

NFPA 70E Section 110.5(H) requires electrical safety programs to include hazard identification, risk assessment, and risk control implementation per the hierarchy of control methods. Documentation standards are designed to meet litigation defensibility requirements.

Key standards and responsibilities:

• Employers bear primary responsibility per NFPA 70E Article 110.5(H)
• Qualified workers execute assessments per OSHA 1910.333
• Electrical engineers provide incident energy analysis per IEEE 1584-2018
• Risk assessment methodology follows ISO 31010

Prerequisites: Current one-line diagrams, equipment labels, incident history (five years), maintenance records.

7 Step Checklist for an Electrical Risk Assessment

This seven-step process provides a systematic approach to electrical risk assessment that meets NFPA 70E requirements. Following these steps helps create documentation that may help support both safety objectives and regulatory compliance.

Step 1: Identify electrical hazards

Electrical hazard identification involves comprehensive facility walk-throughs examining all electrical equipment for : 

• Arc flash (thermal energy release from electrical faults)
• Electric shock (current flow through body from energized conductors)
• Arc blast (pressure wave and projectile hazards). 

According to OSHA guidance, arc flash produces temperatures exceeding 35,000°F.

Include maintenance personnel, safety officers, and insurance representatives in walk-throughs to help avoid blind spots. Use infrared thermography to detect hot connections (>40°F differentials) and insulation-resistance testers to identify degraded cables before failure.

Step 2: Define electrical work and failure modes

Compile comprehensive task inventories documenting routine maintenance, commissioning activities, troubleshooting procedures, and emergency response protocols. Use Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) tables to document equipment failure scenarios, their effects on personnel safety, and detection methods. For each task, identify what can fail (breaker contact failure during racking), how it fails (arc flash during insertion), and consequences (thermal injury to operator).

Lock the task inventory before risk scoring begins to help prevent scope creep from delaying control deployment. Organizations experiencing continuous task additions should establish a separate Phase 2 assessment.

Temporary power installations present elevated hazards from weather exposure, physical damage, and frequent reconfiguration. OSHA guidance identifies faulty extension cords, improper grounding, and overhead power line contact as leading electrocution causes.

Step 3: Evaluate severity and likelihood

The 5×5 risk matrix methodology assigns numerical ratings for both dimensions, producing risk scores that could help guide control decisions.

Severity Scale (1-5):

• 5 (Catastrophic): Fatality or permanent total disability
• 4 (Critical): Severe injury requiring hospitalization
• 3 (Moderate): Injury requiring medical treatment beyond first aid
• 2 (Minor): First aid injury only
• 1 (Negligible): No injury anticipated

Likelihood Scale (1-5):

• 5 (Very High): Expected to occur frequently under normal conditions
• 4 (Likely): Probable during equipment lifetime
• 3 (Possible): May occur occasionally
• 2 (Rare): Unlikely but conceivable
• 1 (Negligible): Extremely unlikely even with prolonged exposure

The matrix multiplies these values: a task with Catastrophic severity (5) and Likely occurrence (4) produces Risk Score = 20, demanding immediate intervention. Example calculation: A qualified electrician replacing a circuit breaker in an energized 480V panel without proper arc flash PPE: Severity = 5 (potential fatality), Likelihood = 3 (possible during breaker removal), Risk Score = 5 × 3 = 15 (High Risk).

Risk assessment matrix (severity × likelihood)

Step 4: Prioritize and assign risk levels

Convert risk scores to action levels using NFPA 70E Annex F definitions:

• High Risk (15-25): Immediate controls required, de-energization per NFPA 70E Article 120
• Medium Risk (8-14): Mitigation within 30 days using engineering or administrative controls (Articles 110, 130)
• Low Risk (1-7): Standard procedures with five-year reassessment

Insurance tip: Cross-reference risk scores with workers’ compensation loss data to strengthen premium negotiations. Historical loss data combined with documented risk reductions may provide quantifiable evidence for carrier discussions.

Step 5: Implement control measures

NFPA 70E Articles 120 and 130 establish a six-level hierarchy ranked by effectiveness. Prioritize controls at the top of the hierarchy as they typically provide greater risk reduction than lower-level measures.

1. Elimination: De-energize equipment through lockout/tagout
2. Substitution: Replace 480V systems with 120V alternatives
3. Engineering Controls: Remote racking systems for circuit breaker operation outside arc flash boundaries
4. Awareness: Arc flash labels displaying calculated incident energy and required PPE categories
5. Administrative Controls: Energized work permits requiring documented justification, plus qualified worker training on arc flash boundaries and PPE selection
6. PPE: Arc-rated clothing and voltage-rated gloves as last-resort protection

Reference specific NFPA 70E articles for each control measure to help demonstrate standards-based implementation.

Step 6: Document, verify, communicate

Legally defensible electrical risk assessments require comprehensive documentation meeting both OSHA recordkeeping and litigation discovery standards.

Required Records:

• Risk Register: Complete hazard inventory with pre- and post-mitigation risk scores
• PPE Plans: Equipment specifications tied to calculated incident energy levels
• Updated Drawings: One-line diagrams reflecting current system configuration
• Training Logs: Documentation maintained for the duration of employment

Chain-of-Custody: Construction litigation requires signed transfer logs, photographic documentation before equipment removal, secure storage with access logs, and documented handling procedures meeting Federal Rules of Evidence requirements for physical evidence admissibility.

Step 7: Monitor, review, improve

The 2024 NFPA 70E specifically states that an incident energy analysis shall be reviewed for accuracy every five years and updated when electrical distribution system changes occur.

Leading Indicators: Near-miss reports, PPE inspection rates, and pre-job briefing attendance can provide early warning.

Performance Metrics: Track recordable incident rates per 200,000 hours, incident energy reductions (kJ/cm²) following system upgrades, downtime hours avoided through proactive maintenance, near-miss report frequency, and PPE compliance audit scores.

Common Issues Overlooked

Scope Creep During Assessment: Task lists expand continuously as workers identify additional activities, delaying control implementation. Organizations should lock the task inventory before risk scoring begins. Organizations experiencing continuous additions should establish a separate ‘Phase 2’ assessment rather than postponing critical control deployment.

Underestimating Incident Energy: Generic arc flash labels specifying “PPE Category 2” without calculated incident energy values fail NFPA 70E Article 130.5 requirements. Incident energy calculations per IEEE 1584-2018 must precede label application.

Documentation Gaps: Risk registers lacking pre-mitigation and post-mitigation scores prevent demonstrating risk reduction effectiveness. Maintain both baseline and current risk scores with implementation dates for each control measure.

Training Documentation Deficiencies: Training logs without competency verification (written tests, practical demonstrations) fail OSHA 1910.333 qualified worker requirements. Document both attendance and demonstrated proficiency.

Insurance, Risk, and Legal roles 

Insurance Claims managers: Documented assessments with implemented controls might demonstrate policyholder due diligence. Pre-loss documentation can establish proactive risk management timelines.

Corporate Risk managers: Use electrical risk scores in enterprise risk matrices to justify safety investments. OSHA research shows $6 saved per $1 invested in safety programs.

Construction Litigation attorneys: Expert testimony requires documented methodology meeting Daubert standards. Following the 2023 amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert witnesses must demonstrate specific qualifications in the electrical system types involved in the incident. Generic electrical engineering credentials no longer suffice; Daubert challenges now require documentation of prior experience with voltage levels, equipment types, and system configurations matching the incident. 

Pre-incident electrical risk assessments with documented incident energy calculations, PPE specifications, and control implementation timelines could help establish baseline conditions designed to withstand cross-examination regarding foreseeability and standard of care.

Why Rimkus? Authority Under Pressure

With 40+ years of experience and a global network of offices, Rimkus brings forensic electrical investigation expertise with 900+ multidisciplinary experts, providing third-party verification designed to withstand courtroom cross-examination and regulatory scrutiny.

Rimkus electrical engineers help to provide pre-energization verification, incident energy calculations, and NFPA 70E compliance audits. The multidisciplinary approach combines electrical engineering analysis with construction defect investigation and regulatory compliance expertise. Carriers evaluating electrical claims, facility owners requiring third-party verification, and attorneys building technical cases can access Rimkus litigation-tested expertise in electrical risk assessment and expert witness services.

For comprehensive industrial facility assessments or transportation infrastructure evaluations, the experts work closely with government agencies and private sector clients across multiple industries to deliver technically sound solutions. 

Contact Rimkus for additional support in electrical risk assessments.

This article aims to offer insights into the prevailing industry practices. Nonetheless, it should not be construed as legal or professional advice in any form.

The post Electrical Risk Assessment: A Step-by-Step Guide to Compliance appeared first on Rimkus.

This scenario repeats across hundreds of communities annually, even though twelve states mandate reserve funding. Reserve study adequacy can represent a critical underwriting and claims prevention factor when evaluating community association exposures.

A properly executed reserve study can help transform reactive crisis mode into predictable, manageable capital planning. This article presents a six-phase roadmap that condo association boards can implement to build financial security and avoid surprise assessments.

What is a Reserve Study?

A reserve study is a detailed financial planning document that helps condominium associations identify, quantify, and prepare for major future expenses. It combines physical property assessment with financial analysis to determine how much funding associations need to set aside for inevitable capital replacements such as roofing, paving, and mechanical systems. For board members, these studies can provide essential guidance for maintaining fiscal health while fulfilling fiduciary responsibilities to protect property values and prevent unexpected special assessments.

The Community Associations Institute also emphasizes that understanding the importance of reserve studies in managing community finances represents a fundamental governance responsibility.

How Does a Reserve Study Help?

Reserve studies can help prevent special assessments by transforming unpredictable capital expenses into predictable annual budget items backed by documented evidence. These studies can provide essential guidance for maintaining fiscal health while fulfilling fiduciary responsibilities to protect property values.

The Six-Phase Roadmap for Reserve Study Development

Engineering consultants follow a six-phase methodology to deliver reserve studies that withstand board scrutiny and meet professional standards. Those phases include:

Phase 1: Set objectives, scope, and data prerequisites

Phase 1 establishes study objectives, defines scope, and assembles prerequisite data before engaging consultants. Boards should answer three key questions upfront: What components need evaluation? What level of detail is required? What is our timeline for implementation?

Gather essential documents:

• Governing documents (CC&Rs, bylaws)
• Prior financial statements
• Historical reserve expenditures
• Preliminary component inventories
• Previous reserve studies (if available)

Define study scope: Boards must decide between a full physical inspection (recommended for first studies or properties over 10 years old) versus a financial update only (appropriate for recent studies requiring adjustment). State requirements vary – California Civil Code §5550 mandates visual inspections of major components every three years, while Florida requires ten-year Structural Integrity Reserve Studies for buildings three stories or higher.

Understand reserve segregation requirements: Reserve funds must be segregated from operating accounts and dedicated exclusively to major component repair and replacement. This segregation can help protect both the association and individual directors from personal liability claims while documenting fiduciary compliance.

Set realistic timelines: Plan 60-90 days from kickoff to final report delivery for full studies with site inspections. Financial updates typically require 30-45 days.

Phase 2: Selecting qualified professionals

Selecting qualified professionals requires reviewing credentials, methodology, and references rather than choosing the lowest bid. Emphasize these factors as primary selection criteria:

• Scope definition (full study with site inspection versus financial update only)
• Completion timeline with milestone dates
• Required deliverable formats (digital and hard copy)
• Update cycle frequency and pricing

Credentialed professionals can provide documentation designed to meet litigation standards for Directors and Officers (D&O) exposure evaluation.

Industry best practices recommend that associations consult qualified reserve study professionals, emphasizing qualification verification over cost minimization.

The level of engagement a reserve study firm provides directly correlates with cost. Firms offering multiple revisions, ongoing support, and comprehensive service justify higher fees through enhanced value delivery.

Phase 3: Physical analysis: inspecting the assets

Physical analysis inventories components, evaluates conditions, and calculates remaining useful life through comprehensive site inspections. Consultants conduct site walk-throughs with visual inspections, measurements, and photographic documentation.

Remaining Useful Life (RUL) equals Useful Life minus Current Age, adjusted for condition. A roof with 20-year useful life installed 2 years ago has 18 years RUL. Building repainting on a 10-year cycle conducted 9 years ago has 1 year RUL.

Current Replacement Cost (CRC) asks “What would it cost to replace this today?’ using actual contractor quotes and industry pricing data adjusted for inflation. 

Life-safety components receive priority analysis:

• Elevators (California Code of Regulations Title 8 compliance)
• Roofs (building envelope integrity)
• Fire protection systems (NFPA inspection intervals)
• Structural elements (preventive maintenance planning)

These components typically require enhanced analysis due to resident safety and regulatory compliance requirements. 

Phase 4: Financial analysis and funding model development

Once the physical assessment identifies components and their conditions, financial analysis translates these findings into funding requirements. Financial analysis develops funding models using cash flow projections, inflation adjustments, and percent funded calculations to determine required reserve contributions. Reserve funds must be segregated from operating accounts and dedicated exclusively to major component repair and replacement. Cash flow projections, inflation adjustments, and interest income calculations are essential elements.

Funding methodologies

Two industry-accepted funding methodologies govern reserve planning. The Component Method treats each reserve component separately, while the Pooled Method combines all reserves into a single account available for any project.

Industry standards typically recommend a 30-year projection of income, expenses, and ending balance.

Key calculations

Fully Funded Balance (FFB) = Σ (Current Cost × Effective Age ÷ Useful Life) for all components. This represents the accumulated depreciation that should ideally be held in reserves.

Percent Funded = (Current Reserve Balance ÷ FFB) × 100. This metric determines funding strategy:

• 0-30% (Weak): Requires immediate attention and material underwriting risk in insurance evaluations
• 30-70% (Fair): Use Threshold Funding to maintain reserves at 30-50% of FFB (most commonly recommended)
• 70-100% (Strong): Adequate reserves with moderate approach
• 100%+ (Optimal): Use Full Funding to maintain 100% funded status continuously, recommended for aging infrastructure

Baseline Funding maintains sufficient reserves to avoid negative balances but accepts special assessment risk for major unexpected expenses. 

Phase 5: Interpreting the final report and building the budget

With funding models established, boards must interpret study findings and build actionable budgets. Professional reserve studies present findings through executive summaries highlighting current percent funded status and required annual contributions, detailed component tables listing each asset with RUL and CRC, and 30-year cash flow projections showing annual income, expenses, and ending balances.

Budget categories
Boards typically convert study findings into budget lines by categorizing components. These categories support systematic budget development and long-term financial planning.

• Year 1 items with remaining useful life of 0-2 years demanding immediate action
• Years 2-5 near-term projects with 3-5 years remaining requiring active planning
• Years 6-30 long-term needs with 6+ years remaining informing contribution rate sustainability

Communicating findings
Boards can communicate reserve study findings using language such as “The reserve study identifies [total dollar amount] in capital needs over the next 30 years for [list specific components]. To fund these predictable expenses without special assessments, the study recommends annual reserve contributions of [annual amount], representing a [monthly amount] increase per unit from current funding levels.”

