May 23, 2023
Introduction
The May 09, 2023 townhall meeting, featuring a CSI representative, was instructional in several ways. Some instruction revealed a need for improved management practices.
Although the board and CSI received from me a summary of Best Practices for wall reconstruction on December 28, 2021 – that’s 2021 not 2022 – some of those Best Practices (which would reduce the likelihood of future wall rotting) were tragically omitted from Buildings 2 and 14. It is uncertain whether the board will ensure that such Best Practices will be implemented in the future.
Also discussed were the March-April 2023 re-roofings of Buildings 2 and 14, which began with Building 2. On March 22, it was certain at Building 2 that “non-approved” flashing was being used at sidewall-to-roof joints – a sheet metal called L-Flashing. I cited the condition at that evening’s board meeting, and followed with a letter to the board the next day. There was time to save Building 14, but the board did nothing. The board did not ask even one followup question.
“Non-approved” means that the flashing is contrary to the roofing Contract, or contrary to the manufacturer’s installation instructions, or both.
The Contract
The Contract Addendum, Article 1, creates a legal covenant: “The parties hereto agree as follows:
“1.2 Specifications: Constructions Solutions, Inc. – Project Manual for Roof Replacement, Dated May 10, 2022.
“1.3 Six (6) detailed Specifications from Manufacturer (GAF) on installation, which is [are] attached to this Addendum and incorporated to [sic] all contract documents.
“4.4 The Association may withhold payment to the Contractor for Work that is not completed in accordance with this Agreement as determined by the Association or its Representative.”
The signers of the roofing Contract are identified in Footnote [1]. Two key details of the “Six (6) detailed Specifications from the Manufacturer (GAF)” are presented in Figure 1 below.
Figure 2, further down this page, shows the difference between L-Flashing and the required Step Flashing.
A participant at the May 09 meeting suggested that these “detailed Specifications” are mere suggestions. But, that is not the meaning of Specifications, as defined by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), whose contract form was used.
The AIA definition: “Specifications define the qualitative requirements for products, materials, and workmanship upon which the construction contract is based. A specification is a detailed description of the dimensions, construction, workmanship, materials of work done or to be done on a project, prepared by an architect, engineer or designer, often referred to as specifiers.”
Note that “Specifications define the . . . requirements . . . to be done.” There is a difference between “suggestions” and requirements. Contract item 1.3 is a Specification, a mandate. The Installer obligated itself legally to all Specifications. Perhaps contractors think board members are naïve, lazy or incompetent – chumps who will not examine or enforce the Contract, nor protect the Owners they serve.
GAF, Manufacturer Instructions & Bulletins
The shingle manufacturer (GAF) states in its 2021 installation instructions, Page-5, downloadable here: “Do NOT use “L” flashing at the upslope sides of dormers, side walls, and chimneys. This method is dependent on roofing cement and can leak over time.” Yet, L-Flashing was indeed installed.
The statement is clearly a command, not a suggestion. The instructions then continue, Page-2, to describe Step Flashing installation – the only flashing-installation considered – stating “Installing metal step flashing is the most proven way to waterproof side wall areas.”
There are always good reasons why manufacturers issue Technical Advisory Bulletins. We should pay attention. GAF’s 2021 Technical Advisory Bulletin R121 states:
“Poorly manufactured and installed flashings are the #1 cause of roof leaks and are very difficult to repair. Proper step and counter flashing is critical at all roof-to-sidewall transitions. Without proper flashings installed, your new roof may leak. “L” metal should not be used in these transition areas, due to its propensity to leak.”
Correct flashings, in this case Step Flashings, make a difference.
The roofing Contract, to which the Installer affixed his signature, opposes the L-Flashings used on the project. The roofing manufacturer also opposes L-Flashing. Instead, Step Flashings must be used. It is not a suggestion or recommendation, but a binding legal requirement of the Contract.
At the May 09 townhall a participant claimed that Step Flashings are needed only in climate areas prone to “ice dams,” adding that a local GAF representative alleges that L-Flashings are acceptable.
None of these statements appears in the GAF literature. So, the representative’s claim has no consequence until he achieves the unlikely revision of the GAF instructions. Until that doubtful event, the Contract compels the current GAF instructions, which have not changed this requirement for decades.
GAF’s Step Flashing requirement appears in its instructions and its 2021 Technical Bulletin R121.
The board would do well to study the GAF literature and its CSI-prepared Roofing Contract.
Other Contract Items
Headwall Flashings. There is a possibility that the headwall flashings at the tops of aprons are not approved, meaning that they may violate requirements established by the Contract or the GAF instructions.
Page-11 of this GAF instruction (identical to Figure 3 below, left-side) details how the headwall flashing must be installed. From the Roof Deck upward, the layers are: Roof deck, underlayment (deck-protection plus leak-barrier), shingles, flashing, then cut shingles to conceal the flashing.
Figure 3, right-side, is the questionable installation at Mirabella. It may depict a violation of the Contract and the manufacturer’s instructions. The photo shows the headwall flashing with its bottom leg resting atop (and in contact with) the underlayment, and (seemingly) nailed to the Roof Deck – not good. So, shingles cannot be placed UNDER the head flashing as GAF and the Contract require.
Presumably, full shingles (not cut shingles) will be placed ATOP this flashing, which action, if carried out, would contravene GAF instructions (Figure 3, left-side) and Contract requirements.
Such an unwanted configuration (if installed) risks directing stormwater under the shingles rather than above the shingles. According to GAF instructions, the flashing’s lower leg must rest atop the shingles (not below them), then be covered by, and concealed by, a course of cut shingles.
