Buffalo, N.Y., Code of Ordinances ch. 261 § 261-11

A. As part of the Department's efforts to ensure consistency and compliance with the required clearance standards, random audits will be performed on all third-party lead clearance providers. Nonrandom audits may also be performed based on a reasonable suspicion that a third-party lead clearance provider is not providing proper tests, including, but not limited to, complaints received about the provider or about a specific property inspected by the provider. If the results indicate noncompliance with these standards, the Commissioner may take whatever action is necessary as set forth in Subsection I of this section. B. Rejection of clearance examination report/non-responsibility of issuer: (1) The Commissioner is authorized to reject a lead clearance examination report that does not meet the requirements set forth herein or that is found after an inspection to not substantially represent the conditions present at the premises for which the report was prepared. The reasons for the rejection shall be set forth in writing to the issuer of the report and to the owner of the property to which the report pertains. (a) No lead clearance examination report shall be accepted from an issuer who does not meet the qualifications set forth herein or who has been found by the Commissioner to be non-responsible. (b) The Commissioner shall inform an issuer in writing of a non-responsibility determination and the reasons therefor. (c) Upon making a non-responsibility determination, the Commissioner may bar the issuer and affiliated organizations, as further set forth herein, from submitting lead clearance reports to the City for a period of not to exceed three years. (d) Guidelines for non-responsibility determinations. In determining the non-responsibility of an issuer, the Commissioner shall consider: [1] The record of performance of the issuer, including but not limited to lack of adequate expertise, prior experience with lead clearance examinations or lack of ability to perform the clearances in a timely, competent and acceptable manner. [2] The record of integrity of the issuer. [3] The availability to the issuer of the necessary organization, experience, operational controls and technical skills, and the necessary technical equipment and facilities required for performance of the clearance examinations. [4] The compliance by the issuer with any special or general standards of responsibility. [5] The compliance by the issuer with standards which may be established by the Commissioner pursuant to rule or regulation. [6] Criminal conduct in connection with lead clearance examinations, government contracts or business activities. [7] Any other cause of so serious or compelling a nature that it raises questions about the responsibility of an issuer, including, but not limited to, submission to the City of a false or misleading statement in connection with a lead clearance examination. [8] In addition to the factors specified above, the Commissioner may also give due consideration to any other factors considered to bear upon issuer responsibility, including, but not limited to, any mitigating factors brought to the City's attention by the issuer. (e) A non-responsibility determination by the Director may be appealed by the issuer to the Commissioner by delivery to the Commissioner of a written notice of appeal within 10 days after receipt of the determination of the Director. The Commissioner shall offer the issuer an opportunity to be heard. The Commissioner shall make the final determination in writing, based upon evidence produced at the hearing. In the final determination, the Commissioner may accept, reject or modify the determination. The determination of the Commissioner shall be the final determination of the City and shall be subject to review pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.