Early action success story
By regularly performing reserve studies and proactively reviewing their findings, one association discovered that roof replacements would be necessary within five years. The board began seeking contractor bids early, which allowed them to plan the roof work ahead of any failures and complete the project during the off-season, when prices were more favorable. This forward-thinking approach led to a reduction of project costs by almost 20% and removed the need for a special assessment on homeowners.

Phase 6: Implement, monitor, and update

After creating the initial budget, successful implementation requires ongoing monitoring and updates. Industry standards recommend physical updates with site inspections every three years for complex or aging properties. California Civil Code §5550 mandates triennial visual site inspections, while Florida requires ten-year Structural Integrity Reserve Studies for buildings three stories or higher. Best practices recommend updates every 2-3 years for older properties and 3-5 years for newer facilities.

Update requirements

Financial updates should occur at least annually, adjusting for actual expenditures, inflation effects on replacement costs, and interest income on reserve balances. According to California DRE Guidelines and industry standards, this annual recalibration helps ensure funding models remain aligned with economic realities.

To maintain compliance with these update requirements, technology solutions facilitate ongoing monitoring through software systems that track expenditures against planned spending and generate updated projections as conditions change.

Many states require reserve study information in resale packets, providing transparency to prospective purchasers. Updated reserve studies serve as effective renewal conditions for aging properties in claims management contexts.

Reserve Planning Troubleshooting Guide

Professional reserve consultants use specific indicators to assess reserve health. The table below outlines common red flags, their underlying causes, and the corrective actions needed.

How Rimkus Can Help

The immediate action step: boards should schedule a vote within 30 days to issue RFPs for reserve studies meeting professional standards, prioritizing credentialed professionals over lowest-bid proposals.

Rimkus can help provide comprehensive reserve fund studies and building condition assessments through multidisciplinary teams integrating structural engineering, forensic construction analysis, and MEP system evaluation. With more than 110 offices globally and specialized expertise in construction advisory services, Rimkus can help deliver technically rigorous assessments designed to meet both governance requirements and litigation standards.

A well-funded reserve can provide strong protection for property values and owner confidence, helping shield boards from personal liability while supporting capital needs through predictable, manageable contributions rather than crisis-driven special assessments. Contact Rimkus today to schedule your consultation.

This article aims to offer insights into the prevailing industry practices. Nonetheless, it should not be construed as legal or professional advice in any form.

The post Reserve Studies for Condo Associations: Six Steps to Success appeared first on Rimkus.

The Regulatory Foundation

Guidance from the EPA establishes that measuring and assessing energy performance through benchmarking is a critical initial step in identifying efficiency improvements. This process  takes a building’s energy use and measures it against past performance and the performance of similar buildings. Federal requirements operate under mandatory benchmarking established by Section 432 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), as outlined by the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Federal Energy Management Program. The EPA developed ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager as the standardized benchmarking tool, which subsequently became the compliance platform for state and local mandatory policies.

How to Achieve Compliance

The ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager establishes specific data requirements that facility managers must collect and maintain for regulatory compliance. All benchmarking requires monthly utility data.

Required utility data includes:

• Electricity consumption measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh), with separate tracking required for on-site solar or other renewable generation
• Natural gas consumption measured in therms, cubic feet, or kWh depending on utility billing practices
• District energy, including both district steam and district chilled water tracked separately and measured in kiloBritish thermal units (kBtu), kilopounds (kLbs), or megapounds (MLbs)
• For properties with on-site fuel storage, fuel oil, diesel, and propane consumption tracked in gallons or kBtu
• Water consumption is required for certain property types, measured in gallons or kilogallons (kGal)

Building characteristic data includes detailed specifications about the property’s physical attributes, operational systems, and usage patterns. Examples of specifications include the following:

• Gross Floor Area must be measured according to American National Standards Institute/Building Owners and Managers Association (ANSI/BOMA) standards. These standards ensure consistent measurement across different properties and jurisdictions.
• Property use types must be classified using EPA’s property type definitions, which cover more than 75 categories. This classification affects energy performance comparisons and compliance requirements.
• Year of original construction provides context for energy performance expectations and may influence compliance thresholds in some jurisdictions.
• The number of buildings must be reported for properties with multiple structures on one campus, as this affects total energy calculations and reporting requirements.

Beyond these basic data requirements, jurisdictions require additional operational details that reflect how buildings actually function. Property-specific operational metrics vary by building type because different properties have distinct energy uses and occupancy patterns that affect their performance baselines.

• Office buildings: weekly operating hours, number of workers on main shift, and percent of floor area cooled and heated
• K-12 schools: number of students, number of computers, presence of school cafeteria and gymnasium, and months school in use per year
• Hospitals: number of staffed beds, number of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machines, presence of tertiary care, and number of surgical operating rooms

Buildings achieving an ENERGY STAR score of 75 or higher are eligible for ENERGY STAR certification, which requires third-party verification by a licensed Professional Engineer (PE) or Registered Architect (RA), the ENERGY STAR Certification Guide specifies. The verifying professional must independently verify accuracy and completeness of all data.

Compliance Requirements Across Major Jurisdictions

The universal compliance framework operates through Portfolio Manager, which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) confirms serves as “the free online software platform on which all state and local benchmarking and disclosure policies run.” This standardization eliminates jurisdictional variation in technical reporting mechanisms but creates complexity through divergent deadlines, thresholds, and enforcement approaches.

For example:

New York City’s Local Law 84 requires covered buildings to submit annual benchmarking data. The NYC Department of Buildings issued a service notice that the 2025 benchmarking compliance deadline for Calendar Year 2024 data has been extended from May 1, 2025 to June 30, 2025 due to new reporting portal implementation. Violations are issued for non-compliance and become part of building records, potentially affecting property financing and transactions.

Seattle’s Municipal Code 22.920 covers buildings greater than 20,000 square feet for both non-residential and multifamily properties, information provided by the Seattle Office of Sustainability & Environment reveals. The reporting deadline falls on July 1 annually for the previous year’s data. The program covers more than 3,700 of Seattle’s largest properties representing over 330 million square feet. Compliance requirements include:

• Maintaining an active Portfolio Manager account shared with the City of Seattle
• Complete 12-month energy consumption data
• Error-free utility consumption data for all active meters

Philadelphia’s Section 9-3402 requires benchmarking for commercial buildings and multifamily buildings 50,000 square feet and larger, as documented in the 2019 Report. Requirements include annual reporting of energy and water use, with data entered into EPA ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager and shared with the city.

California’s Assembly Bill 802 establishes a statewide program covering commercial buildings greater than 50,000 square feet with annual reporting requirements and public transparency provisions, the DOE Commercial Building Benchmarking Policies database indicates.

Colorado’s Building Performance Colorado imposes two critical 2025 deadlines for building owners, as stated by the Colorado Energy Office:

• June 1, 2025 for 2024 Benchmarking report and fee payment
• July 1, 2025 as the deadline to select compliance pathway

Washington, D.C. implements tiered requirements with a significant 2025 expansion. Currently, private buildings over 50,000 gross square feet require annual benchmarking, while District government buildings over 10,000 gross square feet must comply. Starting calendar year 2025, all privately-owned buildings over 10,000 square feet must benchmark, with the first report due May 1, 2026. The District enforces compliance through daily fines up to $100 for non-compliance.

Financial Penalties and Risk Management 

The regulatory framework establishes penalty structures that create escalating financial exposure for non-compliance. A critical compliance risk emerges in multi-tenant buildings. Landlords face liability when tenants fail to provide required energy use information.

Some jurisdictions classify benchmarking non-compliance as a “Class A violation” with maximum penalties of $750, data from NEEP’s tracker highlights. Other jurisdictions employ different penalty structures:

• Chicago: up to $100 for first violation plus $25 per day for continued non-compliance
• Washington, D.C.: daily fines up to $100
• Philadelphia: $300 for first 30 days, $100 per day thereafter
• Boston: $35-$200/day (limit $3,000 annually)
• Variation in penalty structures across jurisdictions creates portfolio-level compliance complexity

Beyond direct financial penalties, enforcement creates cascading risk exposure. The NYC Department of Buildings may issue a Notice of Violation (NOV) to properties on the Covered Buildings List that fail to submit fully compliant benchmarking reports. These NOVs become part of building records, potentially impacting property financing, transactions, and valuations. The Energy Commission has issued warning letters to non-compliant building owners, demonstrating active enforcement beyond passive monitoring.

NYC rules create overlapping compliance risks. The NYC DOB administers benchmarking (Local Laws 84/133) alongside carbon emissions limits (Local Law 97) and energy efficiency grading requirements (Local Law 33). Local Law 33 requires buildings above 25,000 square feet to post energy efficiency grades at public entrances, transforming compliance failures into public reputational risks visible to tenants and investors.

Building Performance Standards

A fundamental regulatory shift is underway from transparency-focused benchmarking to performance-driven compliance frameworks. The DOE/PNNL report published in January 2025 documents the evolution from “report and disclose” benchmarking to “report and improve” Building Performance Standards.

Building Performance Standards include:

• Performance metrics based on Energy Use Intensity or greenhouse gas emissions
• Performance targets that evolve over time
• Integration with building energy codes
• Compliance pathways including renewable energy credits
• Methodologies such as Performance Cost Index (PCI) and Building Performance Factor (BPF)

Cities once required benchmarking for transparency. Now they use that data to mandate building improvements through new performance standards. ASHRAE Standard 100-2024 establishes energy benchmarks and emissions targets for existing buildings. This focus on existing buildings makes sense—HVAC systems alone account for 61% of commercial building energy use.

Federal requirements follow the same approach. DOE guidelines require buildings to achieve an ENERGY STAR score of 75 or higher, with focus on reducing on-site fossil fuel-generated energy consumption. For federal buildings, 10 CFR 433 establishes standards under EISA requiring new construction and major renovations to achieve reduced on-site fossil fuel-generated energy consumption compared to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 baseline.

Benchmarking Data and Continuous Management

Benchmarking is no longer a one-time compliance task. Cities now use this data to set ongoing performance targets that get stricter over time. This requires continuous data management and improvement planning built into operations and capital budgets. Managing compliance across multiple jurisdictions takes specialized expertise. Contact Rimkus for help in developing  strategies that protect your portfolio while meeting performance requirements.

This article aims to offer insights into the prevailing industry practices. Nonetheless, it should not be construed as legal or professional advice in any form.

The post Energy Benchmarking 2026: What You Should Know appeared first on Rimkus.

When evaluating coverage disputes (and construction litigation attorneys assessing liability), this scenario appears with troubling frequency. The pattern is consistent: inadequate pre-purchase building inspections that miss critical defects, leading to claims denials, coverage disputes, and protracted litigation over who knew what and when.

Why Commercial Buildings Need a Pre-purchase Inspection

Pre-purchase inspections identify hidden defects across all building systems that significantly impact investment value and operational costs. The $12.5 billion U.S. inspection industry (2024) lacks universal protocols, but the updated ASTM E2018-24 standard now provides structured assessment frameworks that help buyers uncover material deficiencies in structural, mechanical, electrical, and envelope systems before closing. Without professional inspections, buyers cannot accurately assess capital reserve requirements, ongoing maintenance costs, or code compliance issues that affect both immediate negotiations and long-term asset performance.

The data validates this comprehensive approach. Water damage accounts for 45% of commercial buildings experiencing ongoing problems with leaks, with 85% reporting past water damage and 34% having current leaks in occupied spaces. These findings, combined with defects in HVAC systems, roofing, and structural components, demonstrate why thorough pre-purchase inspections have become essential for accurate risk assessment and informed investment decisions in commercial real estate transactions.

Commercial property buyers can lower their risk of costly repairs and legal trouble by prioritizing thorough building inspections.  With more rigorous standards now in place, buyers can approach commercial property deals with confidence and reduce the chance of facing the most common and expensive types of claimsastm.org.

The Framework Standards for Inspection

Commercial building pre-purchase inspections operate within a hierarchical framework of mandatory regulations and professional practice standards that claims managers and risk managers must understand for defensible decision-making.

Federal Environmental Standards

Federal environmental due diligence for commercial property is primarily governed by the EPA’s All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) Final Rule, codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR Part 312. The AAI Final Rule establishes mandatory evaluation of a property’s environmental conditions, including assessing potential liability for any contamination. The ASTM E1527-21 standards  for compliance when conducting a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and can now be used to comply with the AAI Final Rule.

This regulation implements provisions of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, providing the Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser defense against liability for pre-closing contamination.

All Appropriate Inquiries must include:

• an environmental professional’s assessment 
• historical property use review 
• regulatory records review 
• visual site inspection
• interviews with owners and occupants
• data gap analysis
• comprehensive documentation, all completed within 180 days prior to acquisition.

Building System Assessment Standards

Beyond environmental compliance, evaluating comprehensive building systems requires adherence to professional engineering standards across multiple disciplines.

• For structural assessment, ASCE 11-99 provides systematic guidelines for evaluating structural integrity of existing commercial buildings. Procedures to determine if structures can carry design loads and  or repairs are necessary are clearly established.
• HVAC systems require assessment following ASHRAE Standard 180-2018, which establishes minimum acceptable maintenance levels with specific required inspection and maintenance tasks. The standard’s Appendix A provides “Indicators of Unacceptable Conditions,” specific criteria for identifying system failures that claims managers can reference when evaluating coverage disputes.
• For comprehensive building audits, ASHRAE Standard 211-2018 provides standardized procedures across three audit levels. Critically, Annex G specifically addresses risk analysis and assessment methods relevant for insurance applications.
• Building facade safety assessment follows ASTM E2270-14(2019), titled “Standard Practice for Periodic Inspection of Building Facades for Unsafe Conditions.” The standard was reapproved again in 2025, confirming its current active status. Municipalities nationwide have incorporated E2270 into mandatory inspection programs, making compliance verification essential during due diligence.

The 4-phase Pre-purchase Inspection Protocol

Claims managers and attorneys need inspection protocols that focus on high-risk building systems and use proven technical methods they might have to defend in court. These protocols are rolled out in four phases that help to organize the train of thought for pre-purchase inspections. 

Phase 1: Pre-contract Due Diligence Timing

Sophisticated commercial real estate investors consider it a best practice to commence detailed due diligence before the purchase contract is signed. This timing ensures that inspection findings inform strategic decision-making during the acquisition evaluation phase, rather than serving as post-decision validation exercises with limited strategic value.

Phase 2: Nine-system Condition Assessment

The International Existing Building Code (IEBC) framework developed by the International Code Council (ICC) recommends employing a standardized nine-system condition assessment methodology for commercial pre-purchase inspections. As documented in the ICC’s Existing Building Condition Assessment Guide, each periodic condition assessment report must evaluate the following building systems:

1. Structural – Evaluates the foundation, load-bearing walls, columns, beams, and floors for cracks, settlement, or deterioration that could compromise building integrity.
   
