Justin....
I do not have specific legislative / regulatory language to share with you. But I have experience working with third party plan examiners across a number of states. From that experience there are a few things I would urge you keep an eye on:
Who selects the third party examiner? I have found it works best when the jurisdiction issuing the permit has a number of firms on file approved to conduct permit reviews. The building official then determines which of those firms has the experience and knowledge required by a specific project. The building official then assigns the project to that firm to conduct the review. Its also important for the project sponsor team to have the ability to appeal that assignment if they believe the third party examiner is not appropriate to conduct the review. I have had projects in jurisdictions where the project sponsor selects the third party examiner firm. The results are often less than desirable, often centering on the appearance of a conflict of interest for both the sponsor and third party firm. There is also a bigger chance of disagreement between the third party examiner's interpretation of code compliance and the inspectors' opinion in the field. We have all experienced that conflict......it never ends well for the project.
Who pays the third party examiner? I found it works best when the third party examiner is paid by the jurisdiction. This allows the jurisdiction to maintain their "regular" permit fee structure. It is important that the jurisdiction continue to receive some funds to cover their administrative overhead costs. Many jurisdictions want to be able to report those revenues to city councils or mayors to demonstrate the throughput of their departments. This approach also avoids the appearance of conflicts of interest as noted above. It also avoids the opportunity for a project sponsor to distort permit review costs should they offer too low or too high a fee for the permit review.
Who manages the efforts of the third party examiner's efforts? Again the supervision and scheduling of the third party examiner should be the responsibility of the jurisdiction. Its important that the time for permit review typical for the department's operation be maintained. The department should assure those time frames are adhered to by the third party examiner. The jurisdiction should review the work of the third party examiner prior to the comments being provided to the project sponsor and the architect signing the permit set. The project team should be able to rely on the jurisdiction for complete, clear comments from the third party examiner. The jurisdiction should also agree the comments identify conditions that do not conform to the code and require modification. It works best when the jurisdiction, third party examiner and project architect meet face to face to review comments when they are transmitted to the project architect. Establishing a clear time frame for re-submittal of modified construction documents to the jurisdiction & third party examiner should occur at that meeting. Agreeing on a re-submittal date should allow the jurisdiction & third party examiner to be prepared and undertake the re-review without delay.
Hope these observations are helpful. They can help avoid a lot aggravation in what can often be a frustration permit review process.
Best of luck.