Technical checking of the project is treated by many quotes as a fixed line in the budget. The code ties it to the building’s consequence class instead, and for some houses the answer is that it does not happen at all.
Who signs each piece is covered separately, in who signs the project. This is about someone else: the attested checker, who does not sign the project but reviews it.
The exception that changes the budget
Article 440 paragraph (3) says that, by way of exception, technical checking is not necessary for projects in class CC1, responsibility for complying with design standards resting exclusively with the architects and engineers.
Article 441 names that regime level 1 checking, NVP1: the designers assume responsibility for the project as drawn, with no obligation to have it checked by attested checkers.
For CC2, article 442 requires level 2 checking, NVP2: a detailed review, carried out by an attested technical checker, a natural person or an authorised legal entity, who did not take part in producing the project.
The independence rule
It appears twice, which shows how deliberate it is. Article 440 paragraph (1) requires the check to be done by attested specialists other than the project’s authors. Paragraph (2) repeats it for legal entities: the checker must not have taken part in producing the project.
In practice, the office that drew the project cannot also check it, nor through someone else inside the same structure.
What actually gets checked
Article 442 paragraph (4) lists mandatory elements, and the first is the easiest to underestimate: the input data, which includes whether the consequence-class assignment itself is correct, the calculation assumptions, the load combinations and the partial safety factors.
In other words, the very classification that decides whether you need a checker is itself something the checker checks. If the initial classification was wrong, this is where it shows.
The ten-year term, and what runs past it
Article 446 says the attested technical checker is liable for ten years from handover or acceptance of the building for the conclusions of the checks carried out. And after that term expires, for the whole life of the building, for defects in the structural system arising from non-compliance with the design rules in force when it was built.
Liability is not uniform: under NVP2 it is limited and proportional, overlapping with the designer’s only for what was actually checked. Under NVP3 and NVP4 it is advanced.
What to ask when you get a quote
Which consequence class the building falls into, and who made that assignment. Everything follows from it: whether checking is mandatory, who may do it, and how long liability runs. How the class is assigned, and why it cannot be rounded down, is in the consequence class. What the permit documentation contains is on the PAC page, and the phase after authorisation is in the permit project is not the build project. Why the code defines checking through prohibitions rather than duties is discussed in independence defined by what you may not be.
This article is analysis, not legal advice. The provisions cited are from Legea 169/2026, published in Monitorul Oficial no. 661 of 10 August 2026. Check your own situation with the issuing authority.