2. Envelope – Examines the exterior walls, windows, doors, and roof for water infiltration, air leaks, and insulation issues that affect energy efficiency and moisture control.
   
3. Electrical – Assesses panels, wiring, outlets, and lighting systems for code compliance, capacity adequacy, and safety hazards like outdated aluminum wiring or overloaded circuits.
   
4. Means of Egress (Life Safety) – Reviews exit routes, stairwells, emergency lighting, and signage to ensure occupants can safely evacuate during emergencies.
   
5. Passive Fire Protection – Inspects fire-rated walls, doors, floor assemblies, and penetration seals that contain fires without mechanical systems.
   
6. Active Fire Protection – Tests sprinklers, alarms, smoke detectors, and suppression systems that actively respond to fire events.
   
7. Plumbing – Checks water supply lines, drainage systems, fixtures, and water heaters for leaks, corrosion, and remaining service life.
   
8. Mechanical – Evaluates HVAC equipment, ductwork, controls, and ventilation systems for efficiency, capacity, and expected replacement timelines.
   
9. Fuel Gas – Examines gas piping, connections, valves, and equipment for leaks, corrosion, and compliance with current safety standards.

Each periodic condition assessment report must determine Risk Category classification (critical for insurance underwriting) and establish recommended periodic inspection intervals based on observed conditions.

Phase 3: Specialized Testing Protocols

Visual inspection alone cannot detect many critical defects. Comprehensive building enclosure evaluation requires specialized testing including water penetration testing following AAMA 501.2 standards, thermal imaging to identify envelope deficiencies, air leakage testing per ASTM E783, and flashing system functionality testing. The existence of these detailed testing protocols in a national standard indicates that standard visual inspections systematically miss defects requiring specialized instrumented evaluation.

Phase 4: Documentation Review

Water damage is widely recognized by leading industry associations as one of the top causes of commercial roof failure, often contributing to unexpected structural and operational disruptions for building owners. Reliable maintenance records and routine inspections are essential in identifying and reducing these risks before purchase. This approach aligns with expert guidance from groups such as the National Roofing Contractors Association and the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety.

Critical Issues that are Often Underassessed

While environmental site assessments receive substantial attention due to federal regulatory requirements under the EPA’s All Appropriate Inquiries Rule (40 CFR Part 312), several high-risk building systems receive insufficient scrutiny during typical commercial property transactions.

Building Envelope Performance Testing

Standard property condition assessments typically include visual observation of building envelopes, but systematic water intrusion testing remains uncommon despite water damage representing more than 50% of commercial property insurance claims. Water intrusion through building envelopes accounts for 70% of all construction litigation, demonstrating the liability exposure this assessment gap creates.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Air Leakage Test Protocol for Building Envelopes, referenced in Consulting-Specifying Engineer Magazine, specifies comprehensive building envelope testing should meet a maximum leakage rate of 0.25 cfm/sf at 75 PA test pressure. Standard visual inspections cannot identify whether this performance threshold is met.

Indoor Air Quality Assessment

Up to 30% of new or remodeled buildings worldwide are the subject of excessive complaints related to indoor air quality. For recently constructed or renovated properties, this represents significant tenant satisfaction and liability risks that standard inspections may not identify without air quality testing protocols.

Electrical System Arc Flash Risk Assessment

IEEE Standard 241-1990, commonly known as the Gray Book, provides comprehensive guidance on electrical design and assessment for commercial buildings. Arc flash risk evaluation following IEEE 1584 methodologies addresses protective measure determination and incident energy calculations. Electrical failures contribute to an estimated $1.3 billion in property damage annually across U.S. commercial buildings, representing catastrophic loss potential that warrants enhanced scrutiny during acquisitions.

Facility Condition Index (FCI) Quantification

The U.S. government employs a standardized methodology for quantifying building conditions applicable to private commercial real estate analysis. The General Services Administration (GSA) calculates Facility Condition Index as:

Cost of Deferred Maintenance + Repair Needs) / Current Replacement Value.

Properties showing FCI values above 0.15-0.20 typically require significant capital improvements that should be reflected in acquisition pricing and reserve establishment. The GSA’s Facility Condition Index methodology calculates FCI values with values greater than 0.1 indicating worse building condition. Standard property condition reports often lack this quantified metric, making comparative risk assessment across potential acquisitions difficult.

How Pre-purchase Inspections Mitigate Risk

Building pre-inspections shouldn’t just flag problems to walk away from. They should give you the information you need to make smart decisions about which risks are worth taking, which ones you can transfer to insurance or sellers, and which ones you need to fix to protect your investment value.

Real estate due diligence ​​reduces financial uncertainty by thoroughly evaluating property conditions, seller disclosures, financing terms, and compliance requirements before closing. Inspection findings directly inform risk mitigation through three channels. 

• First – they guide acquisition decisions by revealing whether property risks exceed acceptable thresholds. 
• Second – they enable buyers to negotiate purchase price adjustments and warranty protections based on documented defects. 
• Third – they establish baselines for monitoring deterioration and planning capital improvements after acquisition. 

Sophisticated investors typically begin comprehensive inspections before signing purchase contracts to maximize their negotiating leverage and avoid costly surprises.

Partner with Engineering Experts

Commercial building inspections require experts who understand all nine building systems and can translate technical findings into clear business decisions.

Rimkus provides comprehensive building assessment services backed by 40+ years of engineering experience across multiple building systems. The Built Environment Solutions team can evaluate structural integrity, building envelope performance, mechanical and electrical systems, and indoor environmental quality through systematic investigation protocols aligned with ASTM, ASHRAE, ASCE, and ICC standards. For insurance claims managers evaluating coverage disputes, construction litigation attorneys preparing expert testimony, and corporate risk managers conducting acquisition due diligence, Rimkus delivers the technical analysis and litigation-ready documentation that high-stakes property decisions require.

Contact Rimkus to discuss pre-purchase building assessment needs and forensic investigation capabilities.

This article aims to offer insights into the prevailing industry practices. Nonetheless, it should not be construed as legal or professional advice in any form.

The post Pre-Purchase Checklists for Commercial Building Inspections appeared first on Rimkus.

Engineering due diligence represents far more than a cursory walk-through. According to the ASCE Standard, proper assessment provides “guidelines for assessing the structural conditions of existing buildings” through “preliminary and detailed assessment procedures, materials properties and test methods, and evaluation procedures for various physical conditions of the structure.” This formal framework establishes the foundation for defensible technical findings in insurance claims, risk management decisions, and litigation proceedings.

The Standards Framework 

There is a hierarchy of engineering assessment standards that creates the technical foundation recognized by the courts as the industry standard of care. The ASTM E2018-24: Standard Guide for Property Condition Assessments establishes the primary framework with six core objectives involving standardizing property condition assessments for commercial real estate, facilitating consistent content in property condition reports, and establishing reasonable expectations for reporting.

The assessment methodology consists of “a walk-through survey of readily accessible, easily visible components and systems of the subject property,” establishing baseline protocols while more specialized standards address specific building systems requiring detailed investigation.

For structural evaluation, ASCE Manual 158-2024 provides authoritative guidance on structural condition assessment of existing buildings. The comprehensive scope encompasses condition surveys, planning materials evaluation, destructive and nondestructive testing, statistical evaluation of test data, and interpretation of results across concrete, masonry, wood, and metal structures.

Building envelope assessment follows ASTM E2270-14, which establishes “methods and procedures for inspection, evaluation, and reporting for periodic inspection of building facades for unsafe conditions.” According to IIBEC, the industry recommendation is “regular building facade and appearance inspection not to exceed every five years based on various factors in accordance with ASTM E2270.”

Essential Categories for Engineering Due Diligence

A comprehensive engineering due diligence checklist encompasses seven primary categories governed by specific technical standards. These categories are established by ASTM E2018-24, ASCE Manual 158-2024, and related consensus standards.

1. Structural Assessments start with ASCE Manual 158 protocols because concrete and masonry issues often hide until they become major problems. Key supporting standards include ACI 201.1R for visual inspection and ACI 224.1R for crack evaluation, but the real value comes from ASTM C42 core testing when you need definitive strength data.
2. Building Envelope problems cause the most expensive failures, so facade inspections per ASTM E2270 require a 100% general inspection with detailed assessment of at least 25% of facade areas. The standard also addresses water leakage (ASTM E2128) and air leakage (ASTM E1186), which often work together to create cascading damage.
3. Wood and Metal Structures need specialized evaluation protocols since deterioration patterns differ significantly from concrete. In-place testing helps establish actual strength without relying solely on design assumptions, and connection evaluation often reveals the most critical defects.
4. Mechanical and Electrical Systems get evaluated together because failures in one system frequently affect the others. Mechanical systems focus on HVAC performance and capacity, while electrical evaluation covers distribution adequacy and code compliance.
5. Plumbing Assessments cover water supply systems, drainage adequacy, and fixture conditions. Plumbing failures can cause significant water damage and create liability issues, making thorough evaluations of supply lines, waste systems, and fixture mounting critical for risk assessment.
6. Site Components include parking areas, site drainage, exterior improvements, and accessibility compliance. Poor drainage can undermine structural foundations, while parking area failures can create liability exposure and accessibility violations can trigger ADA compliance issues.
7. Service Life Assessments follow ISO 15686 standards to predict when building components will need replacement rather than just documenting current condition. This life cycle approach helps with budget planning and prevents surprise failures.

Engineering Due Diligence Checklist for Risk Assessment and Litigation Support

This checklist provides a framework for conducting engineering due diligence that meets forensic standards. The evaluation areas below should be customized based on property type, client objectives, and jurisdictional requirements to create defensible documentation for expert testimony and risk management decisions.

PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTATION REVIEW

• Historical Records Assessment
  • Previous property condition assessment reports
  • Prior Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessments
  • Building permits and certificates of occupancy
  • As-built drawings and structural plans
  • Maintenance and repair records (5-10 year history)
  • Insurance claim history and loss reports
  • Code violation notices and compliance records
  • Litigation history related to property
  • Warranty documentation and guarantees
  • Equipment manuals and service contracts
• Regulatory Compliance Documentation
  • Fire marshal inspection reports
  • Building code compliance certificates
  • Environmental compliance records
  • OSHA inspection records
  • ADA compliance assessments
  • Seismic evaluation reports (where applicable)

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS EVALUATION

• Foundation and Substructure
  • Foundation type and condition assessment
  • Evidence of settlement or differential movement
  • Basement/crawl space moisture infiltration
  • Structural crack mapping and documentation
  • Soil conditions and geotechnical considerations
  • Retaining wall stability
  • Drainage system effectiveness
• Superstructure Components
  • Load-bearing walls and columns
  • Beam and girder conditions
  • Floor system integrity
  • Lateral force-resisting systems
  • Connection details and fastener conditions
  • Expansion joint performance
  • Evidence of structural modifications
• Building Envelope
  • Exterior wall systems and cladding
  • Window and door assemblies
  • Roof structure and covering
  • Flashing and waterproofing details
  • Vapor barriers and insulation
  • Evidence of water intrusion
  • Thermal performance assessment

MEP/FLS SYSTEMS INSPECTION

• Mechanical Systems
  • HVAC equipment age, condition, and capacity
  • Ventilation system performance
  • Ductwork integrity and insulation
  • Control systems and automation
  • Refrigeration equipment assessment
  • Boiler and chiller evaluations
  • Energy efficiency analysis
• Electrical Systems
  • Main electrical service capacity
  • Distribution panel conditions
  • Circuit breaker and fuse assessments
  • Grounding and bonding systems
  • Emergency power systems
  • Lighting systems evaluation
  • Surge protection assessment
• Plumbing Systems
  • Water supply system condition
  • Drain, waste, and vent systems
  • Hot water generation and distribution
  • Fixture conditions and compliance
  • Backflow prevention devices
  • Gas piping systems (if applicable)
  • Sump pump and ejector systems
• Fire and Life Safety Systems
  • Fire alarm system testing records
  • Sprinkler system inspection and coverage
  • Emergency lighting and exit signage
  • Smoke detection and control systems
  • Fire extinguisher placement and maintenance
  • Means of egress evaluation
  • Fire-rated assembly integrity

ENVIRONMENTAL DUE DILIGENCE

• Phase I ESA Components
  • Historical land use review
  • Aerial photograph analysis
  • Environmental database search
  • Site reconnaissance observations
  • Interviews with property personnel
  • Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) identification
  • Vapor encroachment screening
• Environmental Risk Factors
  • Asbestos-containing materials survey
  • Lead-based paint assessment
  • Mold and moisture evaluation
  • Radon testing (where applicable)
  • Underground storage tank assessment
  • Hazardous materials storage and handling
  • Wetlands and protected species considerations

CODE COMPLIANCE AND ACCESSIBILITY

• Building Code Analysis
  • Current code requirements assessment
  • Grandfathered conditions documentation
  • Required upgrades identification
  • Occupancy classification verification
  • Fire separation requirements
  • Structural load compliance
  • Mechanical code compliance
• ADA Compliance Review
  • Accessible route evaluation
  • Parking accessibility assessment
  • Entrance and doorway compliance
  • Restroom accessibility
  • Signage and wayfinding
  • Elevator compliance (if applicable)
  • Communication device accessibility

SEISMIC AND NATURAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT

• Seismic Evaluation
  • Building performance level determination
  • Structural system vulnerability assessment
  • Non-structural component anchorage
  • Falling hazard identification
  • Probable Maximum Loss (PML) calculation
  • Retrofit requirement analysis
  • Post-earthquake functionality assessment
• Natural Hazard Considerations
  • Flood zone determination
  • Wind resistance evaluation
  • Snow load capacity
  • Wildfire exposure assessment
  • Geological hazard review
  • Climate resilience factors

CONSTRUCTION DEFECT EVALUATION

• Forensic Investigation Elements
  • Design deficiency identification
  • Workmanship quality assessment
  • Material failure analysis
  • Installation sequence review
  • Water intrusion investigation
  • Building movement documentation
  • System performance testing
• Defect Documentation
  • Photographic documentation protocols
  • Destructive testing requirements
  • Laboratory analysis needs
  • Expert witness preparation materials
  • Cost-to-cure estimates
  • Allocation of responsibility analysis

RISK ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITIZATION

• Immediate Concerns (0-1 Year)
  • Life safety issues
  • Code violations requiring immediate correction
  • Active water infiltration
  • Structural instability
  • Fire protection system deficiencies
  • Environmental hazards
• Short-Term Needs (1-3 Years)
  • Deferred maintenance items
  • System efficiency improvements
  • Preventive maintenance requirements
  • Code compliance updates
  • Energy conservation measures
• Long-Term Planning (3-10 Years)
  • Major system replacements
  • Capital improvement planning
  • Modernization opportunities
  • Sustainability upgrades
  • Resilience enhancements

COST ESTIMATION AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

• Cost Categories
  • Immediate repair costs
  • Deferred maintenance costs
  • Capital replacement reserves
  • Code compliance costs
  • Environmental remediation estimates
  • Contingency allowances
  • Professional service fees
• Financial Risk Factors
  • Insurance coverage adequacy
  • Warranty claim potential
  • Litigation exposure assessment
  • Business interruption risks
  • Regulatory compliance costs

REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION

• Deliverables
  • Executive summary with key findings
  • Detailed technical report
  • Photographic documentation
  • Cost estimate spreadsheets
  • Priority matrix for repairs
  • Risk assessment summary
  • Expert opinion statements
  • Litigation support materials (if applicable)
• Quality Control
  • Peer review completion
  • Technical accuracy verification
  • Cost estimate validation
  • Legal review (if required)
  • Client consultation and clarification

For optimal results, engage multidisciplinary teams including structural engineers, MEP specialists, environmental consultants, and construction defect experts to ensure comprehensive coverage of all technical aspects during the due diligence process.

