Certificate of Occupancy vs. Substantial Completion

[icarusburns]

Somehow confusion seems to set in regarding which comes first. I work with the USDA, and the feeling is that the C of O should come before the Certificate of Substantial Completion, But in many other cases The Certificate of Substantial Completion is asked for first. I don't know why this becomes a gray area in some juristictions.

Anyone else deal with this?

[brudgers]

If the building cannot be occupied, it cannot be used for its intended purpose, therefore it cannot be substantially complete.

[icarusburns]

If the building cannot be occupied, it cannot be used for its intended purpose, therefore it cannot be substantially complete.

Makes sense to me.
Wish it were that easy to convince some of the backwards building inspectors of the logic.

One town refuses to give the c of o until the certificate of substantial completion is given. Makes me wonder how hard it is to become a licensed building official.

[mushmul]

I never had to deal with this in real life... but as far as I remember from my CDS exam preparation: Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the Building Department official when the building fulfills all requirements to be safely occupied; Certificate of substantial completion is submitted by the contractor, when he believes that the work according to the contract is complete, and after inspection the architect can verify/certify that the work is substantially complete (typically the arch comes back with a list of items that need to be completed prior to final completion). So both certificates are somewhat related, but do not depend on each other. Sometimes things that need to be completed before the architect can issue a certificate of substantial completion do not prevent the building of receiving CofO.

[archiboywunder]

Somehow confusion seems to set in regarding which comes first. I work with the USDA, and the feeling is that the C of O should come before the Certificate of Substantial Completion, But in many other cases The Certificate of Substantial Completion is asked for first. I don't know why this becomes a gray area in some juristictions.

Anyone else deal with this?

'round here the architect's submission of the affidavit of Substantial Completion to the building dept results in the building department issuing the C of O to the owner.

[slhill]

I find this an interesting question. Our local jurisdiction (as far as I know) has never asked for the Certificate of Substantial completion. On projects where we've had something of that sort, it's been something we issue to the owner (after inspecting the project) to tell them this milestone has been reached and the contractor can now bill the remainder of his fee (and/or get the retainage the owner's been holding on to). I've never seen it connected to a Certificate of Occupancy (much along the lines of what mushmul said).

[brudgers]

Since Substantial Completion reflects a project's status relative to a contract not the building code, it is silly for a building department to require it for CO.

An example would be if furnishings were part of the contract.

[Coach]

Since Substantial Completion reflects a project's status relative to a contract not the building code, it is silly for a building department to require it for CO.

Exactly!

Substantial completion has nothing to do with the AHJ and frankly, none of the f'n business.

The fact is, you can secure a partial CO long before a cert of substantial completion is issued.