# The ITO on site in Chile: what powers it really has and how to work with inspection > In Chile the inspector técnico de obra checks the work against the permit and the codes, and is subsidiarily liable alongside the builder. What it can and cannot do. - Author: Felipe Arancibia — Sr. Product Designer - Published: 2026-08-22 - Original: https://usepaladio.com/en/blog/rol-del-ito-chile/ - Guides --- Chile's inspector técnico de obra — the ITO — is responsible for checking that the works are executed in accordance with the applicable construction codes and with the approved building permit. The role may be held by individuals or firms providing that service, exercised by or with competent professionals who are independent of the builder. There is one fact that explains almost all of the ITO's behaviour on site, and that many builders never take into account: technical inspectors are subsidiarily liable alongside the builder for the works. They are not being strict by temperament. They answer with their professional standing for what gets built. ## What that liability means Subsidiary liability means that, faced with a construction defect, the ITO may be held liable together with the builder. That has three practical consequences day to day. **The ITO needs a record of everything.** Their instructions and observations in the libro de obras are not bureaucracy: they are the proof that they did their job. An ITO who does not write things down is exposed. **They will not approve what they cannot verify.** Asking them to sign off work that is already covered up is asking them to take on a personal risk. The answer will be no, and rightly so. **It suits them for things to be resolved early.** An ITO who is well informed during execution is an ally; one who finds out at the end is a problem for both sides. Understanding this changes the relationship. Most conflicts between builder and ITO get resolved when the builder stops reading the demand as personal distrust. ## What it can and cannot do | Can | Cannot | |---|---| | Check compliance with the permit and the codes | Modify the approved design | | Instruct corrections and have them recorded | Instruct scope changes without the client's backing | | Reject work that does not comply | Authorise extra work on its own | | Require testing and certification | Direct execution or the builder's crews | | Accept or refuse to accept items | Replace the professional in charge of the works | The right-hand column is the one that causes the most misunderstandings. **An ITO does not run the project.** The builder decides how to execute; the ITO verifies that the result complies. When an ITO starts instructing construction methods, the line of liability blurs, and that hurts both sides. And the other way round: when a builder makes a change because "the ITO said so", without backing from the client or the designer, they can end up unpaid and undefended. ## How to work well with inspection Six practices that measurably reduce friction. **Agree the protocol at the start.** What gets accepted, how much notice is given, in what format the documentation is presented, how often there is a coordination meeting. A one-hour conversation at the beginning of the project. **Give notice of anything about to be covered up.** It is the practice that avoids the most arguments. Concrete pours, backfill, closing up partitions: give enough notice for the ITO to come and look. **Record compliance, not just the instruction.** When the ITO leaves an observation, the response must be recorded too. An observation with no record of compliance stays open in the file and shows up at acceptance. **Ask before executing, not after.** A query recorded in the libro de obras before executing costs minutes. The same doubt resolved after it is built costs demolition. **Separate a code requirement from a matter of judgement.** Both are legitimate, but they are handled differently. If it is code, you comply. If it is the ITO's judgement going beyond what is specified, it is worth discussing and, if it means extra cost, processing it. **Do not argue on site in front of the crews.** It sounds obvious and it gets broken often. It erodes the authority of both. ## When there is disagreement It happens, and it need not be a problem. The sequence that works: 1. **Record the disagreement in the libro de obras**, with technical grounds and objectively. Do not refuse to sign: sign while recording the discrepancy. 2. **Escalate to the competent designer** when the disagreement is technical. If it is structural, the structural engineer decides; if it is architecture, the architect. 3. **Involve the client** when the disagreement has an effect on cost or schedule. 4. **Record the decision** and who took it. Point one is the one that protects you. A disagreement recorded with grounds leaves evidence that there were two technical positions and what yours was. A disagreement that was only discussed never happened. ## The ITO and final acceptance The ITO's role materialises at the end. At municipal acceptance their report is requested, where applicable, stating that the works were executed in accordance with the applicable technical codes and with the approved building permit, including its modifications. That report rests on the libro de obras. **An ITO cannot report favourably on what is not on record.** That is why open observations, covered work never accepted and instructions with no record of compliance become obstacles at closeout, when they are already expensive to resolve. ## Frequently asked questions **Is an ITO mandatory on every project?** It depends on the type of work and on what the applicable rules establish for the case. The regulatory references usually say "if there is one" or "where applicable". Check the specific case of your project. **Who hires the ITO?** Usually the owner or client, and the ITO must be independent of the builder. That independence is a requirement, not a formality. **Can the ITO stop the works?** They can reject work that does not comply and refuse to accept items, which in practice stops progress on that item. Stopping the whole project is a wider decision that normally involves the client and, depending on the case, the authority. **What if the ITO does not visit the site often enough?** It is a problem for both sides. Record the acceptance requests and the lack of response in the libro de obras, and escalate to the client. Executing and covering up without acceptance leaves you without backup, even when the inspection is at fault. **Can I ask for the ITO to be replaced?** The appointment belongs to the client. A change requires their decision and is recorded in the libro de obras. Before getting there, it is almost always worth trying to agree on protocol and criteria, which is where the real problem usually sits.