What Technology is Helping Assessment Reviews in 2026?

Digital Tool Adoption in Construction

• Construction industry assessment practices are incorporating digital tools while formal standards integration continues to develop.

Reality Capture and 3D Visualization

• Reality capture tools that provide 3D visualization of construction sites are now used by contractors on large projects, supported by software integrations. These technologies allow for digital documentation methods in project assessment, replacing traditional photography and manual measurement techniques.

AI-Driven Documentation Management

• Engineering firms can now utilize AI technologies to automate document organization, data extraction from inspection reports, and categorization of deficiency findings. These automated systems reduce manual processing time and improve consistency in documentation processes required for due diligence activities and litigation support.

Standards Gap and Compliance Considerations

• Current authoritative standards (ASTM E2018-24, ASCE Manual 158-2024, ASTM E2270-14) remain focused on traditional assessment methodologies. This creates a gap between emerging practice and codified standard of care relevant for litigation. Engineering assessments incorporating advanced technology should maintain documentation proving compliance with established consensus standards while leveraging digital tools for enhanced analysis.

Proactive Risk Assessment 

Regular engineering assessments prevent building component failures and reduce liability exposure. The International Institute of Building Enclosure Consultants (IIBEC) recommends facade and appurtenance inspections every five years per ASTM E2270. Documented assessment cycles demonstrate due diligence to insurers, regulators, and courts.

Corporate risk managers should prioritize assessments based on failure consequences when budgets are limited. Structural systems, weather-exposed building envelopes, and life-safety systems require regular evaluation following ASCE and ASTM protocols. Lower-risk components can follow extended inspection cycles based on documented performance history, allowing organizations to allocate resources where liability exposure is greatest.

Building the Assessment Team and Scope

Successful engineering due diligence requires assembling the right technical experts and defining clear scope boundaries before beginning the assessment. The team composition depends on building complexity and client objectives, while scope definition prevents budget overruns and ensures all parties understand deliverables.

Complex building assessments require coordination across multiple disciplines. Structural engineers evaluate load-bearing systems per ASCE Manual 158-2024, while building envelope specialists assess facades per ASTM E2270-14. Mechanical engineers review HVAC systems, and materials testing specialists conduct destructive and nondestructive testing following ASCE protocols. The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) provides fee development tools and guidelines for establishing consulting budgets based on similar projects, helping firms scale assessments appropriately.

Complex building assessments should involve:

• Structural engineers for load-bearing systems evaluation per ASCE Manual 158-2024
• Building envelope specialists for facade assessment per ASTM E2270-14
• Mechanical engineers for HVAC system evaluation
• Materials testing specialists for destructive and nondestructive testing protocols referenced in ASCE standards

Defining scope boundaries at the outset prevents scope creep and establishes clear expectations for insurance claims, litigation support, or risk management applications. This includes establishing which building systems require detailed investigation versus visual assessment, determining destructive testing protocols, and clarifying reporting requirements.

Final Steps for Due Diligence

Engineering due diligence conducted to forensic standards provides defensible documentation for insurance claims, risk management decisions, and potential litigation. Comprehensive photographic documentation, systematic testing protocols following ASTM standards, and detailed contemporaneous notes create the foundation for expert testimony. Claims managers and attorneys should verify that assessment reports cite specific ASTM, ASCE, ACI, and ISO standards throughout the methodology section, as these references establish adherence to recognized court-accepted protocols.

Professional objectivity requires presenting findings based on physical evidence and engineering analysis. Statistical evaluation of test data and standardized interpretation procedures ensure technical conclusions withstand scrutiny during expert qualification and legal proceedings. Assessment reports lacking standards citations or clear methodology face significant challenges in litigation contexts.

Contact Rimkus for your engineering due diligence, forensic investigation, and litigation support needs.

This article aims to offer insights into the prevailing industry practices. Nonetheless, it should not be construed as legal or professional advice in any form.

The post Engineering Due Diligence Checklist 2026 appeared first on Rimkus.

Risk management has become a critical component of commercial real estate operations. The following content outlines a documented program that spots threats early, prioritizes what matters, and weaves monitoring into daily workflows. When implemented systematically, this approach may help protect income streams, support asset value preservation, and potentially improve financing terms in constrained capital markets.

What Impacts the CRE Risk Spectrum?

When developing a risk strategy, professionals should start by tracing the forces that can shake or strengthen every line on the pro forma. Macroeconomic conditions drive everything else, with the federal funds rate hovering around 3.87% to 4.09% while inflation sits near 3.0%, keeping borrowing costs elevated and compressing cash flow. Lenders remain selective, favoring transparency and conservative underwriting, while physical and environmental pressures from hurricanes, floods, and wildfires can unravel business plans overnight.

Financial risk escalates through refinancing bottlenecks and volatile insurance markets, while technology presents a dual-edged sword: smart-building systems drive efficiency yet widen cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Market structure shifts compound these dynamics as fast-growing metros attract capital while legacy office corridors struggle with vacancies.

Understanding the interaction among five risk categories (physical, financial, technological, market, and regulatory, including new ESG disclosure requirements and building performance standards) provides the foundation for developing resilient portfolios.

Risk Mitigation Strategies for Physical Assets

Building hardening starts with the fundamentals. Flood barriers, reinforced roofs, impact-rated windows, and defensible landscaping in fire zones form the first line of defense. Insurers often encourage upgrades in high-risk areas, and premium savings can be significant, especially in coastal markets where coverage is both scarce and expensive, according to Hub International.

Physical improvements require ongoing maintenance protocols to remain effective. Preventive schedules backed by digital work orders and sensor alerts can catch roof leaks, pipe corrosion, and HVAC failures before they become six-figure disasters. Properties with rigorous maintenance see fewer claims and faster post-disaster reopenings, CBIZ notes.

Building resilience into capital planning involves mapping each property’s hazards and ranking projects by risk reduction per dollar. Funding can be stacked from multiple sources: traditional capex, green loans, and utility rebates. Aging buildings often fail modern energy standards, forcing a retrofit-or-rebuild decision. Retrofitting typically costs 15-20 percent less than new construction, while preserving location advantages, though actual savings can vary by project type and region. But if floor plates or ceiling heights make compliance impossible, demolition becomes the economical choice.

Cost-effective compliance doesn’t require flashy projects. LED lighting, variable-frequency drives, low-flow fixtures, and real-time submetering cut operating costs while meeting carbon-reporting requirements. Federal tax credits and state resilience grants may improve project economics, providing capital that can be allocated toward additional risk mitigation measures. 

Financial Risk Management Tactics

With elevated interest rates and significant loan maturities approaching, financial risk management requires increased precision.  Effective financial risk management requires ongoing monitoring and adjustment rather than periodic review.

Diversification becomes the first line of defense. Capital spread across property types, tenant industries, and regions helps avoid single-point failure. High-growth metros like Dallas–Fort Worth, Miami, and Nashville maintain resilient fundamentals, while secondary markets like Salt Lake City and Greenville offer affordability and demographic tailwinds. Even a small allocation to these markets can offset weakness in troubled sectors like legacy offices.

Stress testing provides critical insights into portfolio resilience under adverse scenarios. Modeling rent rolls and debt service under multiple rate scenarios, vacancy spikes, and cap-rate expansions provides critical insights. Deloitte reports that, as of mid-2025, lenders have generally eased or maintained their lending standards for commercial real estate loans, with no explicit mention of lenders rewarding borrowers for rigorous downside analysis. Quarterly scenario analysis shared with equity partners may facilitate proactive adjustments before covenant compliance issues arise.

Alternative financing structures can help address refinancing challenges when traditional credit sources are constrained. Non-bank lenders and private credit funds often provide interim solutions but typically require greater transparency and rapid execution. Combining shorter-term mezzanine financing with interest-rate protection measures and maintaining sufficient operating reserves can improve financial flexibility under changing market conditions.

Insurance deserves equal attention as property and casualty premiums climb in climate-exposed regions. Some carriers are trimming coverage altogether. Annual policy audits, higher deductibles paired with captives, and parametric riders keep protection in place without destroying cash flow.

Protecting income streams requires deliberate tenant strategy. Robust screening: credit health, sector resilience, contingency capital, combined with escalations, percentage-rent clauses, and break-options distributes risk between owner and occupant. During valuation compression, acquisition timing strategies that consider widening risk premiums, combined with delayed disposition decisions pending market recovery, may serve as cost-effective risk management approaches.

Regulatory and Compliance Risk Management

Regulatory exposure multiplies across every property in a portfolio. ESG disclosure mandates, building performance standards, accessibility requirements, and evolving life safety codes create compliance obligations that carry financial penalties, litigation risk, and reputational damage when ignored. Proactive compliance management may reduce retrofit costs, help avoid enforcement actions, and position assets ahead of market expectations.

ESG and building performance mandates – Climate disclosure requirements have transitioned from voluntary to mandatory in multiple jurisdictions. The SEC’s climate-related requirements and state-level mandates in California and New York require carbon reporting and energy data. Cities like New York, Washington D.C., Boston, and Denver now enforce building performance standards that fine inefficient properties. Portfolio-wide carbon accounting using ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager and capital improvement plans prioritizing envelope upgrades, HVAC modernization, and renewable energy keep assets compliant before penalties trigger.

ADA compliance and accessibility – Accessibility violations carry steep consequences. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires continuous evaluation, not one-time fixes. Alterations trigger compliance with the 2010 ADA Standards even when existing elements met 1991 requirements. Recent Department of Justice settlements involving multifamily housing, fitness facilities, and municipal buildings demonstrate that both owners and design professionals face liability. Annual accessibility audits and transition plans reduce legal exposure while expanding market reach using resources from the ADA National Network.

Evolving codes and local ordinances – Zoning changes, building codes, fire safety updates, and land-use restrictions shift constantly. The International Code Council updates building and fire codes every three years, and jurisdictions adopt amendments on varying schedules. Older properties lose grandfathered status when alterations occur, forcing sprinkler retrofits, egress modifications, or seismic upgrades. Compliance calendars, designated officers monitoring regulatory changes, and pre-renovation code gap analyses prevent mid-project surprises and budget overruns.

Regulatory landscapes shift constantly. Compliance failures drain capital through fines, lawsuits, and emergency retrofits, while strategic compliance investments protect asset value and position portfolios ahead of enforcement curves.

Technology and Cybersecurity Risk Management

Cybersecurity has evolved from an IT function to a core component of commercial real estate risk management, as digital systems now control everything from tenant access to mechanical operations. A breach can disrupt building operations, expose sensitive tenant data, and create significant liability, making cybersecurity essential to protecting both asset value and organizational reputation. Effective CRE management now requires integrating technical safeguards, governance frameworks, and incident response protocols into standard operational practice.

Digital infrastructure risk: Buildings may be made of steel and concrete, but the heart of modern property management beats inside servers and sensors. As cloud platforms, IoT devices and AI analytics become standard, the digital attack surface expands dramatically. Rising cyber-incidents that immobilize operations and erode tenant trust underline why cybersecurity now sits alongside physical security on every risk register.

System hardening protocol: Hardening core systems should be the first priority. Segmenting networks for building automation, enforcing multifactor authentication, and encrypting data in transit and at rest provides baseline protection aligned with CISA’s cybersecurity best practices. Continuous monitoring tools flag anomalies in real time, allowing threats to be quarantined before they spread through HVAC sensors or access-control panels, as emphasized by leading cybersecurity research in building management systems. Backups should be both off-site and immutable so ransomware cannot corrupt them.

Data governance framework: Data hygiene matters just as much. Centralized document vaults with role-based permissions, audit trails, and automated retention schedules protect sensitive tenant records and speed regulatory audits. The EY commercial real estate risk brief details how robust data governance and documentation processes become essential during compliance reviews.

Technology acquisition strategy: Evaluating new PropTech requires structured technology risk assessment following frameworks like the NIST Cybersecurity Framework. Organizations should scrutinize vendor penetration-testing results, review service-level agreements for uptime and breach notification, and sandbox software before full deployment. Early adopters gain an edge only when controls keep pace with innovation, making security reviews essential in every procurement checklist.

Human factors integration: Personnel security awareness represents a critical vulnerability, requiring ongoing staff training to spot phishing, mandatory regular password resets, and breach simulation rehearsals. An effective incident-response plan pairs IT forensics with occupant communication protocols; rehearsed playbooks cut downtime and potential liability when a disruption occurs.

Developing a Commercial Property Risk Management Program

Risk management programs should function as living operating manuals, not binders that gather dust. The process starts with documenting a clear workflow that mirrors the classic cycle: identify, evaluate, mitigate, monitor, and refine. Success comes from adopting tailored approaches in risk management and legal strategies, as advocated by ClearRisk and Kew Legal.

Beginning with a comprehensive risk register is essential. Each threat: physical, financial, technological, regulatory, should be listed alongside its likelihood, potential impact, and mitigation status. This register becomes the single source of truth that feeds detailed mitigation plans and response protocols. These plans should spell out responsibilities when a roof leak, cyber-breach, or loan covenant trigger appears, using response templates or checklists tailored to these scenarios.

Clear ownership assignment is critical from the start. Every risk line item needs a responsible party: property managers handle day-to-day hazards, finance teams oversee debt covenants, and IT leads manage cybersecurity. Formal role mapping prevents the “everyone’s job is no one’s job” dilemma.

Communication keeps everything aligned. Recurring reports to investors, lenders, and insurers should summarize risk movements and remediation progress. A quarterly dashboard built from property-level data keeps stakeholders informed and flags issues before they escalate.

Integration happens when these tasks fold into daily operations. Preventative maintenance checklists, lease compliance reviews, and cyber-hygiene audits embedded in standard operating procedures enable staff to act on risks without waiting for an annual review. The system should be backstopped with continuous training: phishing simulations for the front office, emergency drills for site teams, and refresher courses on regulatory updates.

