REVIEW PRACTICE 7 · IN DEVELOPMENT
Vendor & Professional Credential Review
Boards defend decisions by pointing at a professional’s report. This practice asks what that professional was required to be, and what the report was required to contain.
A reserve study, a condition survey, or a structural assessment is often the single document standing between a board and a decade of capital obligation. In many jurisdictions no credential is required to write one and no methodology is required to be followed.
The gap this addresses
The professional who inspects is sometimes affiliated with the contractor who performs the resulting work. The study that projects thirty years of obligation may carry no component inventory and no funding plan. And the board that commissioned it is under no duty to act on it, or to show members that it did not.
The 2021 Surfside collapse made the consequences of a report received and not acted upon a matter of permanent public record. These points test the credential, the contents, the conflict, and the follow-through.
What this review is not
- It makes no assessment of any building’s physical safety and is not an engineering opinion. Where a report identifies a hazardous condition, that is a matter for the relevant authority, immediately.
- It makes no finding about any individual professional’s competence. It reports what credential was required and what was disclosed.
- It is not an audit, examination, or investigation within the meaning of any professional standard, and it produces no assurance.
- It is not legal, accounting, or tax advice. See our Terms.
- A review point that resolves against an entity is a question, not a conclusion. Every published finding is designed to state the document it came from and the answer that would close it.
- Where a TASFGA researcher, founder, or board member is a member, party, or complainant in a matter concerning an entity, TASFGA does not publish a review of that entity. See Methodology.
The review points
13 points, grouped by what each tests. This set is a draft. It would be versioned, opened for public comment, and re-applied to every prior review when it changes, in line with our Methodology.
The credential
- Required qualification. What credential, if any, the jurisdiction or the governing instrument requires of the author, against what the author actually holds.
- Licensure standing. Whether the professional or firm is currently licensed where licensure applies, and whether any public disciplinary record exists.
- Professional indemnity. Whether the author carries errors-and-omissions coverage, at what limit, and whether the engagement letter caps liability below it.
The conflict
- Inspector and contractor. Whether the professional who identified the work, or an affiliate, also bid for or performed it.
- Who selected the professional. Whether the board selected the author directly, or accepted a manager’s referral, and whether any referral economics were disclosed.
- Scope authorship. Whether the professional wrote the scope that the contractors then bid, and whether that scope was competed at all.
The report itself
- Component inventory. Whether the study identifies the components it covers, their condition, and their remaining useful life — or is a narrative without an inventory.
- Funding plan. Whether a funding plan accompanies the projection, with the assumptions — inflation, interest, contribution growth — stated.
- Stated limitations. What the author disclaimed: destructive testing not performed, areas not accessed, records not reviewed.
- Update cadence. When the study was last updated, what interval the governing instrument or any standard specifies, and the elapsed time.
The follow-through
- Receipt and record. Whether the minutes record the board receiving the report, and whether members were given it or told it existed.
- Action against recommendation. What the report recommended, what was funded, and where any difference is explained.
- Consistency with the financials. Whether the obligation the study projects is reflected in reserve funding. Tested against Audit & Financial Records.
Where this applies
- Residential community governance — reserve studies, facade and structural surveys, and the engineers who write them.
- Licensing & self-regulating bodies — whether the licensing board that credentials these professionals maintains a searchable disciplinary record.
- Municipal governance — consultant reports relied on for capital decisions.
- Hospital & health boards — accreditation and safety consultants engaged by the body they assess.
- Public agencies — contracted inspection and certification functions.
How this connects to the rest of the work
A required credential, a required minimum content, a required update interval, and a bar on the inspector performing the work are four provisions. They belong in a model standard, and the licensing gap behind them belongs to Licensing & Self-Regulating Bodies.
The in-field evidence base for Focus 1 — building by building, firm by firm — is published at condoscoopsnyc.org, which documents the underlying statutory gaps this practice was built to detect.
Other review practices
Audit & Financial Records Review
Audited statements, budgets, and the records behind them, tested against the governing instrument.
REVIEW PRACTICE 2Election Conduct Review
Ballot access, notice, proxy custody, and who counts the votes.
REVIEW PRACTICE 3Records Retention & Access Review
A right to inspect is worth nothing if nothing was required to be kept.
REVIEW PRACTICE 4Procurement Integrity Review
Who picked the vendor, who else was asked, and who got paid on the side.
REVIEW PRACTICE 5Member Speech & Retaliation Review
What happens to the member who asks, and who pays for the answer.
REVIEW PRACTICE 6Data Governance & Payment Security Review
Who can move the money, who holds the credentials, and who is told when it goes wrong.
TASFGA is pre-incorporation. This review practice is a published draft, not an offered service, and no engagement is available. Members of a governed body who wish to apply these points to their own entity are free to do so.