[Kekeever]

Ok I am remodeling a 28 unit condo building. Part of the work is to install new traffic coatings on 3 raised walkways that are stacked. The building has settled to the center as most do over time and the walkways slope back towards the building. The walkway is 1.5" of gypcrete over wood framing/plywood. The plan detail we followed was to remove the gypcrete at each entrance doorway in a fan shape and slope to the outside of the walk. The plan noted a 3/4" minimum thickness for the gypcrete. So we did the work sloping the gypcrete from its set thickness at the door to the minimum 3/4" at the edge of the walkway. 5 out of 9 of the doors had positive slope and 4 ended up level. I have determined the 4 that are level turned out that way due to the negative slope in that area offset the slope we introduced. The coatings have been completed and we had some rain that ponded in a couple of the non sloping door ways. Now the HOA is crying fowl and the architect is claiming we did not follow the "intent" of his design.

Some background: Another aspect of the work is to build a canopy over these stacked walkways with a 6" gutter and install new railings that have a 36" high metal siding panel running horizontally on the bottom of the rail. The elevation in question is N and receives the least amount of wind and weather. Unfortunately these elements were not finished with the first big rain and the scaffolding was still up basically splashing water into the walkways.

This building is occupied and doing this work took much pre planning and scheduling with owners and tenants as it impacted the entrance to their units. We did what we thought was our due diligence and checked a few spots to confirm the design would move the water. When we went to work there was no time to check what we thought we already knew at each doorway. Well as you already know it worked in 5 out of 9 instances. All construction was done exactly to plan. The weird thing is the 4 sloped areas that turned out level are completely random. There are 3 doors on three floors. The problem areas do not stack or show up on 1 floor. It's like the building is the shape of a wave that's different on each floor.

So anyway the architect knows all this but has taken the stance that we did not follow the intent of his drawing to which I say; how did we follow it 5 times and not 4 times using the same detail. The kicker is now that the canopy and gutter are done the walkways don't see any water at all so it should be a moot point but we're not getting any help from the architect on that. The best I've been able to propose is to add drains at the locations that pond (would be least invasive/expensive solution), but the reality is there won't ever be any water there once the project is complete.

Let me know what you think. Am I being unreasonable or does the HOA and architect expect too much?

 

[Metro M & L]

I'm not a carpenter, I'm just a painter but even I know that there should be slope going away from the building and especially at the doors, porches etc...

What happens when a schlub like me pressure washes the building prior to repaint and the water pools around every entrance?

What happens when a unit floods and the water pools around the entrance?

What happens when the roof fails or the gutters get full and ....

 

[wireless]

Ok I am remodeling a 28 unit condo building. Part of the work is to install new traffic coatings on 3 raised walkways that are stacked. The building has settled to the center as most do over time and the walkways slope back towards the building. The walkway is 1.5" of gypcrete over wood framing/plywood. The plan detail we followed was to remove the gypcrete at each entrance doorway in a fan shape and slope to the outside of the walk. The plan noted a 3/4" minimum thickness for the gypcrete. So we did the work sloping the gypcrete from its set thickness at the door to the minimum 3/4" at the edge of the walkway. 5 out of 9 of the doors had positive slope and 4 ended up level. I have determined the 4 that are level turned out that way due to the negative slope in that area offset the slope we introduced. The coatings have been completed and we had some rain that ponded in a couple of the non sloping door ways. Now the HOA is crying fowl and the architect is claiming we did not follow the "intent" of his design.

Some background: Another aspect of the work is to build a canopy over these stacked walkways with a 6" gutter and install new railings that have a 36" high metal siding panel running horizontally on the bottom of the rail. The elevation in question is N and receives the least amount of wind and weather. Unfortunately these elements were not finished with the first big rain and the scaffolding was still up basically splashing water into the walkways.

This building is occupied and doing this work took much pre planning and scheduling with owners and tenants as it impacted the entrance to their units. We did what we thought was our due diligence and checked a few spots to confirm the design would move the water. When we went to work there was no time to check what we thought we already knew at each doorway. Well as you already know it worked in 5 out of 9 instances. All construction was done exactly to plan. The weird thing is the 4 sloped areas that turned out level are completely random. There are 3 doors on three floors. The problem areas do not stack or show up on 1 floor. It's like the building is the shape of a wave that's different on each floor.

So anyway the architect knows all this but has taken the stance that we did not follow the intent of his drawing to which I say; how did we follow it 5 times and not 4 times using the same detail. The kicker is now that the canopy and gutter are done the walkways don't see any water at all so it should be a moot point but we're not getting any help from the architect on that. The best I've been able to propose is to add drains at the locations that pond (would be least invasive/expensive solution), but the reality is there won't ever be any water there once the project is complete.