A timeline that balances momentum with realism works best: 90 days to build the register and protocols, monthly internal check-ins, quarterly stakeholder briefings, and an annual full-scope audit. Regular cadence, clear accountability, and data-driven monitoring turn risk management into a competitive advantage rather than a compliance chore.

Take Action

The building blocks of a robust commercial property risk management program provide protection from rising borrowing costs, tightening insurance markets, and climate-driven shocks. This structured approach aligns physical resilience, financial discipline, technology safeguards, and clear governance to reduce claims costs and secure better financing terms.

Implementation should begin with this fast-track checklist:

• Map every asset’s exposure: macroeconomic, environmental, financial, and cyber, using current market data
• Prioritize fixes that deliver both protection and value: flood-proofing, energy upgrades, and proactive maintenance schedules
• Stress-test cash flows against rate spikes and maturing debt, then right-size reserves accordingly
• Audit insurance coverage and explore alternative risk transfer, such as captives or parametric policies
• Secure tech stacks with multi-factor authentication, vendor vetting, and an incident response plan
• Document everything in a living risk register and set review cadences tied to market triggers

Proactive risk management serves both defensive and strategic purposes, potentially supporting opportunistic positioning during market dislocations. For organizations ready to move from insight to implementation, Contact Rimkus for help in customizing these strategies across property holdings.

This article aims to offer insights into the prevailing industry practices. Nonetheless, it should not be construed as legal or professional advice in any form.

The post Commercial Real Estate Risk Management Guide (2026) appeared first on Rimkus.

This pattern repeats across many jurisdictions: a catastrophic failure triggers a regulatory audit, revealing widespread deterioration in aging infrastructure previously considered adequate. The forensic evidence demonstrates these failures follow predictable outcomes, such as water infiltration initiates deterioration, chloride-induced corrosion progresses through freeze-thaw cycles, post-tensioned systems fail gradually within deficient grout, and localized defects trigger progressive collapse. 

For insurance claims managers, corporate risk managers, and construction litigation attorneys, understanding these failure progressions and inspection methodologies provides the technical foundation for accurate liability assessment and defensible expert testimony.

Fragmented Regulatory Landscape Creates Variable Exposure

The United States lacks uniform federal parking garage inspection mandates. OSHA Standard 1910.22 requires that walking-working surfaces support maximum intended loads and remain in safe condition, but these regulations apply specifically to employee workplace safety, not public access areas, and establish no periodic inspection intervals or forensic engineering protocols.

The International Building Code provides comprehensive design and construction requirements for parking structures under Section 406.1, classifying them as Group S-2 occupancy. However, the base IBC contains no mandatory periodic structural inspection requirements. Such mandates emerge through local amendments rather than model code provisions, creating dramatic jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction variation in owner obligations and liability exposure.

New York State implements one of the nation’s most comprehensive frameworks, requiring owners to conduct professional engineer inspections every three years. New York City adds supplemental requirements through Local Law 126, mandating inspections by Qualified Parking Structure Inspectors (QPSI) who must hold Professional Engineer licenses. Florida’s milestone inspection program applies to buildings three stories or taller, requiring Phase I and Phase II inspections by licensed engineers.

Most U.S. jurisdictions maintain no mandatory inspection programs until structural failures trigger reactive legislative responses. 

Critical Systems Assessment

Commercial parking garages face constant vehicle loads, exhaust emissions, temperature fluctuations, and moisture exposure that accelerate deterioration of structural and mechanical components. A comprehensive inspection must address structural integrity, life safety systems, environmental controls, and regulatory compliance to identify potential failures before they become costly liability issues. This checklist provides engineering professionals with specific assessment criteria for each critical system.

Structural Systems 

Concrete Elements

• Check for cracking patterns in floor slabs, especially around joints and heavy traffic areas
• Inspect for spalling concrete on beams, columns, and overhead surfaces
• Look for rust stains indicating rebar corrosion in structural elements
• Verify adequate concrete cover over reinforcing steel (minimum 2 inches for garage exposure)
• Assess slab deflection and settlement patterns around vehicle circulation areas

Steel Framework

• Examine steel beams and connections for corrosion, especially at bearing points
• Check for loose or missing bolts in structural connections
• Inspect welds for cracking or deterioration in high-stress areas
• Verify fireproofing integrity on structural steel members
• Document any unauthorized modifications to structural elements

Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems

Sprinkler Systems

• Test sprinkler head spacing against NFPA 13 requirements (typically 10-12 feet for garage occupancy)
• Verify adequate water pressure and flow at remote sprinkler heads
• Check for corrosion in sprinkler piping, especially in high-humidity areas
• Inspect sprinkler heads for damage, painting, or obstruction
• Confirm dry-pipe or pre-action systems function properly in unheated areas

Fire Detection and Alarm

• Test smoke detection systems, noting that standard photoelectric detectors may not work well in garage environments
• Verify heat detection coverage in areas where smoke detectors are inappropriate
• Check emergency communication systems and voice evacuation capabilities
• Inspect fire department connections and ensure accessibility

Ventilation and Air Quality Systems

Mechanical Ventilation

• Calculate air change rates (typically 6 air changes per hour minimum for parking garages)
• Test carbon monoxide detection systems and verify alarm setpoints
• Inspect exhaust fans for proper operation and maintenance
• Check for adequate make-up air to prevent negative pressure conditions
• Verify ventilation system interlocks with fire protection systems

Natural Ventilation

• Measure net free area of openings (typically 1/40 of floor area for cross-ventilation)
• Check for obstructed ventilation openings from landscaping or adjacent construction
• Verify openings are properly distributed around garage perimeter

Electrical Systems Safety

Power Distribution

• Inspect electrical panels for proper labeling and overcurrent protection
• Check for GFCI protection on all 120V outlets as required by NEC Article 210.8
• Verify adequate lighting levels (typically 5-10 foot-candles in parking areas)
• Test emergency lighting systems and battery backup duration

Grounding and Bonding

• Confirm proper grounding of all metallic elements including structural steel
• Check electrical equipment for proper clearances from combustible materials
• Inspect conduit and wiring for damage from vehicle impact or moisture

Drainage and Waterproofing

Surface Drainage

• Verify minimum 1/4 inch per foot slope toward drains in parking areas
• Check floor drains for proper sizing and debris accumulation
• Test drain connections for leaks that could undermine structural elements
• Inspect for standing water that could create slip hazards or structural problems

Waterproofing Systems

• Examine expansion joints for sealant failure or water infiltration
• Check for water staining on walls and ceilings indicating envelope failures
• Inspect below-grade waterproofing systems for signs of hydrostatic pressure damage

Safety and Security Features

Vehicle Safety

• Verify guardrail height and strength meet IBC requirements (42 inches minimum)
• Check wheel stops for proper placement and structural integrity
• Inspect ramp grades (typically 15% maximum) and transition areas
• Verify adequate turning radii for emergency vehicle access

Pedestrian Safety

• Check sidewalk widths and clearances (5 feet minimum)
• Inspect stairwell lighting and handrail installations
• Verify emergency egress routes are clearly marked and unobstructed

Environmental and Regulatory Compliance

Stormwater Management

• Inspect oil-water separators for proper operation and maintenance
• Check for evidence of petroleum product spills requiring remediation
• Verify compliance with local stormwater discharge permits

ADA Compliance

• Verify accessible parking spaces meet current ADA requirements (proper dimensions and signage)
• Check accessible routes from parking to building entrances
• Inspect van-accessible spaces for proper clearances

Documentation and Code Compliance

Documentation and code compliance in commercial garage inspections protects against legal liability, financial penalties, and safety risks. Proper permits and inspection records demonstrate due diligence to insurance carriers and help identify unauthorized work that could compromise structural integrity or life safety systems. 

Building Permits and Certificates

• Verify current occupancy permits and capacity limitations
• Check for any unpermitted modifications or additions
• Review fire marshal inspection records and violation history

Maintenance Records

• Document sprinkler system testing and maintenance records
• Review HVAC system maintenance logs for ventilation compliance
• Check elevator inspection certificates if applicable

Code violations involving fire protection, ventilation, or structural capacity can void insurance coverage, trigger expensive retrofit requirements, or expose property owners to regulatory fines and ADA lawsuits.

Federal Rules of Evidence 

Forensic engineering inspections for litigation support must satisfy Federal Rules 702, which requires expert testimony to have sufficient factual basis, reliable principles and methods, and reliable application of those methods to case facts. The advisory committee notes clarify that reliability requirements apply to both methodology selection and proper execution, meaning how you conduct the investigation matters as much as which standards you follow.

ASTM International provides the standardized framework that helps meet these legal requirements through established non-destructive testing protocols. For example, ASTM C876 for corrosion assessment gives investigators legally-recognized methodologies. Comprehensive investigations typically combine multiple techniques because no single method provides complete characterization, and validated protocols that integrate ground penetrating radar, electrochemical testing, and ultrasonic analysis help ensure the investigation meets Federal Rules 702 reliability standards for admissible expert testimony.

Multi-method Protocols

Visual inspection provides valuable insights into potential deterioration areas and guides subsequent investigation, but subsurface deterioration advances before visible manifestation. Detailed parking structure inspections require both destructive testing and non-destructive methods, with nondestructive acoustic sounding serving as a primary identification method.

• Impact echo testing (ASTM C1383) produces precise maps of concrete slab deficiencies across large parking areas without damaging operational facilities. ASTM-standardized protocols use acoustic wave analysis to determine flaws in concrete structures, while rebound hammer testing measures surface hardness to assess comparative strength across large areas without destructive sampling.
• Structural health monitoring systems enable continuous automated assessment instead of periodic manual inspections. Management teams can visualize real-time sensor data with integrated anomaly detection capabilities. Reinforced concrete structures in parking facilities face accelerated deterioration from chloride exposure and moisture infiltration, making continuous monitoring critical for operational safety.
• Drone technology improves worker safety and time efficiency compared to traditional scaffolding or lift methods for elevated structural elements. High-quality cameras capture clear images while maintaining facility accessibility during assessment periods, making inspection less disruptive to ongoing operations.

Claims Assessment

Parking garage failures can exceed initial damage estimates by orders of magnitude due to progressive collapse mechanisms that spread from single-point failures to entire structural bays.

Progressive Collapse Risk: Multiple forensic investigations show that localized failures can trigger progressive collapse affecting entire structural bays. Engineers design parking garages to avoid progressive collapse, but forensic evidence confirms that single-point deterioration in individual columns or connections can compromise structural redundancy and trigger disproportionate collapse sequences.

Loss Escalation Patterns: The Miami Dade investigation documented how a single column installation defect initiated structural failure that propagated through multiple bays, resulting in complete collapse of the six-story structure. This establishes that loss exposure can exceed initial damage estimates when progressive collapse mechanisms activate.

Environmental Acceleration Factors: Cold-climate and coastal structures experience accelerated deterioration requiring adjusted inspection frequencies. Freeze-thaw and chloride mechanisms operating together cause significantly faster deterioration than either mechanism alone. Standard deterioration assumptions from moderate climates underestimate timelines in harsh exposure conditions.

Construction Phase Failures: Construction phase failures present distinct liability profiles with documented patterns including the following. 

• Shoring system failures
• Concrete curing inadequacy
• Load application timing deficiencies
• Temporary support system inadequacies. 

Two major documented collapses occurred during construction: Miami Dade College (October 2012, four fatalities) and Tropicana Casino and Resort, both involving installation defects and construction sequencing deficiencies.

Time-dependent failure modes advance hidden within structural systems through gradual processes like post-tensioned corrosion, progressive micro-cracking, and chloride migration that proceed for years before visible failure. Single-point inspections provide only snapshots, while time-series monitoring captures deterioration progression rates necessary for predictive maintenance and accurate reserve projections.

Don’t Wait for Failure

Commercial garage inspections require systematic evaluation of interconnected building systems because failure in one area can trigger cascading problems across multiple systems. The comprehensive checklist approach addresses structural integrity, life safety compliance, environmental controls, and regulatory requirements to identify potential liability issues before they become costly failures.

Parking garage failures can escalate from single-point defects to catastrophic progressive collapse, making expert evaluation critical for liability protection and loss prevention. Rimkus forensic engineers combine comprehensive inspection protocols with advanced monitoring technologies to identify hidden deterioration before it becomes costly failure. Our team’s experience with structural assessment, environmental testing, and claims investigation provides the technical expertise and legal admissibility your projects demand. Contact Rimkus today to protect your parking garage assets with forensic-quality assessment and monitoring solutions.

This article aims to offer insights into the prevailing industry practices. Nonetheless, it should not be construed as legal or professional advice in any form.

The post Commercial Parking Garage Inspection Guide 2026 appeared first on Rimkus.

These violations occur when properties fail to meet minimum safety and accessibility standards from the IBC, NFPA, ADA, and local codes, but penalties are just the beginning. Property owners also face liability exposure, insurance premium increases, and lasting reputation damage that can potentially undermine business operations for years.

The 12 violations below represent the most frequent issues encountered during facility audits, each with clear explanations and practical remediation strategies.

What are Some Common Violations?

The same violations appear repeatedly during facility audits across commercial, multi-family, and institutional buildings. These include:

1. Inadequate Fire Protection Systems

Missing sprinklers, disabled alarms, blocked exits, or under-sized extinguishers compromise life safety and violate fire code requirements. Common citations include obstructed sprinkler heads and expired alarm inspection tags documented across many facilities.

• Why It Happens: Budgets tighten, inspections lapse, and older equipment falls out of service. Deferred maintenance hits legacy properties hardest where systems pre-date current NFPA standards, or where tenants pile storage within 18 inches of sprinklers, rendering them useless.
• How to Fix It: A comprehensive fire safety inspection, device testing, and retrofitting where coverage is missing can address these violations. Clearing a 36-inch radius around sprinklers, replacing end-of-life alarms, and verifying that egress widths match occupant loads are essential steps. A licensed fire-protection engineer can design upgrades that may satisfy NFPA 13 and NFPA 72, and local amendments while potentially minimizing downtime.

2. Electrical System Deficiencies

Overloaded panels, exposed conductors, and missing ground-fault circuit interrupters (GFCIs) top the list of electrical violations. Fault currents left unchecked can arc, spark, and ignite combustibles.

• Why It Happens: Quick, unpermitted tenant fit-outs or DIY modifications ignore National Electrical Code (NEC) rules. Older wiring lacks today’s ampacity, and repeated breaker resets mask chronic overloading until insulation finally fails.
• How to Fix It: A licensed electrician should perform a load study, thermal scan, and receptacle test. Installing GFCIs in kitchens, bathrooms, rooftops, and outdoors, balancing circuits based on measured demand, and verifying proper bonding and grounding can address most violations. Documenting every correction can create a clear compliance trail for future inspectors.

