What owners and contractors should know about authorization, forms, and registration under Section 553.791
Paperwork requirements can create uncertainty for construction teams using private providers for building code plan review and inspections. A November 9, 2026 opinion from the Florida Attorney General’s Office provides guidance on several of these requirements, including owner authorization, signatures, and registration documents.
Issued to Representative Mike Giallombardo, the opinion addresses seven questions under Section 553.791, Florida Statutes. Its conclusions give owners, contractors, and private providers a clearer basis for preparing submissions and addressing requests for additional documentation.
Owner authorization depends on who signs
The Florida Building Commission’s Notice to Building Official, commonly called the NTBO, documents a project’s election to use a private provider.
According to the opinion, when the property owner signs the Commission’s NTBO form, no separate owner authorization is required.
When the contractor signs on the owner’s behalf, a separate letter from the owner authorizing the contractor to sign the NTBO satisfies the explicit written authorization requirement. The opinion also concludes that a local jurisdiction may not require a city-specific form instead of the Commission’s NTBO.
The notice may list all provider qualifiers
The opinion explains that an NTBO may list one, several, or all of a private provider’s qualifiers. A local enforcement agency may not reject the notice solely because all qualifiers are listed.
The submission must still include the required information about the services to be performed and the private providers involved.
The full construction scope is not required
The owner’s authorization does not need to restate the contractor’s scope of work or reproduce the agreement between the owner and contractor.
The notice must identify the services the private provider will perform, such as building code plan review, inspections, or both. The opinion distinguishes this requirement from a demand to describe the project’s entire construction scope.
Wet-ink signatures and notarization are not required for the NTBO
The opinion concludes that the statute does not require the NTBO to contain original wet-ink signatures, be signed under oath, or be notarized. It also confirms that the notice may be submitted electronically.
This clarification concerns the NTBO and the owner authorization addressed in the letter. Other documents have their own requirements. For example, Section 553.791 separately requires a private provider’s plan review affidavit to certify its findings under oath.
DAR registration does not require personal records
A Duly Authorized Representative, or DAR, performs authorized services on behalf of a private provider.
The opinion concludes that a DAR is not required to submit photo identification, a residential address, date of birth, or payroll details to demonstrate employment status when registering under Section 553.791(4).
The private provider or firm remains responsible for supplying the required contact information and verifying compliance with applicable licensure and insurance requirements. The underlying qualifications and employment requirements still apply.
Registered providers do not need to repeat the same submissions
When a private provider is already registered with a building department, the opinion concludes that copies of DAR information and the certificate of insurance do not have to be resubmitted with every NTBO.
Local enforcement agencies must maintain a private provider registry and provide an electronic method for registration and updates. Providers remain responsible for keeping their information current.
What this means for your project
For owners, developers, and contractors, the opinion provides a useful reference when preparing private provider paperwork or responding to administrative comments.
Before submitting, project teams should confirm who will sign the NTBO, obtain the owner’s authorization when the contractor will sign, and verify that the provider’s registration is current.
If a building department requests additional documentation addressed by the opinion, teams can use the letter and applicable statutory provisions to discuss the requirement with the building official. Resolving these questions early can help reduce avoidable paperwork and keep the permitting process moving.
The opinion interprets existing law; it does not amend the statute or constitute a binding court ruling.
How PACIFICA can help
Pacifica Engineering Services provides private provider plan review and inspection services for Florida construction projects. We help owners and contractors coordinate submissions, address code compliance, and schedule the inspections their projects require.
Planning to use a private provider? Contact PACIFICA to discuss your project and how our team can support your plan review and inspection needs.
Source: Florida Office of the Attorney General, Opinions Division, November 9, 2026 letter to Representative Mike Giallombardo, pages 1–4.