Let me know what you think. Am I being unreasonable or does the HOA and architect expect too much?

What would be the point of a plan if all you needs his intent!

 

[Tinstaafl]

So anyway the architect knows all this but has taken the stance that we did not follow the intent of his drawing to which I say; how did we follow it 5 times and not 4 times using the same detail.

Gotta admit that's a tough one. But bottom line, and with 20/20 hindsight, it's reasonable for the architect to expect that someone other than an autopiloted robot will be doing the work. He's not the man onsite with a level.

It may well be that had you caught the problem while doing the work and contacted the architect, the final compromise would have been what you're suggesting--drains. But since you didn't, you may need to eat that part just in the interest of PR. Bummer.

 

[Kekeever]

you may need to eat that part just in the interest of PR. Bummer.

That's what I'm thinking as well.

 

[Mike Finley]

If the plan notes a minimum 3/4" thickness to the Gypcrete how can the contractor ignore that to create more slope if it creates a 1/4 thickness and then the contractor is on the hook when the Gypcrete fails?

If the job was to slope the surfaces away from the doors that's one thing, if its to " remove the gypcrete at each entrance doorway in a fan shape and slope to the outside of the walk. The plan noted a 3/4" minimum thickness for the gypcrete." then you did what you were hired to do.

If the architect wants to set you up to be a robot then that's his fault. He obviously solved the problem in his mind based on some sort of on site analysis (that was faulty) prior to coming up with his solution. And the result was his plan didn't solve the problem he was hired to solve. He devised the solution hired you to follow his solution and the result was his solution was exposed to be faulty from the start based on his faulty site analysis of the problem.

 

[Cletus]

The plan detail we followed was to remove the gypcrete at each entrance doorway in a fan shape and slope to the outside of the walk. The plan noted a 3/4" minimum thickness for the gypcrete. So we did the work sloping the gypcrete from its set thickness at the door to the minimum 3/4" at the edge of the walkway. 5 out of 9 of the doors had positive slope and 4 ended up level.

From your own post it's clear you understood the plans intent was to create "slope". Then you state that "we did the work sloping the gypcrete" which is false. The area's that are level are not sloped by definition.

When a conflict arose between the specifications and the site conditions, it went unnoticed and/or was not communicated to the other parties involved. Both of these are your responsibility as a professional.

Judgment for the plaintive! :clap:

 

[jhark123]

If you could not achieve slope due to the minimum thickness of the gypcrete, that fact should have been brought up to the architect and owner (HOA) prior to completion. Try to find an a solution that all parties can be happy with. The architect F'ed up with a plan that wouldn't work (How often does that happen? ) but you should still try to correct those problems prior to a situation like this.


P.S. Water issues at a condo building is lawsuit city, do not walk away from this without the problem corrected.

 

[Mike Finley]

What is the status? Are you not being paid, are they trying to charge you back, do they want you to do something different for free?

 

[cexcavation]

From your own post it's clear you understood the plans intent was to create "slope". Then you state that "we did the work sloping the gypcrete" which is false. The area's that are level are not sloped by definition.

When a conflict arose between the specifications and the site conditions, it went unnoticed and/or was not communicated to the other parties involved. Both of these are your responsibility as a professional.

Judgment for the plaintive! :clap:

You are correct in the above statement as far as the law would be concerned. What I would like to know is what kind of penalties are there for Architects/Engineers that do not perform their due diligence in on site evaluations prior to design.

These certified professionals are being paid handsomely for their expertise-nearly 2-3 times the hourly rates any of us make. Being that they hold licenses to be allowed to design, my logic leads me to believe that regardless of the mistakes that happen downstream, the original designer should have some type of penalty.

Point being, we contractors are not charging a design fee. We bid off of a set of plans and get to work. It is a courtesy to point out any errors, however, it should not be our fault if we fail to notice the original design defects. Essentially the way it works now is, General Motors builds a car with a faulty braking system design. The unknowing consumer hops in and crashes. Does General Motors get to say "Hey, your job as a driver is to inspect your brakes, therefore even though our design is flawed, you are at fault for choosing to drive our car"

Stories like this get me simply because the working stiff gets the rap for being put in a situation by someone is being paid to know better. The increased pay of Engineers/Architects should signify greater responsibility and not the right to pass the buck. The design did not account for proper slope, therefore the designer is at fault for lack of due diligence in the existing site elevation take offs. If the Architect had done his job correctly, we would not be having this conversation.