3. Accessibility (ADA) Noncompliance

Steep ramps, door hardware that requires tight grasping, or restrooms without adequate turning radius prevent equal access and trigger ADA citations.

• Why It Happens: Buildings erected before 1990 are not exempt from ADA requirements; renovations typically require that altered areas comply with current accessibility standards. Space constraints and lack of designer familiarity with accessibility guidelines compound the problem.
• How to Fix It: An ADA survey that measures slopes, clearances, and fixture heights identifies specific deficiencies. Creating a barrier-removal plan prioritizing high-use areas, such as entrances, restrooms, and service counters, may allow for phasing in grab bars, lever handles, and compliant signage. An accessibility consultant can help property managers interpret the 2010 ADA Standards alongside local overlays.

4. Structural Deterioration or Unauthorized Alterations

Load-bearing walls notched for piping, corroded steel lintels, and balcony slabs spalling from rebar rust undermine structural capacity.

• Why It Happens: Leaks go unrepaired, or interior build-outs proceed without an engineer, cutting beams or overloading joists. Water intrusion and chlorides accelerate decay, particularly along coastal façades.
• How to Fix It: A structural condition assessment that includes destructive probes and moisture testing can reveal the extent of damage. Engineers can then design repairs: sistering joists, replacing corroded members, applying cathodic protection, or adding supplemental framing. Filing permit drawings may legitimize prior alterations and potentially restore design load paths to code.

5. Plumbing and Drainage Violations

Undersized vents foster contamination or sewer gas. Leaking supply lines erode finishes and harbor mold, issues flagged in many violation notices. Cross-connections and missing backflow preventers are less frequently cited but pose serious health risks.

• Why It Happens: Quick fixes like flexible hoses or tee fittings can save time, but if not installed according to Uniform Plumbing Code requirements, they may violate the code. Aging galvanized pipes corrode, clogging drainage and reducing fixture flow.
• How to Fix It: A licensed plumber should camera-scope drains, pressure-test supplies, and verify vent terminations above the roofline. Installing approved backflow devices, sloping horizontal drains ¼-inch per foot, and replacing failed galvanized sections with copper or PEX can resolve common issues. Maintaining as-built diagrams may help future trades avoid damaging hidden lines.

6. Improper HVAC Installation or Maintenance

Blocked combustion vents, refrigerant leaks, and undersized return air paths create thermal discomfort and carbon-monoxide hazards. These HVAC shortcomings routinely surface during enforcement sweeps.

• Why It Happens: Retrofit units are swapped without mechanical plan review, leaving ductwork unbalanced. Filters clog, belts slip, and economizers jam because preventive maintenance is deferred.
• How to Fix It: An HVAC audit that measures airflow, static pressure, and combustion gas identifies specific problems. Cleaning coils, restoring manufacturer-specified clearances, and rebalancing diffusers to meet ASHRAE 62.1 ventilation rates can improve performance. Where equipment is mismatched, submitting sealed mechanical drawings for permit and installing code-compliant flues and condensate drains may help ensure compliance.

7. Roof and Façade Safety Issues

Loose masonry, deteriorated flashing, or missing fall-protection anchors jeopardize occupants and pedestrians alike. Building envelope consultants frequently identify these hazards during façade inspections.

• Why It Happens: UV exposure, freeze-thaw cycles, and poor drainage accelerate material fatigue. Without scheduled façade examinations, like New York City’s 5-year FISP cycle, deterioration remains hidden.
• How to Fix It: A close-range visual and probe inspection can identify deteriorating components. Replacing failed sealant joints, re-pointing brick, and installing through-wall flashing to divert water may address water intrusion issues. Where anchors are missing, adding OSHA-rated tie-backs and documenting their load testing can help ensure safety. A building envelope specialist can help ensure repairs align with local building safety regulations and IBC Chapter 16 wind-load demands.

8. Fire-Rated Assemblies Compromised

Data cables, ductwork, or plumbing penetrate fire-rated walls without approved fire-stopping, allowing smoke and flame to race through a building.

• Why It Happens: Tenant improvements cut new holes but neglect to restore the assembly’s rating. Maintenance staff may stuff gaps with fiberglass rather than tested fire-stop systems.
• How to Fix It: A barrier survey using visual inspection, mirror tools, and infrared imaging can locate unsealed penetrations. Installing UL-listed fire-stop collars, sleeves, or sealants that match the hourly rating and material type may restore fire separation integrity. Keeping detailed penetration logs can satisfy future inspectors and may help maintain the integrity of compartmentation strategies.

9. Insufficient Egress or Exit Signage

Dead-end corridors, storage stacked in hallways, or burned-out exit lights hinder evacuation during an emergency. These deficiencies appear repeatedly in enforcement tallies.

• Why It Happens: Space gets reconfigured without updating exit counts, or maintenance neglects battery-backup tests. Seasonal decorations and inventory creep into exit paths, shrinking clear width below the IBC minimum.
• How to Fix It: Mapping current floor plans against occupant loads can identify compliance gaps. Opening blocked doors, removing obstructions, and adding illuminated, 90-minute battery-backed signage at every decision point may improve evacuation safety. Testing emergency lighting monthly and keeping inspection logs can demonstrate ongoing compliance. Where corridors exceed 20 feet of dead-end, reconfiguring walls or adding cross-corridors may help restore compliance.

10. Unpermitted Construction or Alterations

Renovations executed without approved drawings present a host of hidden violations, from structural cuts to non-rated wall assemblies.

• Why It Happens: Owners chase aggressive schedules or seek to dodge permit fees. Contractors may proceed on “handshake” agreements, hoping to pass unnoticed by inspectors.
• How to Fix It: An architect or engineer should prepare as-built documents for plan review submission. Opening select walls and ceilings verifies concealed conditions. Where deficiencies surface, designing corrective work, obtaining retroactive permits, and coordinating inspections can help close out all violation notices.

11. Inadequate Ventilation or Indoor Air Quality (IAQ)

Stale air, high C0₂ levels, and visible mold signal that outdoor air delivery and filtration fall short of code requirements. Poor IAQ is often traced to blocked vents or disabled energy-recovery wheels.

• Why It Happens: Energy-saving shutdowns during off-hours become permanent, or renovations relocate diffusers without rebalancing. Deferred filter changes let particulate load overwhelm supply air.
• How to Fix It: An IAQ assessment—measuring C0₂, humidity, and particulate counts—can identify specific deficiencies. Cleaning ducts, replacing MERV-rated filters, and adjusting outdoor-air dampers to meet ASHRAE ventilation rates may improve air quality. Integrating demand-controlled ventilation with C0₂ sensors can help ensure air supply increases when occupancy spikes, not just on a timer.

12. Lack of Regular Building Inspections or Maintenance

Many violations surface only after tenant complaints or equipment failure, revealing a systemic absence of proactive inspection programs.

• Why It Happens: Limited staffing and tight budgets push preventive maintenance to the back burner. Without scheduled walk-throughs, minor deficiencies multiply—burned-out exit lights, deteriorated sealants, overdue extinguisher servicing.
• How to Fix It: Establishing a written maintenance plan that assigns tasks, frequencies, and responsible parties can create accountability. Pairing in-house rounds with annual third-party condition assessments may keep a fresh set of eyes on the property. Digital logs and calendar triggers can help demonstrate diligence to regulators and may address small issues before they grow into citations.

What are the Consequences of Ignoring Building Code Violations?

When violation letters pile up unopened, the costs escalate rapidly beyond initial penalties. Civil fines for “immediately hazardous” conditions can be severe, with extra penalties adding up every day until the hazard is fixed. Municipalities also tack on re-inspection and retroactive-permit fees, while unpaid penalties often become property liens that can derail refinancing or sales transactions.

Beside the obvious financial consequences, other serious concerns may include:

• Stop-work orders that can halt projects completely, potentially pushing schedules into costly overtime and delaying occupancy. When occupants suffer injuries from ignored defects, negligence lawsuits and landlord-liability claims can produce settlements that dwarf any civil fine. In cases of willful noncompliance, prosecutors may pursue criminal charges.
• Operational disruptions follow close behind financial penalties. Loss of certificate of occupancy can displace tenants, eliminate rental income, and may trigger insurance cancellations or premium increases. Emergency remediation after violations are discovered typically costs significantly more because completed work often must be demolished and re-inspected before reopening is permitted.
• Reputational damage delivers the final blow. News of citations or court proceedings spreads quickly, potentially eroding confidence among residents, investors, and regulatory officials. Regular engineering assessments, prompt repairs, and meticulous permit compliance can help keep properties out of that spotlight and may cost far less than managing the resulting fallout.

6 Ways to Prevent Future Violations

Preventing violations requires shifting from crisis response to continuous monitoring. When code compliance becomes a routine operational component rather than an emergency expense, both occupants and financial investments may remain better protected.

1. Comprehensive building condition assessments are typically recommended every 3-5 years, with routine annual inspections, often performed by facility staff, helping to identify early signs of façade distress, roof deterioration, or aging fire-protection equipment before they escalate into formal violations. Structured services like building envelope commissioning can provide detailed repair roadmaps and implementation timelines.
2. Documentation management can prove critical for compliance defense. Storing permits, inspection reports, equipment logs, and maintenance receipts in a centralized digital system may streamline operations. Clear documentation can simplify renewal processes and may provide essential evidence if enforcement actions are challenged.
3. Don’t bypass or shorten permit compliance. Unpermitted work creates direct pathways to multiple citations and expensive demolition requirements. When uncertainty exists about whether specific tasks require permits, consulting code professionals before beginning work can help prevent stop-work orders mid-project.
4. Staff training helps ensure that facility teams, contractors, and front-desk personnel can recognize warning signs such asblocked exits, missing GFCIs, obstructed sprinkler heads, and understand proper reporting procedures. Regular safety meetings anchored in actual violation cases can help maintain awareness levels and reinforce compliance priorities.
5. Jurisdiction-specific inspection calendars help track mandatory requirements since many authorities require periodic fire alarm testing, ADA access reviews, or façade examinations. Programs like NYC’s FISP cycle carry statutory deadlines that cannot be ignored. Automated calendar reminders can help prevent missed compliance dates and associated penalties.
6. Third-party compliance audits provide objective assessments that internal teams may overlook while demonstrating due diligence to regulatory agencies. Proactive audits typically cost significantly less than the fines, legal fees, and reputational consequences documented in recent enforcement actions.

Engineering Compliance and Safety Across the Building Life Cycle

When comprehensive building compliance requires expert partnership, Rimkus can deliver integrated solutions across every project phase. Our multidisciplinary team of over 900 professionals, including structural, mechanical, electrical, and architectural specialists, combines forensic investigation experience with proactive compliance expertise.

The process begins with thorough assessment, utilizing services like building envelope commissioning and third-party construction advisory reviews to identify problems before they generate expensive violations. During compliance planning, our consultants  interpret complex local requirements and create actionable remediation roadmaps.

Design remediation follows, where engineers develop practical solutions and oversee implementation to help ensure compliance. Through continuous construction oversight, Rimkus can help maintain quality standards, document compliance achievements, and help protect long-term investments.

By connecting these integrated stages, Rimkus can provide confidence that properties meet current requirements while remaining prepared for future regulatory changes. Contact us today. 

This article aims to offer insights into the prevailing industry practices. Nonetheless, it should not be construed as legal or professional advice in any form.

The post 12 Common Issues and Fixes for Building Code Violations appeared first on Rimkus.

This article explores the upgrades, ranging from component replacements to building envelope enhancements, that are most likely to produce measurable gains in performance, reliability, and energy efficiency.

Strategic System Upgrades to Prioritize

Here’s where to begin when planning upgrades that deliver measurable improvements in energy efficiency, system control, and long-term performance.

1. High-Efficiency Condensing Boilers

Condensing boilers reclaim latent heat from water vapor in the exhaust, boosting steady-state efficiency from about 80% in conventional boilers to a range of approximately 86% to 98%, which represents roughly a 10-18% improvement in efficiency over standard units. 

Stainless-steel venting and low-temperature return water requirements are to be expected, so verification that distribution piping and pumps can handle cooler flows before installation is essential. When paired with outdoor-reset controls, these boilers may trim shoulder-season cycling and help extend equipment life.

2. Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Systems

VRF technology moves refrigerant directly to indoor fan-coil units, modulating compressor speed so each apartment (or even each room) receives only the heating or cooling needed. The result can be whisper-quiet comfort and improved seasonal efficiency compared to constant-volume split systems. 

3. Heat Pumps and Electrification Retrofits

Swapping gas-fired furnaces or boilers for high-performance heat pumps can address both energy costs and decarbonization. Modern air-source units often maintain capacity in freezing weather, while water-source models may conserve energy by sharing heat among apartments. 

Annual energy usage can be reduced by 15% to 17% when replacing gas-fired equipment with heat pumps during retrofits in commercial buildings.

4. Energy Recovery Ventilation (ERV) Systems

An ERV transfers both heat and moisture between outgoing stale air and incoming fresh air, and reclaims 70% to 80% of the thermal energy from exhaust air. High-occupancy multifamily buildings that retrofit ERVs alongside tighter envelopes and smart thermostats can potentially see ventilation energy savings. 

Because ERVs also help manage humidity, they may also reduce mold risk and tenant complaints. Tying the unit into existing rooftop make-up air curbs or mounting compact, unitized ERVs in corridors can be effective; ensuring that exhaust and intake paths are well separated can help prevent cross-contamination.

5. Smart Building Controls and Automation (BAS)

Networked sensors, cloud analytics, and machine-learning algorithms now fine-tune operation in real time. By aligning airflow, temperature setpoints, and equipment staging with actual occupancy, smart controls can help drive energy savings by as much as 8%. Remote dashboards, predictive maintenance alerts, and automated fault diagnostics may detect issues before residents notice them.

Verifying that legacy equipment speaks common protocols (BACnet, Modbus) or budgeting for gateway hardware (and protecting the new data stream with cybersecurity best practices) can help ensure optimal performance.

6. Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs)

Fans and pumps rarely need to run at full capacity. Installing VFDs lets motors ramp up or down smoothly, matching flow to real-time demand and potentially reducing both kilowatt-hours and wear. Soft-start motor control may also reduce mechanical stress, potentially extending bearing and belt life.

To get the most from your HVAC upgrade, combine variable-speed drives with pressure sensors and recalibrate the controls. This simple adjustment may prevent wasted energy caused by older, fixed-speed settings.

7. Demand-Controlled Ventilation (DCV)

DCV uses CO₂ or occupancy sensors to modulate outside-air rates, potentially preventing the energy penalty of over-ventilation in gyms, lounges, and other intermittently used common areas. When integrated with a BAS, airflow may drop automatically when spaces empty out, yet spike quickly to keep air fresh during events. Multifamily studies track significant load reductions when DCV replaces fixed damper positions, especially in warm, humid climates where conditioning outside air is costly.

