This guide is a general information guide for those who are not familiar with the construction process and how engineering plans are reviewed in that process. It is not a step-by-step guide, but rather an educational guide with a general overview to help those unfamiliar with the construction process in Florida understand how engineering plans are reviewed and what the review process means. Florida Engineering has found that one of the most common sources of frustration in engineering projects are plan review rejections. Clients often expect permit approvals to be fast, predictable, and consistent. In reality, engineering plan comments are normal, expected, and often unavoidable, especially in Florida.
Rejections are not failures but are part of a rigorous regulatory process. This guide explains why comments happen, why timelines vary, and how Florida’s permitting environment affects projects involving civil, structural, and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems.
Plan Review Comments Are Normal, Not a Red Flag
A common misconception is that a “good” engineering plan set should receive zero comments. In practice, most permitted projects receive comments, even when prepared by experienced engineering firms.
Reasons comments are common include:
- Multiple disciplines intersecting on the same drawings
- Local interpretations of state codes varying by jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction-specific standards that evolve continuously
- Reviewers being required to document compliance
Comments are part of the quality control loop between engineers and authorities having jurisdiction. Comments are not an indication of poor design, poor engineering, or mistakes.
Clients Should Expect Comments
Receiving comments does not mean something went wrong. It means the regulatory review system is functioning as intended.
Most Florida projects experience at least one review cycle, and many experience multiple cycles depending on complexity, jurisdiction, and scope. Understanding this reality upfront helps reduce confusion and frustration during the permitting process.
Why Some Reviews Take Longer Than Others
Clients often ask why one project is approved quickly while another takes weeks or months. The answer is rarely simple.
Factors that affect review timelines include:
- Project complexity
- Number of disciplines involved, such as MEP-only work versus full site development
- Jurisdiction staffing levels
- Reviewer workload at the time of submittal
- Project type and associated risk profile
A good engineer in Florida cannot promise a speedy review, because the engineer does not control the review process. The review timeline is determined solely by the governmental entity performing the review and is influenced by the factors listed above.
Red Flag
Clients should be wary of any engineer promising instant permit approval or a specific speed or timeframe for plan review completion. No reputable engineer, including Florida Engineering, would make such a promise over a review process the engineer does not control.
Out-of-State Clients and the Florida Learning Curve
Many clients come from states where:
- Permitting is centralized
- Review cycles are short
- Local amendments are limited
- Permitting or professional engineering may not be required
Florida operates differently.
Key Florida-specific realities include:
- Strong local control by counties and municipalities
- Extensive local amendments to state codes
- High scrutiny due to wind loads, flood exposure, and environmental constraints
Clients new to Florida are often surprised that a permit process they expect to take days or weeks can take months, even for relatively straightforward projects.
Non-Contractor Clients and Process Familiarity
Not all clients are developers or contractors. Property owners, investors, architects, and business owners may be unfamiliar with the permitting process.
Common misunderstandings include:
- Assuming plan approval is automatic
- Believing engineers control review outcomes
- Expecting no revisions after submittal
Good engineering firms explain upfront that:
- Comments are expected
- Revisions are routine
- Multiple review cycles may occur
Jurisdictional Differences Matter More Than Most Clients Expect
Florida is not a single permitting environment. Each jurisdiction applies adopted codes differently.
Tougher Review Environments
Counties such as Broward County and Miami-Dade County are widely recognized for more detailed plan reviews due to:
- High density
- Complex infrastructure
- Elevated life safety and flood risks
- Long-standing local amendments
- Dedicated Miami-Dade sections of the Florida Building Code
Certain municipalities within these counties may apply even stricter interpretations.
There are also customer-driven issues that commonly cause major problems:
- Constructing before obtaining approval
A frequent complaint is, “I built everything according to your plans, but now the reviewer says it is not correct.” - Constructing under a previous code cycle
This often occurs when a long time passes between plan preparation and construction. - Constructing differently than shown on the plans
A common response is, “I have been doing this for 40 years and nothing bad has happened.”
In these situations, engineers are not responsible for creating or enforcing code. Their role is to design in accordance with the letter and intent of the adopted code. When construction deviates from approved plans, it may be difficult or impossible to resolve issues economically, particularly in stricter jurisdictions.
Staffing and Workload Dynamics
Not all jurisdictions are equally resourced.
For example:
- A fully developed city may have fewer active projects but a well-funded review department
- A fast-growing county may be inundated with submittals and prioritize speed over detailed comments
As a result, one jurisdiction may issue extensive comments while another may approve similar plans with minimal feedback. Neither approach is inherently better. They reflect different administrative realities.
Same Project, Different Results
Clients are often surprised when:
- One project passes review quickly
- A nearly identical project triggers comments elsewhere
This is normal.
Reasons include:
- Different reviewer interpretations
- Local standards not explicitly codified in state code
- Jurisdiction-specific checklists
Project Type Strongly Influences Comments
Not all projects are reviewed equally.
Projects likely to receive few or no comments include:
- Standardized sheds or accessory structures
- Repetitive prototype designs
- Low-risk renovations
Projects more likely to trigger comments include:
- Site-specific designs
- Unique structural systems
- Complex MEP coordination
- Floodplain or coastal projects
The more customized and site-driven a project is, the more scrutiny it will attract.
Rejections Are Not Personal or Arbitrary
Plan reviewers are tasked with:
- Protecting public safety
- Enforcing adopted codes
- Documenting compliance
Comments are part of that mandate.
Florida Engineering created this guide and its explanations as a way to help clients unfamiliar with the review process understand it better so they experience less stress during the review process.
Aligning Expectations Leads to Better Outcomes
Engineering plan rejections and comments are not failures. They are a normal part of permitting, particularly in Florida’s highly regulated environment.
Clients who understand this are better positioned to make informed decisions, manage timelines realistically, and maintain productive working relationships throughout the permitting process.
Disclaimer
This article reflects the opinions and interpretations of Florida Engineering LLC and does not constitute legal or safety advice.