To the OP, I would stick to your guns in a professional manner. As soon as you lay down on one thing, the Architect will own you in front of the owner. You could offer to work at a discounted rate, etc. as a decent human being who cares, however, the Architect should foot the bill for his mistake. If you send someone out with a faulty map and they get lost, who's fault is it...the map maker or the map user??

 

[Kekeever]

Thank you all for your responses.
Seems like the general consensus is I need to do something to remedy the situation or risk legal issues. Hind site is 20/20 and if I had to do it over again I would have had my guys check every door section they did as they went instead of checking a few spots and assuming there was a rhyme or reason how the building was listing. Would have taken more time and cost more but would have been worth it. It's these kind of things that slip by when you're estimating. So I'm thinking I'll offer the drain solution on my dime. I'm pretty sure the architect will poo poo that as it will require a drain pipe on the exterior of the building and of course he won't like the look of a drain. That's what gets me is the architect can influence the owners to take the easy way or the hard way and he always seems to opt for the hard way. I want to be fair to the owners but when you have an architect that's trying to drive some effed up agenda things get adversarial real fast. I'll post the outcome if we ever get to one. Oh yeah we've had rain and wind the last couple of days and no water on the walkways whatsoever. In case anyone missed it these walkways all slope towards the building in varying degrees and the doorways are the only areas that were re sloped, so even the doors that have positive slope the walk puddles against the building adjacent to the slope. So even if some yahoo goes up there and does some pressure washing there will be puddling regardless and all it'll take is brooming it off(You can shoot water with a pressure water under a door regardless of slope). There is no issue with water intrusion with the design as the envelope consultant has signed off on everything and of course the water would have to build up above the 6" wall flashing and the door thresholds which is pretty much impossible.

Some context: Part of the bid document and subsequently contract documents was a roof inspection that noted 1 layer of built up roofing on 3/4" a plywood deck that slopes 1/8" per ft. The plans note remove all layers of roofing down to substrate. Once the contract was awarded my roofer took a couple of core samples and found there were 2 layers of roofing as well as tapered insulation in 3 large areas. He hit me with a $10k change order. I passed it on. The architect denied it and sited the note to remove "all layers" and that the roof survey was a reference document only. Well there was no stamp "reference only" on the survey and who in their right mind goes around poking holes in a roof before they are awarded the contract? Why was it part of the bid docs and ultimately the contract docs if everyone was supposed to ignore it? It's this kind of "gotcha" owner rep response that gets my blood boiling. Nobody is making extra money or getting rich. There's an extra layer of roofing, it weighs more and requires more labor to remove, not rocket science. Please weigh in on this as well if you like but my minds pretty made up that at the end of the day if this change order is still outstanding we'll see what a mediator thinks is fair. I don't think the owners understand that if we do go to mediation on this its me and them and whoever gets the short end of the stick picks up the tab for legal fees. So in my mind the architect isn't doing them any favors by covering his own a$$.

I offer the roof scenario as an example of the bs I'm having to wade through on this project. Not that it absolves me of doing my professional best but it makes being a nice guy hard. That's why I'm looking to other professionals that don't have the history with this project I have to give me some objectivity.

 

[carpentershane]

Hope this works out for you. The architect appears to believe that he is infallible... Nice looking work on your website by the way. I especially liked that Craftsman in Greenlake. Nice Job!

 

[Cletus]

Stories like this get me simply because the working stiff gets the rap for being put in a situation by someone is being paid to know better. The increased pay of Engineers/Architects should signify greater responsibility and not the right to pass the buck. The design did not account for proper slope, therefore the designer is at fault for lack of due diligence in the existing site elevation take offs. If the Architect had done his job correctly, we would not be having this conversation.

I understand what your saying and I respectfully disagree.

Architects are essentially the owners agent.

On every set of prints that I've seen the architect communicates in writing something to the effect of "site conditions must be verified by the contractor before work commences, blah, blah, blah".

From the information given, the design did account for the proper slope (or communicated the need to create slope) and also noted the limitations of the material. Could the architect measure and make separate, highly detailed notes of every variance in plumb and square throughout the entire building? Yes. Is this necessary to solve the problem presented? I don't think so. I believe it is a waste of resources.

Owners, often unnecessarily, hire architects for a variety of reasons. What if there was not one hired for this job? The OP could very well be in the exact same situation and the owners would be without a professional second opinion to back them up.

Architects can be a pain in the ass. It's rare that I would stick up for some desk jockey that has never froze his nads off or enjoyed a good deep sunburn from work. In this case I just don't see what he should have done differently.

I did not mean to sound harsh in my first post. I honestly hope this turns out OK for Kekeever in the end.

Edit: I somehow missed the OP's last post. Sounds like the archy is being a real doosh.