Checking ventilation settings against building code limits and keeping sensors calibrated helps maintain consistent airflow and reliable system performance.

8. High-Performance Air Filtration and Duct Sealing

Leaky ducts can waste 20–30% of conditioned air, often dumping it into wall or ceiling cavities. Aerosolized sealing or manual mastic work can help restore full airflow to living spaces, potentially allowing for downsizing equipment at replacement time. Upgrading to MERV-13 (or higher) filters may further improve indoor air quality without throttling fan performance, provided static-pressure allowances are verified.

Because both tasks align with routine maintenance cycles, they can be low-disruption improvements that may accumulate savings and increase tenant satisfaction.

9. Thermal Energy Storage or Load Shifting Systems

Chilled- or hot-water storage tanks charge at night when electricity rates dip, then discharge during expensive peak hours, potentially flattening demand charges and improving efficiency. Demand response and load management programs—common in time-of-use (TOU) markets—can reduce peak demand, depending on the geographic area and implementation factors.

Integration is typically simplest in properties already running central chillers or heat-pump loops; adequate mechanical-room footprint and control algorithms that coordinate charging with weather forecasts and tariff schedules are necessary. Over time, storage may also provide resilience by helping maintain comfort during short grid outages.

10. Building Envelope and Insulation Enhancements

Envelope improvements—adding roof insulation, upgrading single-pane glazing, and sealing façade cracks—can deliver measurable whole-building savings while lowering peak loads. The EPA ENERGY STAR program estimates that air sealing plus insulation saves around 15% on heating and cooling (about 11% of total energy), on average. 

The DOE Energy Saver guidance notes that cutting drafts (air leaks) alone can reduce energy use by around 10-20%. For windows, recent LBNL analysis of nationwide commercial upgrades finds 4-6% typical site-energy savings, and up to 26% in higher-potential buildings, underscoring the impact of improved glazing on HVAC loads. 

What are the Benefits of HVAC Upgrades on a Multi-Unit Property?

When multi-family buildings receive system upgrades, the benefits extend far beyond energy conservation.

• Reduced Operating Costs: High-efficiency systems can lower utility expenses and maintenance requirements, potentially improving net operating income.
• Regulatory Compliance: Proactive upgrades can help properties meet increasingly stringent energy codes and carbon reduction requirements.
• Extended Equipment Lifespan: Modern systems with smart controls and variable-speed components may experience less wear and operate more efficiently.
• Improved Tenant Comfort: Better temperature control, reduced noise, and enhanced air quality can lead to higher resident satisfaction.
• Lower Vacancy Rates: Comfortable living environments with consistent temperatures and proper ventilation may encourage lease renewals.
• Increased Property Value: Energy-efficient buildings often command higher valuations and attract environmentally conscious residents and investors.
• Enhanced ESG Performance: Upgraded mechanical systems can help improve sustainability metrics important to investors and stakeholders.
• Reduced Carbon Footprint: Lower energy consumption translates to decreased greenhouse gas emissions, supporting organizational sustainability goals.

How to Plan an HVAC Upgrade for a Multi-Unit Property

A disciplined plan with the following five steps can help minimize surprises and cost overruns.

1. Conduct Energy Audit: Professional testing identifies hidden energy losses and establishes a baseline for improvement opportunities.
2. Model Financial Scenarios: Calculate potential ROI using audit data to compare different upgrade options against long-term utility costs and available incentives.
3. Prioritize Strategic Upgrades: Select improvements that balance maximum energy savings with minimal tenant disruption.
4. Coordinate Engineering Early: Involve mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineers from the beginning to prevent redesigns and ensure code compliance.
5. Verify Performance: Implement monitoring systems to document savings, support compliance reporting, and enable predictive maintenance.

With this structured approach, aging systems can be transformed into efficient assets that may reduce operating costs while helping maintain resident comfort.

Engineering Energy Efficiency Across Complex Buildings with Rimkus

Rimkus engineers can recommend upgrades and can help prove how upgrades might work before installation. Energy audits can identify where buildings waste power, and targeted retrofits can potentially reduce energy use in multifamily properties while helping improve resident comfort and lower utility costs.

The life cycle process, Audit → Design → Implementation Oversight → Verification, aligns with ASHRAE and LEED best practices. Every recommendation is grounded in data and modeled for real-world performance before construction begins. Field specialists monitor workmanship and commissioning to help confirm that high-efficiency equipment, smart controls, and ventilation upgrades perform as expected.

With more than 40 years of consulting experience, a network of 900 experts across 100 offices, and deep mechanical and energy expertise, Rimkus combines forensic insight with forward-looking design to help deliver measurable savings and regulatory compliance.

Contact us to schedule an energy audit or discuss how targeted HVAC upgrades can help reduce operating costs, improve comfort, and align properties with evolving efficiency standards.

This article aims to offer insights into the prevailing industry practices. Nonetheless, it should not be construed as legal or professional advice in any form.

The post Top Energy-Efficient HVAC Upgrades for Big Savings appeared first on Rimkus.

The seven-phase roadmap ahead distills best practices from LEED, BREEAM, WELL, and Green Globes into clear milestones spanning pre-design through post-occupancy. Each phase pairs actionable checklists with risk controls designed to keep budgets, schedules, and compliance targets aligned. This framework provides a structured approach to support certification objectives.

1. Pre-Project Assessment and Goal-Setting

Certification planning typically begins during the pre-design phase. Building owners and project teams establish environmental, social, and governance (ESG) priorities as measurable targets, then evaluate those objectives against local code baselines and green covenants in loan agreements. Misalignment between financing terms and design parameters may lead to redesigns during later project phases.

LEED’s pre-design phase typically involves engaging an accredited professional, selecting the rating system, and registering on LEED Online. While engaging an accredited professional is encouraged, only selecting the rating system and registering are mandatory requirements. These steps support the establishment of verifiable metrics and a documentation framework.. BREEAM works similarly, pairing owners with licensed assessors to set “Excellent” or “Outstanding” targets before design begins.

Once high-level objectives have been confirmed, develop a compliance roadmap that incorporates zoning constraints, energy-model assumptions, and stakeholder approvals. This foundation should include a zoning summary noting height, density, and storm-water limits, along with a baseline energy model using local weather data and grid emission factors. Secure written confirmation from owner, architect, contractor, and lender on shared targets, and compile financing term sheets indicating required certification level.

Document these items upfront to create a single source of truth, minimize scope shifts, and set the stage for smoother design-phase charrettes and credit selection.

2. Choose the Right Certification Path

Selecting the right certification starts with understanding a project’s context. A mixed-use tower in Chicago faces different priorities than a suburban healthcare clinic or a historic courthouse retrofit. Three factors drive this decision: building type, geography, and budget. Each factor shapes which certification system will deliver the most value.

Building type determines complexity and scale requirements. Geography and regulatory climate influence which standards carry local weight—EU frameworks favor different approaches than U.S. markets. Both the budget and the owner’s ESG priorities set the ceiling for both fees and documentation intensity.

Mapping these inputs against the four most common systems quickly narrows down some options. LEED excels for large commercial or institutional buildings where global recognition and investor disclosure matter. BREEAM works well for projects operating under EU policy frameworks that reward lifecycle analysis. WELL focuses on occupant wellness and can layer onto a core energy-oriented system to deepen market appeal. Green Globes offers a flexible scoring rubric and lower fees, making it attractive to mid-scale projects or value-engineered retrofits.

If LEED is chosen, the rating system decision becomes pivotal. Building Design & Construction (BD+C) fits new construction. Interior Design & Construction (ID+C) targets major fit-outs. Operations & Maintenance (O+M) applies to existing facilities.

Projects pursuing two systems simultaneously often discover surprising efficiencies. Credit crosswalks—such as material sourcing, indoor air quality testing, and commissioning—allow documentation bundles to serve both reviewers. Internal analyses on mixed-certification pilot projects show a 12-18 percent reduction in total submittal hours when credits are intentionally aligned.

WARNING: Scope creep often inflates consultant fees.

Establishing the certification level and credit list before 30% schematic design can help control project costs. Tie any post-charrette credit additions to a formal change-order protocol with pre-approved budget contingencies. Require monthly progress dashboards so unplanned modeling, charrette sessions, or wellness studies surface early.

A criteria-based selection process, paired with cost controls, can support alignment between certification objectives and project value while maintaining flexibility for potential dual-certification approaches.

3. Integrate Sustainability into Design and Specs

Certification projects typically integrate sustainability strategies during early design phases.

Schedule an interdisciplinary design charrette before a team reaches 30% schematic design. This session aligns architecture, engineering, and operations around the project’s sustainability scorecard. Each discipline takes ownership of targeted credits and documents cost-benefit notes that will guide later value-engineering decisions.

Material transparency becomes manageable through standardized submittal templates. Map product data to familiar ISO ecolabel categories, and specifiers can flag Environmental Product Declarations and low-VOC certifications early. This approach may help reduce material  substitutions once bidding begins.

Performance modeling works best with a three-checkpoint rhythm. Concept models set baseline end-uses and define weather files. Design-development iterations fine-tune envelope U-values, glazing ratios, and flow rates. In 100% construction documents, final models lock in equipment schedules and produce utility cost forecasts for the owner’s pro forma. Include local grid carbon factors at every stage—ignoring them causes one of the most frequent errors during certification review.

Early project registration opens direct reviewer dialogue. Upload draft calculators for preliminary feedback, which cuts post-construction clarifications significantly. Building these practices into design specifications reduces rework, preserves sustainability intent through procurement, and sets up a smooth transition into construction compliance.

4. Documentation and Material Tracking

Documentation gaps derail more certification efforts than any other single factor. Draft a control matrix that assigns each credit to a single “credit owner” with required evidence, file naming conventions, and due dates. Lock this matrix before design development so drawings, submittals, and commissioning reports arrive in the right format from day one.

Material tracking captures third-party labels like Environmental Product Declarations, Forest Stewardship Council chain-of-custody numbers, and Verification of Competency (VOC) certificates for low-emitting products. Missing these details often triggers costly resubmissions and ranks among the most common certification failures.

Utilizing life cycle assessment tools embedded in BIM platforms and cloud plug-ins for rating system portals can automate quantity take-offs and reduce data entry errors. When manufacturers withhold documentation, move quickly—unresolved gaps near procurement jeopardize multiple credits. This escalation approach keeps schedules on track:

Subject: URGENT – Sustainability Documentation Required
Dear <Supplier>,

The project's certification submittal is due on <date>. The specification for <product> requires:

• Third-party EPD  

• VOC compliance test (ISO 16000-9)

Please provide these items by <deadline>. Failure to comply may disqualify the product and delay purchase orders.

Thank you,

<Sender>

Sustainability Coordinator

Store all evidence in a centralized cloud folder that mirrors the credit matrix. Version control and audit trails give reviewers immediate confidence, minimizing comments and protecting certification timelines.

5. Construction Compliance and Commissioning

The site superintendent plays a critical role in maintaining sustainability requirements during construction. Start and end each shift with documented checks on storm-water controls, erosion blankets, and equipment idling limits. Waste-diversion logs track tonnage sent to recycling versus landfill, while Indoor Air Quality plans schedule duct protection, low-VOC product cut-offs, and a minimum two-week building flush-out before occupancy.

Commissioning follows a clear sequence: pre-functional checklists verify installation, functional tests confirm performance under load, and an issue log documents deficiencies until closeout. Rating systems flag this stage as critical and require the final commissioning report before approving any energy or ventilation credits.

Field crews track compliance with prescriptive and performance codes such as the International Green Construction Code (IgCC) and CALGreen. Outcome-based provisions in these codes shift focus from component compliance to measured energy use, so early coordination between code inspectors and the commissioning agent prevents late-stage redesigns.

Value engineering often targets high-performance glazing for cost savings, yet Department of Energy analyses show advanced window systems cut heating and cooling loads by up to 30%, with typical payback within seven years. Present this ROI alongside occupant comfort metrics to retain specifications when budgets tighten.

6. Certification Submission and Review

The submission strategy determines whether months of careful construction work gets stuck in the review queue. Rating system portals timestamp each upload and route files for preliminary review. The first round is expected to take 20–25 business days, followed by a shorter final review once comments are addressed. BREEAM’s quality-assurance cycle typically wraps up in about four weeks when evidence is complete.

Appeal cycles impact both schedule and budget. Most systems allow formal appeals after preliminary and final rulings, each carrying flat appeal fees. Since every appeal restarts the review clock, project teams run an internal audit that mirrors the reviewer’s checklist before the first upload. This prevents repeat submissions.

The three major credit bureaus, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, generate the most common questions about energy performance requiring modeling inputs and unmet load hours; Materials and Resources needing Environmental Product Declaration documentation; and Indoor Environmental Quality demanding VOC test reports and ventilation set-points. Flag these items during the internal audit and assign one document owner to each question. This cuts response time once reviewer comments arrive.

When clarifications surface, answer everything in one consolidated response. Reference file names exactly as they appear online and highlight revisions in contrasting font. After the final acceptance is cleared, the certification letter will be issued, opening the door to post-occupancy performance tracking.

7. Post-Occupancy Verification and Incentive Capture

Once the certification plaque is on the wall, the work is just beginning. A Measurement & Verification (M&V) plan keeps performance on track and protects the certification in the years that follow. Advanced sub-metering for major end uses (lighting, plug loads, HVAC, and process energy), paired with utility-grade meters that stream data to cloud-based dashboards, supports ongoing trend analysis and fault detection. While this approach represents industry best practice, it is not universally required by major green building certifications.

Good data unlocks money. The federal Section 179D deduction awards up to $5.81 per square foot for energy-efficient commercial buildings, while the §45L credit offers as much as $5,000 per qualifying dwelling. Many states, utilities, and lenders layer additional benefits on top. Some benefits include reduced-rate loans, Mortgage Insurance Premium discounts, and C-PACE financing that hinge on certified performance. Utility programs provide direct rebates for verified savings, often issued as soon as interval data confirm the modeled reduction.

Building owners of project teams that use a combination of these levers can often recover commissioning and documentation costs within the first operating year. An ongoing M&V plan identifies savings, streamlines future recertification, and positions the asset for green bonds or sustainability-linked loans when refinancing.

Take Action

This seven-step roadmap transforms the green certification process from an intimidating checklist to a predictable workflow. Anchor each project in rigorous pre-design assessment, select the most compatible rating system, and integrate sustainability requirements throughout design, construction, and operations. This approach prevents the documentation gaps that derail most teams.

Continuous document control and early commissioning engagement shorten review cycles. When construction realities threaten credits, rapid issue-log closeout and proactive supplier escalation keep submissions on track. Capturing incentives like green financing and Section 179D deductions ties environmental goals to measurable returns.

Following these steps may support certification objectives while helping to manage project risks and maintain budget discipline for high-performance building strategies.

FAQ for Green Building Compliance

What can a project team do when a LEED credit is denied?