OSB Rather Than Specified Plywood. The Contract Addendum, Page-1, clearly states: “The parties hereto agree as follows: 1.2 Specifications: Constructions Solutions, Inc. – Project Manual for Roof Replacement, Dated May 10, 2022.”
That CSI Project Manual specifies that the replacement roof deck sheathing shall be “Exposure 1, APA-rated plywood,” and that “OSB sheathing is not an acceptable alternative.” See Section 073113, Part 2.07, page 29. Yet, cheaper OSB was installed, instead, and was shown prominently at the May 09 townhall meeting. OSB means Oriented Strand Board; APA is the American Plywood Association.
OSHA Guidelines. The Contract and Project Manual provide that “All work shall be performed in a manner consistent with current OSHA guidelines.” See Section 073113, Part 1.07, Page 27.
But, that may not have occurred. Roof workers were observed without the restraints and fall-prevention measures prescribed in OSHA’s safety manual “Protecting Roofing Workers.”
The board took no action, although informed on March 22 and 23. The board, its consultants and contractors have both moral and Association-liability obligations to ensure that OSHA standards are met.
These workers are at great risk of paralysis and death. Of all U.S. occupations, roofers suffer the third highest injury rate and the second highest fatality rate, reports the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Gutters. The Contract provides that “Project Description: . . . Removal of existing gutters and downspouts and replacement with new 6” aluminum gutters and downspouts.” See Section 001116, Part 1.1G, Pg 18. But, the language lacks clarity. If all gutters were to have been replaced, that may or may not have occurred, so should be verified.
Preventing Future Waste
To prevent such missed opportunities in the future, a May 09 participant said that CSI planned to add extra CSI personnel as inspectors, because CSI’s project leader “cannot be there every day.”
The use of CSI personnel may not be the best management strategy. The May 09 participant also stated that he was not troubled by the lack of roof Step Flashings, although they were specified by his consulting firm, CSI.
An INDEPENDENT project inspector is needed. Because there have been past differences between what CSI specifies and what is installed, it is advantageous to employ an independent inspector, one not beholding to either Designer or Installer, but directly to Owners.
CSI’s 2021 wall specifications recommend an independent Inspector. And, since CSI prefers not to be “responsible for the Contractor’s . . . methods . . . sequences . . . procedure of construction,” CSI should not serve as Inspector, because Inspectors often sway Installer “sequences [and] procedure(s).”
An independent inspector will NOT cost more. It will cost Owners LESS, by preventing errors and assuring that Specifications are actually implemented. Independent inspection prevents group-think, fraternization, leniency and corner-cutting. It is good management, and it will save Owner wealth.
Inspector funding is already contained within existing agreements. The Building-3 project seeks a 12 percent fee for CSI, which is a significant amount. The federal government caps architectural and engineering fees at 6.0 percent of other project costs.
For public projects the fee guides of many states suggest similar fees, like Utah (about 8.5 percent) and Minnesota (8.0 percent). For a half million-dollar public project, the State of Florida’s fee guide sets architectural and engineering fees at 7.40 to 9.22 (a mean of 8.31) percent for “apartment buildings and dormitories.”
These percentage fees pay for the consultant’s preparation of extensive construction drawings, as well as some construction supervision. These are examples of fees paid by governments.
Fees paid by private entities, like Associations, are not openly published. It would be good to know whether the board conducted a survey of such fees, and whether the 12 percent represents a negotiated-down value, or whether 12 percent is mere acquiescence to a consultant’s wishes.
The 2022 budget contained $33,000 for “Lit Consult Engineers,” which the 2022 CPA report calls “Engineering Consulting.” The same budget item for 2023 is $157,700, which is a healthy fee. It is not known whether the $157,700 represents the 12 percent, or whether it is the sum of 12 percent plus some fixed fee. In either case, some of that expenditure can be redirected to an independent inspector.
CSI has urged such independence. Follow that advice. I can suggest several ideal candidates.
Future Actions
Consider: These two buildings would have been repaired to Best Practice, Contract and Code, if the board had the wisdom and professionalism to heed Mr Wemhoff’s cautionary advice. Instead, the board curbed his statutory right to speak from December 2021 through 2022 at every regular meeting. And, it suppressed construction topics at those meetings, which prevented Owners from learning of board missteps.
From December 15, 2021 onward the board ignored Mr Wemhoff’s written reports on missed opportunities and Best Practices for wall reconstruction. Recently, it disregarded his verbal report at the March 22 meeting and his March 23 letter detailing Building-2 roof concerns. The board was informed in time to redirect Building 14 repairs, but it refused to act, neglecting its duty. The consequences are described above.
By rejecting input on those construction projects, the board placed those buildings at needless risk of future damage, and of recurring repair costs paid by all Owners – a severe fiducial dereliction.
The board suffers from the delusion that consultants have nothing new to learn and that they are the only humans on earth who cannot make mistakes. Soon, it will be known whether the board will prolong such delusions, ignore the findings of this letter and abandon its fiducial obligations to Owners.
Finally, one cannot fix a problem unless he knows the underlying cause. Otherwise, when the car won’t start, we buy a new vehicle instead of replacing the faulty battery.
A CSI representative says that the principal wall damage sites are the 3-story corners. Why those locations, and not others? The underlying cause is either a design defect or a component failure.
What exactly is the defect or failure? The answer must be found, or the walls may rot again.
It is a matter of good management. If you are curious and thoughtful, you will get the answer. If you are narrow-minded and naïve, you will buy the new vehicle, squandering the wealth of others.
[1]. Contract for Roofing Replacement, Buildings 2 & 14, downloadable here. Addendum signed on January 31, 2023 by Robert Solomon representing Mirabella and Christopher S Biman representing All Weather Contractors, witnessed by Anna Rusenko, notice to law firm Becker & Poliakoff, PA.