 

[Cletus]

For the roof issue, point out the hidden conditions clause in the contract and demand payment.

Everything you are going through will make you a better contractor in the long run.

Peace out...

 

[Willie T]

So much of what we do boils down to communications. If all entities could learn to effectively manage that skill, a large percentage of our problems would vanish.

In this case I think we see where that facet could be improved all the way around.

Architect: "I want a slope away from all doors."
Your crew: "That can't be achieved everywhere."
You: "Here's an alternative I can offer."

But it sounds like none of these were fully communicated prior to work being done.
Happens in every area of life.

 

[Willie T]

One point I cannot help but address in this conversation about how the owners seem to listen to and respect the architect's opinions more than ours is this...

Of course they do.

And our own thoughts, words, and actions in a similar area show why.

In the thread I began about the value of being licensed, the majority of the consensus seemed to be that we value the "perception" of quality and proficiency that licensing and insurance... and yes, a shiny new truck... and superficial outward appearance supposedly conveys to the HO. Some people even went so far as to cite the apparent positive virtues of more qualifying "letters behind our names" being a good selling point. A figurative illustration, I'm sure. But oh so valid, nonetheless.

Well, the architect meets and exceeds all of the qualifiers and criteria we, ourselves, set as indicators of quality, worth, value, and respectability. If we consider another man less professional for not racking up a handful of licenses (and how we DO so often brag about how many licenses we hold.), and put down supposed "hacks" for not meeting certain requirements (real and perceived)... How is it that we expect anything different from the homeowner?

In his mind, he KNOWS the architect is better qualified than us, knows more than us, makes more money than us, and is therefore the one to listen to. Just exactly the way we openly and diligently strive to have homeowners view us when comparing us to a "lesser qualified" contractor.

None of this (in either comparison) is necessarily right, fair, true, nor valid. Yet we applaud and encourage it when it works in our favor.

So why are we so surprised when a homeowner succumbs to the same impressions and perceptions we hope will also work in our own favor when we employ them in a slightly different arena?

 

[parkers5150]

the quickest way to lose money on any job is to ASSume the archys' plans are the gospel, especially if you've never worked with them before. the first things i look for are the "busts". in fact, IMHO one of the best ways to get future work is to see and define these problems ahead of time and bring solutions to the table not criticism. remember, you're the builder! you should know what does and doesn't work in most field applications. More importantly you should ALWAYS be checking your work otherwise you are guilty of the same crime the archy commited against you,(cut,paste, TYP......cut , paste, TYP.) good luck and build well.

 

[ILPlumber]

How much slope is required away from the door per code?

Almost every set of plans I see has a note somewhere saying "All work must meet or exceed state and local codes"

Next time, go to the architect with the problem before continuing the work. He will then revise the plans. All of these correspondence should be in writing.

"Hey this is Bob down at the jobsite. We have a problem with these doors. We can't get the required slope, if we do it as drawn. What would you like me to do. Oh, change order you say. I will submit that right away!"

 

[jhark123]

Keever, would you IM me the architects info?

The extra layer of roofing is absolutely a hidden condition that generates a change order to the owner. If he is not backing you up on that then he is a &&^&%&(*%$ of the highest order. That is ticking me off and I'm not even involved in the situation. If you haven't done the roof yet, don't do it until there is a change order in writing.

 

[Anti-wingnut]

Several points,

1) Now you see why so many contractors will not work on condo's. The architect will not OK change orders for the roof, because of fear of lawsuits from the COA for lack of due diligence. And COA's are often afraid of suits from individual owners.

2) Imagine this scenario: Slope as-per-plan is not built into the walkway leading into an individual condo unit. Water accumulates and freezes. Granny slips going into the unit. Granny's lawyer sues the individual who then in turn names the COA, who then names the Architect, who drags you into it. It is almost impossible to insulate and indemnify yourself legally from all the directions suits can come from.

3) The points regarding hidden conditions should seemingly trump any notes the architect can point to. It can be argued that the roof inspection was the document that all roofing bids were based on, as was your detailed bid. The COA inferred that you should expect one layer of roofing, and that was not true. If your documentation is good, there should be no worry in getting your money.

4) I do think that the identity of your company is too public, and these complaints and problems you are airing on the net are too linkable by the general public, to the K**ver Company of S****** W*. For all you know, there are guys from Walsh or Charter just laughing their heads off right now. Maybe one of them knows the project or the architect. Maybe this will get pointed out to him. Suddenly a bad situation just got a whole lot worse. Easily identifiable avatars should be used to give good advice, receive kudos, and ask innocuous questions. When a situation can reflect poorly on a company, individual or job-site, a much higher degree of anonymity is warranted