File an appeal within the review window, upload clarified calculations or photos, and open a case through the GBCI help desk. While clear and comprehensive documentation can sometimes help overturn a denial, most LEED credit denials are upheld unless there is compelling new evidence or a clear error in the original review.

How are missing ASHRAE 90.1 or 62.1 forms corrected?

Regenerate the forms, double-check inputs against the final drawings, and resubmit under the original credit. Early document audits catch this issue before it becomes a problem.

Where can international projects obtain rulings on BREEAM evidence questions?

A licensed BREEAM Assessor submits an online query to BRE, obtains an official interpretation, and shares it with the team. A shared log of all queries and responses helps maintain momentum on the submission schedule.

Bookmark this roadmap and return to each phase checkpoint when new challenges come up—because they will.

A Trusted Partner

Contact Rimkus for independent advisory professionals during the pre-construction phase. It could help to minimize cost overruns and schedule delays in green building compliance. We can  provide objective, third-party validation of project elements and detailed risk assessment throughout design and construction. 

This article aims to offer insights into the prevailing industry practices. Nonetheless, it should not be construed as legal or professional advice in any form.

The post 7 Steps to Green Building Compliance (2026) appeared first on Rimkus.

By adding or enhancing structural elements, such as anchor bolts, shear walls, braced frames, or column jackets, the building gains the flexibility and complete structural support that may have been missing when originally built.

Retrofitting an existing building differs from designing a new building under modern seismic codes. Instead of starting on a blank sheet, engineers diagnose and correct vulnerabilities already embedded in the walls, connections, and foundation. Weaknesses like poor roof-to-wall ties, inadequate lateral strength, or brittle materials, cause catastrophic failures during earthquakes.

Every retrofit can be tailored to a performance goal: life safety, damage reduction, or uninterrupted operations. Rimkus partners with owners, lenders, and government agencies to align those goals with current standards, and can help to deliver code-compliant solutions that can help keep people safe and assets intact.

Why is Seismic Retrofitting Important?

The importance of structural retrofitting extends beyond just meeting building codes: it represents a critical investment in community safety, economic stability, and long-term resilience against natural disasters. By strengthening vulnerable structures, seismic retrofitting can help mitigate the financial and social disruption that follows widespread building failures in earthquakes. 

1. Life Safety and Occupant Protection

The primary objective of any retrofit program is protecting human life. By strengthening lateral systems and improving connections between structural elements, retrofits may reduce the likelihood of partial or total collapse during seismic events. Enhanced stability can help minimize falling hazards and maintain accessible exit routes for occupants.

2. Asset Preservation and Business Continuity

Retrofitted buildings typically experience less structural damage and are more likely to recover quickly following an earthquake. Limiting downtime protects operational continuity, revenue streams, and tenant confidence. Critical facilities such as hospitals, data centers, and emergency services, need this resilience to sustain essential functions during disruptions.

3. Financial Benefits

Financial institutions increasingly require seismic risk assessments before approving loans or underwriting large properties. Retrofitted buildings may qualify for lower insurance premiums, improved financing terms, and greater market value. Additionally, some jurisdictions even offer tax incentives, grants, or low-interest loans to foster seismic improvements. 

4. Regulatory and Code Compliance

Many regions—especially in high-risk zones like California, Oregon, and Washington—enforce mandatory seismic evaluation and retrofit ordinances for specific building types. Staying ahead of these requirements demonstrates due diligence and may prevent costly penalties or emergency compliance orders later.

5. Community Resilience and Public Safety

The more buildings that remain intact after a major earthquake, the quicker  the path to neighborhood recovery. Seismically upgraded structures can serve as emergency shelters, maintain housing availability, and prevent cascading infrastructure failures. 

Common Building Types Requiring Seismic Retrofits

Five building archetypes consistently show up as the most vulnerable during strong shaking: 

• Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings rely on heavy brick or block walls with no embedded steel. When lateral loads hit, these brittle walls crack, separate from floors, and collapse outward.
• Soft-story structures, typically apartments with tuck-under parking. These sit on ground floors that lack shear resistance. Without added frames or walls, this “soft” level pancakes during shaking.
• Non-ductile concrete frames from mid-century offices and schools contain minimal transverse reinforcement, meaning there’s not enough steel rebar running sideways (perpendicular) through concrete beams or columns. Columns and joints will likely snap instead of yielding.
• Tilt-up concrete warehouses usually suffer from weak roof-to-wall and wall-to-foundation connections. Heavy panels detach during earthquakes, creating dangerous falling hazards that threaten both occupants and adjacent structures.
• Older high-rises and mid-rises built with older welding methods often have steel joints that crack under stress.These brittle connections can lead to progressive collapse, where the failure of one joint triggers a cascading failure throughout the structure, making this a particularly dangerous vulnerability during major seismic events.

The Seismic Retrofitting Process

Seismic retrofitting is a complex undertaking that requires careful planning, specialized expertise, and systematic execution. The process typically has five interconnected phases. 

Step 1: Structural Evaluation and Risk Assessment

The process starts with understanding the building’s current condition. This includes reviewing original drawings (if they exist), walking every floor, and performing limited destructive testing where hidden weaknesses are suspected. Engineers focus on the continuity of the load path, the health of connections, and signs of foundation distress, issues that routinely surface in older structures. 

Step 2: Engineering Analysis and Retrofit Design

Engineers translate field notes into computer models that simulate how the structure will behave during an earthquake. The goal is to craft a retrofit strategy that boosts ductility, lateral strength, and continuity without turning the building into a construction site for months. Options might range from fiber-reinforced polymer jacketing to new steel braces, each vetted for cost, constructability, and impact on occupants. Design decisions must satisfy performance criteria in standards such as ASCE 41 while meeting local amendments. 

Step 3: Cost–Benefit and Compliance Review

With a preliminary design in hand, owners weigh dollars against safety gains. Engineers prepare line-item estimates, phasing plans, and benefit-to-cost ratios to show how much risk each dollar mitigates. The design package is fine-tuned to satisfy code reviewers and any local ordinances. 

Step 4: Implementation and Quality Assurance

Once permits are issued, construction begins. This involves coordinating contractors, staging areas, and tenant notices so daily operations stay as smooth as possible. Continuous field inspections verify that anchor bolts reach the specified embedment, welds pass nondestructive testing, and unexpected conditions are resolved without compromising design intent. Detailed photo logs and special-inspection reports create the documentation lenders and insurers will ask for.

Step 5: Post-Retrofit Verification and Lifecycle Monitoring

After the final bolt is tightened, the work isn’t over. A closing inspection confirms code compliance, and the owner receives a retrofit certificate, often required to unlock insurance discounts in seismic zones like California. Periodic walk-throughs and sensor-based health monitoring provide early warning of deterioration to enable planned maintenance instead of emergency repairs. 

What are Some Common Seismic Retrofit Techniques? 

These are the techniques most commonly employed:

• Steel bracing systems
  • By adding diagonal steel members or complete braced frames, engineers create additional lateral load paths that keep the building plumb while the ground sways. Because the braces can be threaded through existing openings or tucked behind cladding, installation is usually fast and tenants can remain in place.
• Shear wall additions 
  • New reinforced concrete or plywood‐shear panels tie floors and roof diaphragms together, boosting both vertical and horizontal resistance. Proper detailing, such as continuous reinforcement, boundary elements, and robust anchors can ensure the walls yield in a ductile manner.
• Base isolation systems 
  • Elastomeric bearings or sliding pendulum devices inserted between the superstructure and its foundation decouple the building from violent ground motion, slashing inter-story drifts and protecting sensitive equipment.
• Column and beam jacketing
  • Wrapping a concrete column with welded steel plates or high-strength fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) confinement can raise shear and flexural capacity and restore ductility.
• Foundation strengthening 
  • Anchor bolts, epoxy-grouted dowels, new grade beams, or micropiles transfer loads without inducing differential settlement. Selecting the right foundation fix demands a soil–structure interaction review and careful constructability planning.
• Connection reinforcement
  • Upgrading roof-to-wall clips, diaphragm chords, wall-to-foundation anchors, and beam-column welds prevents the sudden “unzipping” failures that plagued many pre-1970s buildings. Inexpensive hardware upgrades can double the strength of outdated connections.

How Rimkus Supports Seismic Retrofitting Projects

A seismic retrofitting project  typically begins with a comprehensive structural assessment. Our engineers inspect drawings, materials, and the entire load path to pinpoint compliance gaps and hidden vulnerabilities in building structures.

We translate those findings into retrofit design packages backed by performance modeling. Nonlinear analyses predict how proposed upgrades—steel braces, shear walls, or column jacket —might behave under site-specific ground motions before construction begins. This advanced modeling approach is intended to minimize surprises during implementation.

During construction, Rimkus can provide on-site oversight and quality assurance. Continuous inspections, material verification, and field adjustments follow a disciplined workflow: making sure every bolt, weld, and anchor meets design intent. After construction is completed, we document the work for regulators and insurers and remain available for lifecycle monitoring using FEMA-endorsed inspection protocols to monitor long-term performance.

To consult with Rimkus engineers on evaluating seismic vulnerabilities, contact us today.

This article aims to offer insights into the prevailing industry practices. Nonetheless, it should not be construed as legal or professional advice in any form.

The post What is Seismic Retrofitting and Why is it Needed? appeared first on Rimkus.

In the modern industrial era, oil and gas projects have traditionally set the benchmark in construction for scale, complexity, and capital intensity. The oil and gas industry has generated capital expenditure on a scale that far surpasses other construction sectors such as buildings, infrastructure, and utilities. That is until now, where for the first time, oil and gas dominance is being challenged and a new front runner in global construction is emerging, the surge in data centre development.

The acceleration in data centre construction is being fuelled by, amongst other things, the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence. For the first time, the need for data is driving capital expenditure to levels that are on track to surpass those of the oil and gas industry.

Investment at a Global Scale

Technology companies and investors are ready to deploy vast sums, Morgan Stanley predict $2.9 trillion in the next three or four years. Household names such as Meta (the parent company of Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram), Amazon, and Microsoft are all reporting an increase in the deployment of capital spend. For example, Meta is constructing the Prometheus project in Ohio, and has also recently broken ground on the development of Hyperion in Louisiana, CEO Mark Zuckerberg compares the cluster of data centres to the “footprint of Manhattan”. Whilst Amazon and Microsoft have each pledged more than $100 billion of investment over the next 12 months, allowing each business to take advantage of the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence. Spending in data infrastructure is set to accelerate growth at scale and pace not only in the US, but also in other global hubs such as London, Frankfurt, and Singapore.

This is a profound shift in investment priorities, one that we see across the globe, however with any shift it carries with it a set of challenges. To take advantage of this opportunity there needs to be a collective effort from all stakeholders, to be agile, ready to react and deliver on demand.

Stakeholders must consider whether the global supply chain has the ability to deliver exponential growth? Can the market supply the specialist skills required to design, build, commission, and operate these data centre facilities?

Some may say there is a familiar pattern emerging, that the unprecedented capital being deployed is testing the limits of the construction industry as it did during oil booms. With any opportunity delivered at scale and pace, we expect this to drive a rise in construction disputes.

Closing the Skills Gap to Secure Future Success

The skill shortage is one of the most fundamental challenges. Mechanical, electrical, and commissioning engineers, the disciplines at the heart of successful delivery, are already in short supply relative to the build rate. Out with the sector, we are already seeing a crisis with the lack of engineering and construction skills from the classroom to building site. The result is predictable: ambitious programmes, overspending, compromised quality, and operational issues beyond completion. The risk posed by a skills shortage is paramount, the industry must adopt a strategic approach to ensure we have the skills to deliver the commercial and social need for more data and increased connectivity.

Compounding the skills resource shortage is the pressure on our electrical infrastructure. In the UK, not just limiting to data centres, 750 gigawatts of projects are currently waiting for grid connection approval, a backlog that can result in delays but also reflects the scale of speculative projects competing for access. For context at the time of writing, the live electrical demand in the UK is 32 gigawatts, and so vast amounts of work needs to be progressed to get grid connections online.

To bridge this gap, some developers are exploring larger connections to the gas network, proposing gas turbines as a temporary measure while awaiting grid connection. This reflects a wider global trend, with gas turbines used to accelerate the delivery of data centres. In many cases, they are not intended as permanent solutions but as a stopgap, to be retained as backup once grid connections are secured.

Infrastructure and Cost Pressures

The strain on infrastructure is mirrored in other markets, where rising energy costs and connection bottlenecks are adding further uncertainty to both the feasibility and the economics of some planned facilities.

The consequences of this are already seen, with rising labour costs and the long wait for specialist equipment. Those same shortages slow procurement, delay installations, and leave a finite labour pool with more work than can be delivered.

Expertise and Early Engagement

In many of these cases, the root cause is the same: a gap between the commercial commitments made at contract stage and the realities encountered on site. That gap can be narrowed, or even closed, by involving the right expertise at the right time.

For example, a commissioning engineer who has brought multiple data centres online will spot risks in design that may have been overlooked. An operations manager with industry experience may flag performance criteria that are impractical to achieve. An experienced contractor who understands the sequencing of critical systems can build a programme that reflects the genuine constraints of the work.

Where those voices are absent early in the process, problems that may have been addressed in design become far more expensive to resolve during or indeed after construction. The most effective dispute avoidance strategies are those that integrate technical specialists into project teams from the outset. Engage the contractor, the commissioning engineer and the operations personnel early. Collectively establish clear measurable and achievable performance criteria, such as Service Level Agreements (SLA) and Liquidated and Ascertained Damages (LAD), these should be in place to guide a project to success, not just to guide when it fails. Ensure payment and incentive structures reflect the realities of delivery, which can be based on well thought out build sequence and detailed programme.

Turning Ambition into Achievable Outcomes

The pressure to move faster to outpace competitors has created an environment where clients expect complex, highly technical facilities to be delivered on time with no margin for error. In reality, a larger budget does not guarantee a faster pace of construction.

For the decision makers of the industry, this may require a shift in approach. Advising not only on the contract mechanisms, but also on realistic performance criteria, supported by a deeper understanding of the technical and operational constraints of each unique project.

Over the coming years, as the demand for data surpasses that of oil, success will depend on the foresight to align ambition with capability. Those who bring the right expertise to the table early will not only deliver resilient facilities but also avoid disputes, and ultimately avoid eroding value.

About the Author

Rab Eadie is a Chartered Engineer with over 20 years of global experience specialising in the design, installation, and commissioning of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems. Since 2017, he has been appointed as a technical expert on more than 40 occasions and has provided expert services in international arbitration, litigation, adjudication, and mediation.  

Robert (Rab) Eadie, BSc, LLM, CEng Director, MEP Expert
+44 77 8384 8728
rab.eadie@rimkus.com
View Expert Profile

The post Crude Awakening: The Strain on Construction as the Demand for Data Surpasses Oil appeared first on Rimkus.